Analysis of Potato virus Y Coat Protein Epitopes Recognized by Three Commercial Monoclonal Antibodies

Yan-Ping Tian; Jussi Hepojoki; Harri Ranki; Hilkka Lankinen; Jari P. T. Valkonen

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0115766

Abstract

Background

Potato virus Y (PVY, genus Potyvirus) causes substantial economic losses in solanaceous plants. Routine screening for PVY is an essential part of seed potato certification, and serological assays are often used. The commercial, commonly used monoclonal antibodies, MAb1128, MAb1129, and MAb1130, recognize the viral coat protein (CP) of PVY and distinguish PVY^N strains from PVY^O and PVY^C strains, or detect all PVY strains, respectively. However, the minimal epitopes recognized by these antibodies have not been identified.

Methodology/Principal Findings

SPOT peptide array was used to map the epitopes in CP recognized by MAb1128, MAb1129, and MAb1130. Then alanine replacement as well as N- and C-terminal deletion analysis of the identified peptide epitopes was done to determine critical amino acids for antibody recognition and the respective minimal epitopes. The epitopes of all antibodies were located within the 30 N-terminal-most residues. The minimal epitope of MAb1128 was ²⁵NLNKEK³⁰. Replacement of ²⁵N or ²⁷N with alanine weakened the recognition by MAb1128, and replacement of ²⁶L, ²⁹E, or ³⁰K nearly precluded recognition. The minimal epitope for MAb1129 was ¹⁶RPEQGSIQSNP²⁶ and the most critical residues for recognition were ²²I and ²³Q. The epitope of MAb1130 was defined by residues ⁵IDAGGS¹⁰. Mutation of residue ⁶D abrogated and mutation of ⁹G strongly reduced recognition of the peptide by MAb1130. Amino acid sequence alignment demonstrated that these epitopes are relatively conserved among PVY strains. Finally, recombinant CPs were produced to demonstrate that mutations in the variable positions of the epitope regions can affect detection with the MAbs.

Conclusions/Significance

The epitope data acquired can be compared with data on PVY CP-encoding sequences produced by laboratories worldwide and utilized to monitor how widely the new variants of PVY can be detected with current seed potato certification schemes or during the inspection of imported seed potatoes as conducted with these MAbs.

Citation: Tian Y-P, Hepojoki J, Ranki H, Lankinen H, Valkonen JPT (2014) Analysis of Potato virus Y Coat Protein Epitopes Recognized by Three Commercial Monoclonal Antibodies. PLoS ONE 9(12): e115766. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115766

Editor: Amit Dhingra, Washington State University, United States of America

Received: August 12, 2014; Accepted: November 28, 2014; Published: December 26, 2014

Copyright: © 2014 Tian et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The authors confirm that all data underlying the findings are fully available without restriction. All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: Financial support from the Academy of Finland (grant 1253126) and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (grant 2383/312) is gratefully acknowledged. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Potato virus Y (PVY) is the type member of the genus Potyvirus (family Potyviridae), the largest genus of plant-infecting RNA viruses [1]. PVY has a positive-sense single-stranded RNA genome (∼9700 nt, depending on the strain) containing a single open reading frame that encodes a large polyprotein cleaved into ten mature proteins by three virally encoded proteinases. An additional open reading frame (pipo, 75 codons) is created by frame-shifting in the region encoding protein P3 [2]. PVY genome is encapsidated to filamentous particles comprised of the viral CP (267 amino acid residues) that is the most C′-terminal region of the polyprotein and released by the viral proteinase NIa [1].

PVY mainly infects plants of family Solanaceae and causes great yield losses in major crops, including potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) [3], tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.) [4] and pepper (Capsicum spp.) [5]. Aphids transmit PVY nonpersistently in the field, and a short visit and probing of the plant by an aphid is sufficient for transmission. The use of insecticides is insufficient to prevent PVY spread, whereas spraying foliage with mineral oil to interfere with probing, and use of straw mulch to reduce the contrast between plants and soil, can reduce PVY transmission [6].

The most common and important sources of PVY to potato crops are seed tubers infected with PVY [3] and the plants growing from them, as they offer a PVY source to aphids for further dissemination of the virus in the field. Therefore, planting virus-indexed healthy seed potatoes is an essential prerequisite to control potato yield losses caused by PVY. Special seed potato production and certification systems are needed to ensure the quality. Visual inspection of virus symptoms in the foliage of seed potato crops in the field is done to rogue the infected plants, but it is not a reliable or practical means to detect PVY in all potato cultivars, because PVY symptoms are not always characteristic enough, other symptoms may mask PVY symptoms, and some PVY strains cause no symptoms in certain cultivars (for symptoms caused by two PVY isolates in different cultivars grown from infected seed tubers, visit http://www.helsinki.fi/ppvir/research/pvy/index.html). Furthermore, current-season infections may cause no symptoms in foliage, although the progeny tubers will be infected. Therefore, seed potatoes need to be indexed for PVY using virus-specific, sensitive diagnostic methods.

The most efficient means to control PVY is a potato cultivar's native resistance to PVY [7]-[10]. Resistance genes recognizing and conferring high levels (extreme) resistance to all PVY strains exist but are relatively rare in potato cultivars [11]. Other resistance genes recognize only certain groups of PVY strains. They trigger a hypersensitive resistance response (HR) in potato and prevent PVY from spreading to other parts of the plants from the initial infection site. The HR genes Ny_tbr and Nc_tbr are common in potato cultivars [7]–[9]. The strains of PVY recognized by these genes are designated to strain groups PVY^O and PVY^C, respectively [8], [12]. However, PVY strains not recognized by Ny_tbr and Nc_tbr have become prevalent in all potato production areas and are now the cause of major crop losses. These strains designated to strain group PVY^N [12] have been less of a concern for potato production in past, because they are often symptomless or cause only mild symptoms and limited yield reduction in potato [3]. However, the currently predominant PVY^N strains are recombinants [13]. They carry genomic segments of PVY^O strains and cause acute diseases in potato, including necrotic symptoms in tubers and leaves, and are called NTN strains within the PVY^N strain group. Therefore, it is important to detect PVY using antibodies recognizing specific strain groups, notably the PVY^N, so to eliminate the seed lots carrying PVY strains that can overcome resistance in the locally grown potato cultivars.

