The rhabdoviruses form a large family (Rhabdoviridae) whose host ranges include humans, other vertebrates, invertebrates, and plants. There are at least 90 plant-infecting rhabdoviruses, several of which are economically important pathogens of various crops. All definitive plant-infecting and many vertebrate-infecting rhabdoviruses are persistently transmitted by insect vectors, and a few putative plant rhabdoviruses are transmitted by mites. Plant rhabdoviruses replicate in their plant and arthropod hosts, and transmission by vectors is highly specific, with each virus species transmitted by one or a few related insect species, mainly aphids, leafhoppers, or planthoppers. Here, we provide an overview of plant rhabdovirus interactions with their insect hosts and of how these interactions compare with those of vertebrate-infecting viruses and with the Sigma rhabdovirus that infects Drosophila flies. We focus on cellular and molecular aspects of vector/host specificity, transmission barriers, and virus receptors in the vectors. In addition, we briefly discuss recent advances in understanding rhabdovirus-plant interactions.

To understand ecological factors mediating the spread of insect-borne plant pathogens, vector species for these pathogens need to be identified. Grapevine leafroll disease is caused by a complex of phylogenetically related closteroviruses, some of which are transmitted by insect vectors; however, the specificities of these complex virus–vector interactions are poorly understood thus far. Through biological assays and phylogenetic analyses, we studied the role of vector-pathogen specificity in the transmission of several grapevine leafroll-associated viruses (GLRaVs) by their mealybug vectors. Using plants with multiple virus infections, several virus species were screened for vector transmission by the mealybug species Planococcus ficus and Pseudococcus longispinus. We report that two GLRaVs (-4 and -9), for which no vector transmission evidence was available, are mealybug-borne. The analyses performed indicated no evidence of mealybug–GLRaV specificity; for example, different vector species transmitted GLRaV-3 and one vector species, Planococcus ficus, transmitted five GLRaVs. Based on available data, there is no compelling evidence of vector–virus specificity in the mealybug transmission of GLRaVs. However, more studies aimed at increasing the number of mealybug species tested as vectors of different GLRaVs are necessary. This is especially important given the increasing importance of grapevine leafroll disease spread by mealybugs in vineyards worldwide.

Grapevine leafroll disease is caused by grapevine leafroll-associated viruses (GLRaVs). Within this virus complex, GLRaV-3 is the predominant species in the world. Several GLRaVs have been shown to be transmitted from vine to vine by mealybugs although a detailed characterization of transmission biology is lacking. The introduction of the vine mealybug (Planococcus ficus) in California and other regions of the world may result in increasing disease incidence of established GLRaVs. We studied the characteristics of GLRaV-3 transmission by the vine mealybug. Our results indicate that the vine mealybug transmits GLRaV-3 in a semipersistent manner. First instars were more efficient vectors than adult mealybugs. GLRaV-3 transmission lacked a latent period in the vector. Virus transmission occurred with a 1-h acquisition access period (AAP) and peaked with a 24-h AAP. Mealybugs inoculated GLRaV-3 with a 1-h inoculation access period (IAP), and transmission efficiency increased with longer plant access period up to 24 h, after which transmission rate remained constant. After an AAP of 24 h, mealybugs lost GLRaV-3 and infectivity 4 days after virus acquisition. In addition, GLRaV-3 was not transovarially transmitted from infected females to their progeny as detected by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. In summary, we systematically analyzed transmission parameters of GLRaV-3 by the vine mealybug and showed that transmission of this virus occurs in a semipersistent manner. This research fills in important gaps in knowledge of leafroll virus transmission, which is critical for development of leafroll disease management practices.

Xylella fastidiosa is a vector-borne, plant-pathogenic bacterium that causes disease in citrus (citrus variegated chlorosis [CVC]) and coffee (coffee leaf scorch [CLS]) plants in Brazil. CVC and CLS occur sympatrically and share leafhopper vectors; thus, determining whether X. fastidiosa isolates can be dispersed from one crop to another and cause disease is of epidemiological importance. We sought to clarify the genetic and biological relationships between CVC- and CLS-causing X. fastidiosa isolates. We used cross-inoculation bioassays and microsatellite and multilocus sequence typing (MLST) approaches to determine the host range and genetic structure of 26 CVC and 20 CLS isolates collected from different regions in Brazil. Our results show that citrus and coffee X. fastidiosa isolates are biologically distinct. Cross-inoculation tests showed that isolates causing CVC and CLS in the field were able to colonize citrus and coffee plants, respectively, but not the other host, indicating biological isolation between the strains. The microsatellite analysis separated most X. fastidiosa populations tested on the basis of the host plant from which they were isolated. However, recombination among isolates was detected and a lack of congruency among phylogenetic trees was observed for the loci used in the MLST scheme. Altogether, our study indicates that CVC and CLS are caused by two biologically distinct strains of X. fastidiosa that have diverged but are genetically homogenized by frequent recombination.

The genome of the nucleorhabdovirus maize fine streak virus (MFSV) consists of 13,782 nucleotides of nonsegmented, negative-sense, single-stranded RNA. The antigenomic strand consisted of seven open reading frames (ORFs), and transcripts of all ORFs were detected in infected plants. ORF1, ORF6, and ORF7 had significant similarities to the nucleocapsid protein (N), glycoprotein (G), and polymerase (L) genes of other rhabdoviruses, respectively, whereas the ORF2, ORF3, ORF4, and ORF5 proteins had no significant similarities. The N (ORF1), ORF4, and ORF5 proteins localized to nuclei, consistent with the presence of nuclear localization signals (NLSs) in these proteins. ORF5 likely encodes the matrix protein (M), based on its size, the position of its NLS, and the localization of fluorescent protein fusions to the nucleus. ORF2 probably encodes the phosphoprotein (P) because, like the P protein of Sonchus yellow net virus (SYNV), it was spread throughout the cell when expressed alone but was relocalized to a subnuclear locus when coexpressed with the MFSV N protein. Unexpectedly, coexpression of the MFSV N and P proteins, but not the orthologous proteins of SYNV, resulted in accumulations of both proteins in the nucleolus. The N and P protein relocalization was specific to cognate proteins of each virus. The subcellular localizations of the MFSV ORF3 and ORF4 proteins were distinct from that of the SYNV sc4 protein, suggesting different functions. To our knowledge, this is the first comparative study of the cellular localizations of plant rhabdoviral proteins. This study indicated that plant rhabdoviruses are diverse in genome sequence and viral protein interactions.