4.6 Article

Sensitivity of Small RNA-Based Detection of Plant Viruses

Journal

FRONTIERS IN MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 9, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.00939

Keywords

plant virus; diagnostics; small RNA; siRNA; detection threshold; VirusDetect; qPCR

Categories

Funding

  1. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Finland [2221/03.01.02/2015]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Plants recognize unrelated viruses by the antiviral defense system called RNA interference (RNAi). RNAi processes double-stranded viral RNA into small RNAs (sRNAs) of 21-24 nucleotides, the reassembly of which into longer strands in silico allows virus identification by comparison with the sequences available in databases. The aim of this study was to compare the virus detection sensitivity of sRNA-based virus diagnosis with the established virus species-specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR) approach. Viruses propagated in tobacco plants included three engineered, infectious clones of Potato virus A (PVA), each carrying a different marker gene, and an infectious clone of Potato virus Y (PVY). Total RNA (containing sRNA) was isolated and subjected to reverse-transcription real-time PCR (RT-RT-PCR) and sRNA deep-sequencing at different concentrations. RNA extracted from various crop plants was included in the reactions to normalize RNA concentrations. Targeted detection of selected viruses showed a similar threshold for the sRNA and reverse-transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) analyses. The detection limit for PVY and PVA by RT-qPCR in this study was 3 and 1.5 fg of viral RNA, respectively, in 50 ng of total RNA per PCR reaction. When knowledge was available about the viruses likely present in the samples, sRNA-based virus detection was 10 times more sensitive than RT-RT-PCR. The advantage of sRNA analysis is the detection of all tested viruses without the need for virus-specific primers or probes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available