Serological detection of PVY relies on detection of CP (virus particles) with polyclonal (PAb) or monoclonal antibodies (MAb) and is commonly carried out using the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) [14], [15]. Additionally, polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based methods that detect viral nucleic acids are often used [16], [17], but they tend to be more costly, require more advanced laboratory facilities than ELISA, and may still require antibodies for immunocapture, i.e., trapping and concentrating virions from plant sap [18]–[20]. Studies on Potato virus A (PVA, genus Potyvirus) indicate that, in potyvirus particles, CP folds such that the N-terminus is exposed at the surface of the particles [21]. Therefore, immunization of animals with potyvirus virions results in antibodies whose epitopes are mainly in the N-terminal region of CP [15].

Polyclonal antisera produced in animals immunized with PVY virions do not distinguish the PVY strain groups, but MAbs are needed [22]. Early studies on MAbs to PVY showed that immunization of mice with PVY^N strain 605 virions resulted in hybrid cell cultures producing antibodies specific to PVY^N strains that did not detect PVY^O or PVY^C strains. On the other hand, many MAbs detected all PVY strains indiscriminately [23], indicating that they detected epitopes highly conserved in PVY CP and could be used for general detection of PVY. Since then, MAbs have been prepared for PVY strain group specific detection or general detection of PVY strains in many research laboratories and companies [24]–[31], but the epitopes of only relatively few MAbs have been studied. Keller et al. [15] prepared a phage library expressing 12-amino acid long random peptides and used three MAbs produced for detection of PVY [25] to select peptides from the library. Alignment of the peptide sequences with the CP sequence of PVY^N suggested that each MAb detected a different epitope located within the N′-proximal part of the CP, which was confirmed by detection of the recombinant N-proximal part (55 residues) of the PVY^N CP with the MAbs. The residues of the epitopes crucial for detection were predicted but not verified experimentally. Comparison of the peptide sequences with the CP sequences of PVY^N, PVY^N-NTN, PVY^O and PVY^C suggested that one MAb was specific to PVY^N (including PVY^N-NTN) and two MAbs detected all PVY strains, but these specificities were not tested. Nikolaeva et al. [31] mapped the binding sites of three commercially available PVY^N-specific MAbs in the N′-proximal region of CP using overlapping synthetic peptides of different length.

A single amino acid substitution can abolish or create an epitope recognized by a MAb [32]. Chikh Ali et al. [33] concluded that a glycine residue in CP at position 29 allows detection of the PVY^N isolate PVY-12 with MAb2 that is supposed to detect PVY^O and PVY^C strains [26], and also allows detection of PVY-12 with MAb 1F5 that reacts mainly with PVY^N strains [28]. In contrast, PVY^N-like isolates carrying a glutamic acid residue at position 29 are detected only with MAb 1F5 [33]. Karasev et al. [34] concluded that glutamine at position 98 of PVY CP is required for detection with MAb 1F5. Recently, surface plasmon resonance analysis was used successfully to test which anti-PVY CP MAbs share the same epitope, but the epitopes were not localized in CP [35].

There is little information about the minimal epitopes of any PVY-specific MAbs. Such information would be useful for predicting in silico cross-reactivity of antibodies [15] and which virus isolates may escape detection. Minimal epitopes can be determined using alanine replacement (alanine scanning) and/or N- and C-terminal deletion analyses of synthetic peptides, e.g., as reported with Potato mop-top virus (genus Pomovirus) [36] and Potato virus A (genus Potyvirus) [37]. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the minimal epitopes of three commercial MAbs that are commonly used to detect PVY in potato, especially during seed potato certification. According to the supplier of the MAbs (Neogen Phytodiagnostics, Ayr, Scotland), it is believed that MAb1128 detects PVY^N specifically and MAb1129 detects both PVY^O and PVY^C that are closely related [38], whereas MAb1130 detects all three strain groups of PVY. Hence, the three MAbs can be used to determine the overall incidence of PVY in seed potato lots or the specific incidence of PVY^N vs. PVY^O and PVY^C. However, because the epitopes corresponding to the three MAbs in PVY CP are unknown, it is difficult to compare the molecular PVY strain data based on CP-encoding sequences or the detection by other MAbs and to predict how exclusively PVY isolates might be detected based on the three MAbs. Therefore, we determined the minimal epitopes recognized by the three MAbs using overlapping synthetic peptides, alanine scanning mutagenesis, peptide deletion analyses, and CP point mutants.

Results

Mapping Epitopes on CP Using SPOT Peptide Array

SPOT peptide synthesis [39] was used to generate 20 aa–long overlapping peptides at 3-aa intervals covering CP of the PVY^O strain SASA207 (GenBank accession no. AJ584851), PVY^N strain 605 (X97895), and PVY^C strain Adgen (AJ890348), and an additional potyvirus species, Potato virus V (PVV, genus Potyvirus, isolate Suomi, AJ278894). Each CP was therefore represented by 84 overlapping peptides on a modified cellulose membrane and probed individually with MAb1128, MAb1129, or MAb1130.

MAb1128 recognized five peptides in the N-terminal region of PVY^N CP, but it did not react with the peptides of other PVY strains (Fig. 1, top left). The sequences of the MAb1128-reactive peptides (Fig. 1, top right) share a common motif, ²⁵NLNKEKEK³² (aa numbering based on complete PVY CP). MAb1129 detected five peptides in the N-terminal region of both PVY^O and PVY^C (Fig. 1, middle left), but not PVY^N, and the peptides share a common motif, ¹⁶RPEQGSIQSNP²⁶ (Fig. 1, middle right). MAb1130 reacted with two peptides of each of the three PVY strains (Fig. 1, bottom left), and these peptides correspond to the N-proximal portion of CPs. The common peptide sequence detected by MAb1130 in the three PVY strains was ⁴TIDAGGSSKKDARPEQG²⁰, but there were two aa substitutions in PVY^N (S11T and R16K; Fig. 1, bottom right). PVV peptides were not recognized by any of the MAbs (Fig. 1).

Download:

Figure 1. Mapping of the epitopes detected by monoclonal antibodies in three PVY strains.

A. Each CP of Potato virus Y (PVY) strains O (PVY^O-SASA207), N (PVY^N-605) and C (PVY^C-Adgen), and Potato virus V (PVV), was represented by 84 overlapping 20-residue long peptides synthesized on the membrane. Each row of the membrane contained 20 peptides. Asterisks indicate the position of the most N-terminal peptide of each virus. The membrane was probed with each of the following antibodies against CP: MAb1128, MAb1129, and MAb1130 (panels to the left). Binding of the MAbs to peptides was detected with horseradish peroxidase–labeled anti-mouse antibodies and visualized by capturing the enhanced chemiluminescence signals on X-ray film. The peptides detected with the respective MAb are aligned to the right (+, positive detection; –, negative). The sequence common to all peptides detected with each MAb is demarcated with dashed vertical lines. The positions of the amino acid residues in CP are indicated on top of the alignment. B. Complete amino acid sequences of PVY^N-605, PVY^O-SASA207, PVY^C-Adgen, and PVV-Suomi aligned using Clustal X 2.0. Dots indicate identical residues, and dashes indicate gaps.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115766.g001

The membrane was also probed with polyclonal rabbit antibodies raised against PVY virions. The strongest reactivity was against peptides representing the N-terminal-most 50 aa of CP in all strains of PVY (Fig. 2). A few peptides corresponding to other regions of CP, especially the C-terminus, were also detected, but signals were weaker. The polyclonal antibodies showed some, relatively weak cross-reactivity with peptides designed based on CP of PVV (Fig. 2).

Download:

Figure 2. Detection of the PVY and PVV CP-derived peptides with polyclonal antibodies against CP of PVY.

The membrane shown in Fig. 1 was probed with polyclonal rabbit anti-PVY CP antibodies and signals were detected using an alkaline phosphatase–conjugated pig anti-rabbit antibody. The membrane sections containing the peptides of different viruses are framed.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115766.g002

Alanine Scanning and Deletion Analysis Define the Minimal Epitopes

The epitope-related peptides identified in the SPOT analysis were further analyzed to yield a fine map for each epitope. During alanine scanning mutagenesis, one residue at a time was replaced with an alanine, whereas in the C- and N-terminal deletion analysis, aa residues were removed one by one (S1 Fig.). The peptides analyzed, as identified by peptide screening (Fig. 1), were N-P5 (¹³KDAKQEQGSIQPNLNKEKEK³²) recognized by MAb1128, O-P3 (⁷AGGSSKKDARPEQGSIQSNP²⁶) recognized by MAb1129, and NP-1 (¹GNDTIDAGGSTKKDAKQEQG²⁰) recognized by MAb1130 (Fig. 3). Results obtained in the analysis of the aforementioned peptides were verified by analyzing another peptide detected with the MAb, as illustrated in S1 Fig. The new SPOT peptide array containing the mutated and shortened peptides was probed with MAb1128, MAb1129, and MAb1130. The C- and N-terminal deletions demonstrated that the minimal epitope of MAb1128 was ²⁵NLNKEK³⁰ (Fig. 3). Alanine scanning further showed that replacement of ²⁵N or ²⁷N with alanine weakened the recognition by MAb1128, and replacement of ²⁶L, ²⁹E, or ³⁰K nearly precluded recognition. For MAb1129, the minimal epitope was ¹⁶RPEQGSIQSNP²⁶ (Fig. 3). The most critical aa residues for recognition by MAb1129 were ²²I and ²³Q. The epitope of MAb1130 was close to the N-terminus of CP and defined by residues ⁵IDAGGS¹⁰ (Fig. 3). Recognition of the peptide by MAb1130 was abrogated by mutation of residue ⁶D and strongly reduced by mutation of ⁹G (Fig. 3).

Download:

Figure 3. Fine-mapping of the MAb epitopes.

Alanine scanning and deletion mapping of selected peptides were used to define the minimal epitope detected by each MAb. In alanine scanning, each residue at a time was replaced with an alanine, whereas in deletion mapping one residue at a time was removed from the N- or C-terminus of the peptide. The peptides subjected to the analyses were N-P5 (MAb1128), O-P3 (MAb1129), and N-P1 (MAb1130) shown in Fig. 1. Probing of the peptides with the MAbs was done as in Fig. 1. The chemiluminescence signals were quantified. Each bar and line represents the relative signal intensity compared with the corresponding wild-type peptide.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115766.g003

Epitope mapping in the aforementioned analysis was done using only three PVY strains. Therefore, the 60 most N-terminal CP residues of 369 PVY strains whose sequences are available in the curated Description of Plant Viruses database (http://www.dpvweb.net/) [40] were aligned to assess the conservation of the epitopes we identified. The variants are listed in Table 1, and the actual aa sequences are aligned in S1 Table. The MAb1128 epitope, ²⁵NLNKEK³⁰, was conserved in most PVY isolates designated to PVY^N strains and variants, such NTN strains, but it was not found in the isolates designated to PVY^O or PVY^C strain groups. The epitope of MAb1130 was also quite conserved in the large majority of PVY isolates. The greatest variability was observed in the epitope of MAb1129 (Table 1).

Download:

Table 1. Variable amino acids detected in the PVY CP epitope sequences of PVY isolates obtained from the curated Descriptions of Plant Viruses database (http://www.dpvweb.net/).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115766.t001

Influence of Mutations in CP Epitopes on MAb Detection

Alanine scanning of peptides indicated that certain aa substitutions would lead to a lack of recognition of the correspondingly mutated CP by one or several MAbs. To verify these results using intact CP, His₆-tagged wild-type and three mutated CPs of PVY^N-605 and one mutated CP of PVY^O-UK were expressed in Escherichia coli. The bacterial lysates were tested by western blot analysis using each of the MAbs.

Alanine scanning predicted that the substitution D6A would abolish recognition of PVY CP by MAb1130 (Fig. 3), and this result was verified by PVY^N-605 showing the lack of the Mab1130::CP interaction (Fig. 4). The substitution D6N has been reported in a PVY isolate described from tobacco (NCBI accession no. X68222 [41]), and this mutation introduced to CP of PVY^N-605 also abolished detection with MAb1130 (Fig. 4). However, both aforementioned CP mutants were detected with MAb1128 (Fig. 5).

Download:

Figure 4. Effects of mutations in the conserved DAG motif of PVY CP on recognition with MAb1130.

The N-terminal 35 residues of CP in PVY^O-SASA207, PVY^N-605 and PVY^C-Adgen are aligned, and the residue D6, which was mutated, is indicated by an arrow. Red highlighting denotes the minimal epitope recognized by MAb1130, and the conserved DAG motif is underlined. Crude proteins extracted from E. coli expressing an individual recombinant PVY^N-605 CP or mutant were analyzed by SDS-PAGE and stained with Coomassie Blue to detect the proteins. Positions of molecular size markers (in kilodaltons) are shown to the left. Virions of the wild-type viruses PVY^N-605 and PVY^O-UK and proteins of E. coli transformed with an empty expression vector were included as positive and negative controls, respectively. DAG, AAG, and NAG indicate the bacterial lysates containing the recombinant CPs of the wild-type PVY^N-605 and CPs carrying substitution D6A or D6N, respectively (wild-type CP carrying the DAG motif is marked with an asterisk). The corresponding western blot using MAb1130 is shown below the gel.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115766.g004

Download:

Figure 5. Recognition of PVY CP and mutants by the polyclonal antibody or various MAbs differs depending on specific mutations in the CP.

Crude proteins extracted from E. coli expressing the recombinant PVY^O-UK or PVY^N-605 CP and their mutants were analyzed by western blotting using a polyclonal antiserum (PAb) and the three MAbs against PVY CP. Positions of molecular size markers (in kilodaltons) are shown to the right. Virions of the wild-type viruses PVY^O-UK and PVY^N-NTN Nevski, and proteins of E. coli transformed with an empty expression vector [E. coli (-)] were included as positive and negative controls, respectively. The amino acid substitutions introduced to CPs and their positions are specified in the names of the mutant proteins shown at the top of the blot. Detection of virions with PAb (and PVY^O-UK virions with MAb1129 and MAb1130) revealed dimers (ca. 70 kDa) of the CP besides the expected monomers (ca. 35 kDa), indicating the CP-CP interactions essential for virion formation were not fully denatured by the SDS treatment.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115766.g005

Hidaka et al. [42] reported a PVY isolate with three aa substitutions (R16K, P17L, G20D); among these, R16A reduced detection of the peptide with MAb1129 (Fig. 3). Introduction of these three aa substitutions to CP of PVY^O-UK greatly reduced the signals of detection in western blots (Fig. 5).

PVY^N-NTN Nevski was isolated from potato cv. Nevski in Finland and causes tuber necrosis symptoms in inoculated potato cultivars (Y. Tian and J. Valkonen, unpublished data). This PVY strain contains an aa substitution N25T in CP (NCBI accession no. JX432967) in the first residue of the epitope of MAb1128. PVY^N-NTN Nevski was detected with MAb1128 (Fig. 5, Table 1), however, signals were weaker than for PVY^N-605.

Alanine scanning with peptide N-P5 suggested that substitution N27A may weaken the interaction between MAb1128 and PVY^N CP (Fig. 3). A PVY^N strain with the N27I mutation has been reported (U09508; [43]), and this substitution was introduced to CP of PVY^N-605. The mutant CP was detected with MAb1130 but not with MAb1128 (Fig. 5).

The bacterial lysates used in these experiments were also tested with MAbs using triple-antibody sandwich (TAS)-ELISA, and results were consistent with western blot analyses (Table 2). All PVY CPs and mutants expressed in E. coli were detected with anti-PVY PAb by double-antibody sandwich (DAS)-ELISA (Table 2).

Download:

Table 2. Detection of recombinant PVY CP and CP mutants by DAS-ELISA and TAS-ELISA.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115766.t002

Discussion

Detection of PVY is an integral part of the seed potato certification schemes [15]. Here, we characterized the epitopes of three commercially available MAbs used in the detection of the three common strain groups of PVY. The SPOT technique was utilized for epitope mapping and to pinpoint the critical residues required for PVY recognition [39]. The results were further verified using site-directed mutagenesis of full-length recombinant PVY CPs. All of the MAb epitopes we studied were mapped to the N-terminal 30 residues of CP. Similarly, previous studies localized the epitopes of six different MAbs to the first 31 [31] or 50 residues [15] of PVY CP. This region is the most exposed and variable part of the potyvirus CP [21]. As shown by multiple alignments beyond this region, the aa sequence becomes more conserved when it begins to form the helix, and owing to its inaccessibility becomes less immunogenic and less suitable for detection of specific PVY strains. Consequently, also the PAb bound preferentially to the N-terminal peptides of CP, confirming that the N-terminus is the most immunogenic portion of the PVY CP. Previous studies using three independent PAb produced by immunization of rabbits with virions of PVY^N found that PVY CP contains five immunodominant regions: two at the N-terminus (aa 1-25 and 29–39), two in the middle region (aa 70–95 and 163–170) and one at the C-terminus (aa 240–267) [44]. Also our studies revealed weak but detectable interaction of PAb with some of the C-terminal peptides. Furthermore, antibodies raised against peptides corresponding to the C-terminal region of PVY CP can detect the intact CP [45].

The minimal epitope for MAb1130, ⁵IDAGGS¹⁰, was common to all studied PVY strain groups. When sequences from 369 different PVY isolates were aligned, only a few differences in the epitope region were found, thus indicating that MAb1130 would probably recognize most isolates without being able to distinguish between them. Roughly 90% of the studied strains had no changes in the epitope sequence, and even more strains maintained the central portion of the epitope—the sequence DAG. This sequence was also present in the CP of the control PVV strain, and the corresponding peptide showed reactivity with the PAb against PVY. The conservation of this epitope among PVY strains reflects the important function of the DAG motif as it allows the transmission of PVY and related viruses from plant to plant by aphids [46]. Epitopes of other MAbs against PVY CP [15], [47] have been characterized and found to partially overlap with the ⁵IDAGGS¹⁰ sequence identified in our present study, revealing that this region is highly immunogenic in PVY, as reported also on other potyviruses (e.g., [37], [48], [49]).

The minimal epitope recognized by MAb1129 was ¹⁶RPEQGSIQSNP²⁶ present in O- and C-strains of PVY. The peripheral portions of this sequence are highly variable, but the middle portion, namely ¹⁸EQGSIQ²³, is conserved throughout the PVY^O and PVY^C strains we evaluated, with only very few exceptions (Table 1, S1 Table). In N-strains, this CP epitope region varies, and the peptides from this region did not bind MAb1129.

The minimal epitope recognized by MAb1128, ²⁵NLNKEK³⁰, was present only in the PVY^N strain CP. The corresponding sequence of PVY^O and PVY^C strains contained substitutions L26P and E29G, thus explaining why MAb1128 did not recognize these strains. According to the aa sequence alignment (S1 Table), most PVY isolates belonging to N-strain and the NTN variants contain this sequence and should therefore be detected by MAb1128. The epitopes of two other commercially available and commonly used PVY^N-specific MAbs (SASA-N, and Neogen-N = MAb1051) have been localized to CP residues 22–30 [31] and hence overlap with the epitope of MAb1128. In the course of the study, we detected PVY^N-Nevski with MAb1128 and MAb1051 (Neogen-N) in both DAS-ELISA and triple antibody sandwich (TAS) ELISA, whereas Neogen-N does not detect the strain PVY^NTN-AST in TAS-ELISA according to a previous study [31]. Both PVY strains contain the minimal epitope ²⁵NLNKEK³⁰ of MAb1128. Therefore, the question whether or not MAb1128 and Neogen-N share the same epitope requires further study. Similar to Mab1128, substitution N27I prevents detection of the PVY^N CP with SASA-N and Neogen-N [31].

Designation of PVY strains to the strain groups N, O and C is commonly done based on detection with MAbs or by phylogenetic analysis of CP (nucleotide or deduced aa) sequences. However, strain group identification is actually based on the biological differences of the PVY strain groups in terms of their ability to overcome resistance genes in potato or cause severe symptoms in potato and tobacco. However, recent studies show that the determinants of the biological differences, which are used to recognize the strain groups of PVY isolates [12], reside in the helper component proteinase (HCpro) of PVY [50]–[52]. It is therefore remarkable how well the serogroups determined by anti-CP MAbs correlate with the biological differences of the strain groups determined by HCpro. Interactions between CP and HCpro are essential in vector transmission of potyviruses [53] and involve the DAG motif besides other regions of the CP [46], [54]. Furthermore, HCpro-CP interactions are probably essential during the infection cycle in host plants [55], [56]. Therefore, it is plausible that high selection pressure directs concerted evolution of HCpro and CP [55], which is reflected in the functional phenotypes of PVY isolates.

MAbs to PVY HCpro have been produced, including MAb 8E1 that reacts with the HCpro of O and C strains, and MAb 8B9 reacting with the HCpro of isolates from all three strain groups PVY including N strains [57]. It is possible that detection of PVY isolates with MAbs recognizing specific functional motifs of the multifunctional HCpro [50]–[52] could provide a higher resolution and more fine-tuned grouping of PVY isolates according to their biological differences. Furthermore, as proposed by Canto et al. [57] two decades ago, detection of PVY using MAbs to both HCpro and CP would be helpful for recognition of the highly virulent PVY^N Wilga (PVY^N:O) strains that have recombined the whole HCpro or segments thereof from PVY^O [19], [58], [59]. They cause tuber necrosis and other severe symptoms in potato and are widely distributed [13].

Taken together, the detailed MAb epitope analysis provided in this study should allow a sequence-based identification of the PVY serotypes and to predict whether particular isolates could escape detection or whether they will be detected by specific anti-CP MAbs. Our results help explain why different PVY strain groups can be distinguished using these MAbs. Furthermore, the data may be used for the generation of novel tools for detection of different PVY strains.

Materials and Methods

Antibodies

PVY detection reagent set, which contains rabbit PAb (1130-2, Neogen Phytodiagnostics) for coating, MAbs (TAS-ELISA) or alkaline phosphatase conjugated MAbs (DAS-ELISA) for probing, and horseradish peroxidase–conjugated polyclonal rabbit anti-mouse immunoglobulins (TAS-ELISA) was used (Neogen). Also polyclonal porcine anti-rabbit immunoglobulins were used (Dako, Carpinteria, CA, USA). Mab1128, Mab1129, Mab1130 and the rabbit polyclonal antiserum against PVY were produced using whole viruses as immunogens (Neogen).

Peptide Synthesis

Spot peptides [39] were synthesized with a fully automated MultiPep Spot robot (Intavis AG, Köln, Germany) on amino-polyethylene glycol–functionalized cellulose membranes (SynthoPlan APEG CE Membrane, AIMS Scientific Products, Product number AC-S01-12) via Fmoc chemistry. The PVY full-length CPs of different PVY strains were synthesized as 20-aa peptides (3-aa overlap), resulting in 84 peptides per PVY CP. The PVY strains were spotted on each membrane in the following order: PVY^O (isolate SASA207; GenBank accession number AJ584851; [60]), PVY^N (isolate 605; X97895; [61]), PVY^C (isolate Adgen; AJ890348; [62]), and PVV (isolate Suomi; AJ278894; [63]). The initially identified MAb epitopes were further characterized by subjecting the relevant peptides to alanine scanning (residues replaced one by one with alanine) and to N- or C-terminal deletion (residues removed one by one).

Probing of SPOT Membranes

The assay was done as described [64]. Briefly, antibodies and conjugates were diluted with Tris-buffered saline containing 0.05% (v/v) Tween 20 and supplemented with 3.0% skim milk (blocking buffer). The MAbs were used at 1 µg/ml and polyclonal antisera at 1∶1000 dilutions in blocking buffer. Secondary antibody incubations were done at 1∶1000 dilutions in blocking buffer. Antibody binding was visualized using enhanced chemiluminescence and X-ray film.

Mutagenesis and Expression of PVY CP in E. coli

Full-length PVY CP-encoding sequences were PCR-amplified with primers corresponding to the 5′-end and complementary to the 3′-end of PVY^N605 and PVY^OUK CP-encoding sequences and introducing BamHI and PstI restriction sites, respectively (Table 3). The amplified products were cloned into the expression vector pQE30 (Qiagen Hilden, Germany).

Download:

Table 3. Primer pairs used for mutagenesis of CP-encoding sequence of PVY^N or PVY^O.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115766.t003

Four mutated CPs were also constructed (Table 3) using the Phusion Site-Directed Mutagenesis kit (Finnzymes, Espoo, Finland). The aspartic acid at position 6 (IDAGGS epitope) of PVY^N-605 CP was mutated to alanine and asparagine to correspond to the sequences of PVY^N-⁶A and PVY^N-⁶N, respectively. Asparagine at position 27 (NLNKIKE epitope) of PVY^N-605 CP was mutated to isoleucine. Arginine, proline, and glycine at positions 16, 17, and 20 of PVY^O-UK CP were mutated to lysine, leucine, and aspartic acid, respectively (PVY^O ¹⁶K¹⁷L²⁰D). The CP of the PVY-Nevski isolate (²⁵T instead of ²⁵N) was also included in the study. All constructs generated were transformed into E. coli strain M15 (pREP4+) (Qiagen) for protein production.

Protein expression and purification was done as earlier [65]. Briefly, cells were harvested by centrifugation at 11,000×g for 10 min, freezed in liquid nitrogen, and lysed by grinding on ice. The resultant lysate was suspended in ELISA extraction buffer (phosphate-buffered saline including 0.05% (v/v) Tween 20 and 2% (w/v) polyvinylpyrrolidone, pH 7.4) and fractioned via centrifugation at 15,000×g for 30 min at 4°C. The supernatant was analyzed with DAS- and TAS-ELISA and with SDS-PAGE. The His-tagged proteins used in western blotting were purified using the Ni-NTA strategy (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) and were analyzed by SDS-PAGE and western blotting.

Supporting Information

S1 Fig.

Alanine scanning and deletion mapping to define the minimal epitope detected by MAb1128 in PVY^O–UK CP.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115766.s001

(PDF)

S1 Table.

Alignment of the 60 N-terminal residues of 369 PVY coat protein (CP) sequences obtained from the curated DPVweb database and analysis of the epitope sequences of MAb1128, MAb1129, and MAb1129.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115766.s002

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

We thank Minna Rännäli for technical assistance, Jussi Karjula (Pohjoisen Kantanperuna Oy) for collaboration, and John Semple (Adgen Phytodiagnostics, Neogen Europe, Ltd.) for providing antibodies.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: HR JH YT HL JPTV. Performed the experiments: HR JH YT. Analyzed the data: HR JH YT HL JPTV. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: HR JH YT HL JPTV. Wrote the paper: JH YT JPTV.

References

1. Adams MJ, Zerbini FM, French R, Rabenstein F, Stenger DC, et al.. (2012) Family Potyviridae. In: King AM, Adams MJ, Carstens EB and Lefkowich EJeditors. Virus Taxonomy. San Diego: Elsevier, pp. 1069–1089.
2. Chung BYW, Miller WA, Atkins JF, Firth AE (2008) An overlapping essential gene in the Potyviridae. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:5897–5902.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
3. Valkonen JPT (2007) Chapter 28 - Viruses: Economical losses and biotechnological potential. In: Vreugdenhil D, Bradshaw J, GebhardtC, Govers F, Mackerron DKL, Taylor M Aet al.. editors. Potato Biology and Biotechnology. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V. pp. 619–641.
4. Tian YP, Liu JL, Zhang CL, Liu YY, Wang B, et al. (2011) Genetic diversity of Potato virus Y infecting tobacco crops in China. Phytopathology 101:377–387.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
5. Romero A, Blanco-Urgoiti B, Soto MJ, Fereres A, Ponz F (2001) Characterization of typical pepper-isolates of PVY reveals multiple pathotypes within a single genetic strain. Virus Res 79:71–80.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
6. Kirchner SM, Hiltunen LH, Santala J, Döring TF, Ketola J, et al.. (2014) Comparison of straw mulch, insecticides, mineral oil, and birch extract for control of transmission of Potato virus Y in seed potato crops. Potato Res, in press.
7. Cockerham G (1970) Genetical studies on resistance to potato viruses X and Y. Heredity. 25:309–348.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
8. Jones RAC (1990) Strain group specific and virus specific hypersensitive reactions to infection with potyviruses in potato cultivars. Ann Appl Biol 117:93–105.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
9. Valkonen JPT (1994) Natural genes and mechanisms for resistance to viruses in cultivated and wild potato species (Solanum spp.). Plant Breed. 112:1–16.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
10. Gebhardt C, Bellin D, Henselewski H, Lehmann W, Schwarzfischer J, et al. (2006) Marker-assisted combination of major genes for pathogen resistance in potato. Theor Appl Genet 112:1458–1464.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
11. Bakker E, Borm T, Prins P, van der Vossen E, Uenk G, et al. (2011) A genome-wide genetic map of NB-LRR disease resistance loci in potato. Theor Appl Genet 123:493–508.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
12. Singh RP, Valkonen JPT, Gray SM, Boonham N, Jones RAC, et al. (2008) Discussion paper: The naming of Potato virus Y strains infecting potato. Arch Virol 153:1–13.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
13. Karasev AV, Gray SM (2013) Continuous and emerging challenges of Potato virus Y in potato. Annu Rev Phytopathol 51:571–586.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
14. Clark MF, Adams AN (1977) Characteristics of microplate method of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for detection of plant viruses. J Gen Virol 34:475–483.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
15. Keller H, Pomp R, Bakker J, Schots A (2005) Epitope identification and in silico prediction of the specificity of antibodies binding to the coat proteins of Potato virus Y strains. Eur J Plant Pathol 111:391–397.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
16. Mallik I, Anderson NR, Gudmestad NC (2012) Detection and differentiation of Potato virus Y strains from potato using immunocapture multiplex RT-PCR. Am J Potato Res 89:184–191.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
17. Huhnlein A, Drechsler N, Steinbach P, Thieme T, Schubert J (2013) Comparison of three methods for the detection of Potato virus Y in seed potato certification. J Plant Dis Protection 120:57–69.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
18. Bolotova YV, Karasev AV, McIntosh CS (2009) Statistical analysis of the laboratory methods used to detect Potato virus Y. Am J Potato Res 86:265–271.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
19. Chikh-Ali M, Gray SM, Karasev AV (2013) An improved multiplex IC-RT-PCR assay distinguishes nine strains of Potato virus Y. Plant Dis 97:1370–1374.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
20. Rupar M, Kogovsek P, Pompe-Novak M, Gutiérrez-Aguirre I, Delaunay A, et al. (2013) Assessment of SNaPshot and single step RT-qPCR methods for discriminating Potato virus Y (PVY) subgroups. J. Virol. Methods 189:93–100.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
21. Baratova LA, Efimov AV, Dobrov EN, Fedorova NV, Hunt B, et al. (2001) In situ spatial organization of potato virus A coat protein subunits as assessed by tritium bombardment. J Virol 20:9696–9702.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
22. Regenmortel MHW, Dubs MC (1993) Serological procedures – antibody reagents. In: Matthews REFeditor. Plant Virus Diseases. Boca Raton: CRC Press, pp. 165–179.
23. Gugerli P, Fries P (1983) Characterization of monoclonal antibodies to potato virus Y and their use for virus detection. J Gen Virol 64:2471–2477.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
24. Rose DG, Hubbard AL (1986) Production of monoclonal antibodies for the detection of potato virus Y. Ann Appl Biol 109:317–321.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
25. Boonekamp PM, Pomp H, Gussenhoven GC, Schots A (1991) The use of immunochemical techniques and monoclonal antibodies to study the viral coat protein structure of potato virus A, potato virus Y and beet necrotic yellow vein virus. Acta Bot Neerlandica 40:41–52.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
26. McDonald JG, Kristjansson GT (1993) Properties of strains of Potato virus Y^N in North America. Plant Dis 77:87–89.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
27. Soto MJ, Luis Arteaga M, Fereres A, Ponz F (1994) Limited degree of serological variability in pepper strains of potato virus Y as revealed by analysis with monoclonal antibodies. Ann Appl Biol (1994) 124:31–43.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
28. Ellis P, StaceSmith R, Bowler G, Mackenzie DJ (1996) Production of monoclonal antibodies for detection and identification of strains of potato virus Y. Can J Plant Pathol 18:64–70.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
29. Boonham N, Barker I (1998) Strain specific recombinant antibodies to potato virus Y potyvirus. J Virol Methods 74:193–199.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
30. Ounouna H, Kerlan C, Lafaye P, Loukili MJ, ElGaaied A (2002) Production of monoclonal antibodies against synthetic peptides of the N-terminal region of Potato virus Y coat protein and their use in PVY strain differentiation. Plant Pathol 51:487–494.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
31. Nikolaeva OV, Roop DJ, Galvino-Costa SBF, Dos Reis Figueira AD, Gray SM, et al. (2012) Epitope mapping for monoclonal antibodies recognizing tuber necrotic isolates of Potato virus Y. Am J Potato Res 89:121–128.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
32. Pappu HR, Pappu SS, Manjunath KL, Lee RF, Niblett CL (1993) Molecylar characterization of a structural epitope that is largely conserved among severe isolates of a plant virus. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90:3641–3644.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
33. Chikh Ali M, Maoka T, Natsuaki KT (2007) A point mutation changes the serotype of a Potato virus Y isolate; genomic determination of the serotype of PVY strains. Virus Genes 35:359–367.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
34. Karasev AV, Nikolaeva OV, Hu XJ, Sielaff Z, Whitworth J, et al. (2010) Serological properties of ordinary and necrotic isolates of potato virus Y: A case study of PVY^N misidentification. Am J Potato Res 87:1–9.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
35. Gutiérrez-Aguirre I, Hodnik V, Glais L, Rupar M, Jacquot E, et al. (2014) Surface plasmon resonance for monitoring the interaction of Potato virus Y with monoclonal antibodies. Anal Biochem 447:74–81.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
36. Pereira LG, Torrance L, Roberts IM, Harrison BD (1994) Antigenic structure of the coat protein of potato mop-top furovirus. Virology 203:277–286.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
37. Andreeva L, Järvekülg L, Rabenstein F, Torrance L, Harrison BD, et al. (1994) Antigenic analysis of potato virus A particles and coat protein. Ann Appl Biol 125:337–348.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
38. Van der Vlugt RAA, Leunissen J, Goldbach R (1993) Taxonomic relationships between distinct potato virus Y isolates based on detailed comparisons of the viral coat proteins and 3′-nontranslated regions. Arch Virol 131:361–375.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
39. Frank R (2002) The SPOT-synthesis technique: Synthetic peptide arrays on membrane supports—principles and applications. J Immunol Methods 267:13–26.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
40. Adams MJ, Antoniw JF (2006) DPVweb: a comprehensive database of plant and fungal virus genes and genomes. Nucleic Acids Res 34 , Database issueD382–D385.
41. Sudarsono, Woloshuk SL, Xiong Z, Hellmann GM, Wernsman EA, et al. (1993) Nucleotide sequence of the capsid protein cistrons from six potato virus Y (PVY) isolates infecting tobacco. Arch Virol 132:161–170.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
42. Hidaka M, Yoshida Y, Masaki H, Namba S, Yamashita S, et al. (1992) Cloning and sequencing of the 3′ half of a potato virus Y (O strain) genome encoding the 5K protein, protease, polymerase and coat protein. Nucleic Acids Res 20:3515.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
43. Dhar AK, Singh RP (1997) Molecular characterization of coat protein genes of serologicaly distinct isolates of potato virus Y necrotic strain. Can J Microbiol 43:677–683.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
44. Vuento M, Paananen K, Vihinen-Ranta M, Kurppa A (1993) Characterization of antigenic epitopes of potato virus Y. Biochem Biophys Acta 1162:155–160.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
45. Ohshima K, Nakaya T, Inoue AK, Hataya T, Hayashi Y, et al. (1992) Production and characteristics of strain common antibodies against a synthetic polypeptide corresponding to the C-terminal region of Potato virus Y coat protein. J Virol Methods 40:265–273.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
46. Blanc S, Lopéz-Moya JJ, Wang R, García-Lampasona S, Thornbury DW, et al. (1997) A specific interaction between coat protein and helper component correlates with aphid transmission of a potyvirus. Virology 231:141–147.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
47. Jayaram C, Van Deusen RA, Eggenberger AL, Schwabacher AW, Hill JH (1998) Characterization of a monoclonal antibody recognizing a DAG-containing epitope conserved in aphid transmissible potyviruses: evidence that the DAG motif is in a defined conformation. Virus Res 58:1–11.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
48. Mink GI, Vetten HJ, Wyatt SD, Berger PH, Silbernagel MJ (1999) The epitopes located on the coat protein amino terminus of viruses in the bean common mosaic potyvirus subgroup. Arch Virol 144:1173–1189.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
49. Candresse T, Saenz P, García JA, Boscia D, Navratil M, et al. (2011) Analysis of the epitope structure of Plum pox virus coat protein. Phytopathology 101:611–619.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
50. Moury B. Caromel B, Johansen E, Simon V, Chauvin L, et al. (2011) The helper component proteinase cistron of Potato virus Y induces hypersensitivity and resistance in potato genotypes carrying dominant resistance genes on chromosome IV. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact 24:787–797.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
51. Faurez F, Baldwin T, Tribodet M, Jacquot E (2012) Identification of new Potato virus Y (PVY) molecular determinants for the induction of vein necrosis in tobacco. Mol Plant Pathol 13:948–959.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
52. Tian YP, Valkonen JPT (2013) Genetic determinants of Potato virus Y required to overcome or trigger hypersensitive resistance to PVY strain group O controlled by the gene Ny in potato. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact 26:297–305.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
53. Govier DA, Kassanis B, Pirone TP (1977) Partial purification and characterization of the potato virus Y helper component. Virology 78:306–314.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
54. Seo JK, Kang SH, Seo BY, Jung JK, Kim KH (2010) Mutational analysis of interaction between coat protein and helper component-proteinase of Soybean mosaic virus involved in aphid transmission. Mol Plant Pathol 11:265–276.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
55. Andrejeva J, Puurand U, Merits A, Rabenstein F, Järvekülg L, et al. (1999) Potyvirus helper component-proteinase and coat protein (CP) have coordinated functions in virus-host interactions and the same CP motif affects virus transmission and accumulation. J Gen Virol 80:1133–1139.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
56. Roudet-Tavert G, German-Retana S, Delaunay T, Delecolle B, Candresse T, et al. (2002) Interaction between potyvirus helper component-proteinase and capsid protein in infected plants. J Gen Virol 83:1765–1770.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
57. Canto T, Ellis P, Bowler G, López-Zabella D (1995) Production of monoclonal antibodies to potato virus Y helper component protease and their use for strain differentiation. Plant Dis 79:234–237.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
58. Glais L, Tribodet M, Kerlan C (2002) Genomic variability in Potato potyvirus Y (PVY): evidence that PVY^NW and PVY^NTN variants are single to multiple recombinants between PVY^O and PVY^N isolates. Arch Virol 147:363–378.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
59. Chikh Ali M, Maoka T, Natsuaki KT (2008) Whole genome sequence and characterization of a novel isolate of PVY inducing tuber necrotic ringspot in potato and leaf mosaic in tobacco. J. Phytopathol. 156:413–418.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
60. Barker H, McGeachy KD, Toplak N, Gruden K, Žel J, et al. (2009) Comparison of genome sequence of PVY isolates with biological properties. Am J Potato Res 86:227–238.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
61. Jakab G, Droz E, Brigneti G, Baulcombe D, Malnoë P (1997) Infectious in vivo and in vitro transcripts from a full-length cDNA clone of PVY-N605, a Swiss necrotic isolate of Potato virus Y.. J Gen Virol 78:3141–3145.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
62. Schubert J, Fomitcheva V, Sztangret-Wiśniewska J (2007) Differentiation of Potato virus Y strains using improved sets of diagnostic PCR-primers. J Virol Methods 140:66–74.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
63. Oruetxebarria I, Valkonen JPT (2001) Analysis of the P1 gene sequences and the 3′-terminal sequences and secondary structures of the single-stranded RNA genome of Potato virus V. Virus Genes 22:335–343.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
64. Kaikkonen L, Lankinen H, Harjunpää I, Hokyna K, Söderlund-Venermo M, et al. (1999) Acute-phase-specific heptapeptide epitope for diagnosis of Parvovirus B19 infection. J Clin Microbiol 37:3952–3956.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
65. Rajamäki M, Merits A, Rabenstein F, Andrejeva J, Paulin L, et al. (1998) Biological, serological, and molecular differences among isolates of potato A potyvirus. Phytopathology 88:311–321.
- View Article
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Adams MJ, Zerbini FM, French R, Rabenstein F, Stenger DC, et al.. (2012) Family Potyviridae. In: King AM, Adams MJ, Carstens EB and Lefkowich EJeditors. Virus Taxonomy. San Diego: Elsevier, pp. 1069–1089.

[ref2] 2. Chung BYW, Miller WA, Atkins JF, Firth AE (2008) An overlapping essential gene in the Potyviridae. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:5897–5902.
View Article
Google Scholar

[3] View Article

[4] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Valkonen JPT (2007) Chapter 28 - Viruses: Economical losses and biotechnological potential. In: Vreugdenhil D, Bradshaw J, GebhardtC, Govers F, Mackerron DKL, Taylor M Aet al.. editors. Potato Biology and Biotechnology. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V. pp. 619–641.

[ref4] 4. Tian YP, Liu JL, Zhang CL, Liu YY, Wang B, et al. (2011) Genetic diversity of Potato virus Y infecting tobacco crops in China. Phytopathology 101:377–387.
View Article
Google Scholar

[7] View Article

[8] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Romero A, Blanco-Urgoiti B, Soto MJ, Fereres A, Ponz F (2001) Characterization of typical pepper-isolates of PVY reveals multiple pathotypes within a single genetic strain. Virus Res 79:71–80.
View Article
Google Scholar

[10] View Article

[11] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Kirchner SM, Hiltunen LH, Santala J, Döring TF, Ketola J, et al.. (2014) Comparison of straw mulch, insecticides, mineral oil, and birch extract for control of transmission of Potato virus Y in seed potato crops. Potato Res, in press.

[ref7] 7. Cockerham G (1970) Genetical studies on resistance to potato viruses X and Y. Heredity. 25:309–348.
View Article
Google Scholar

[14] View Article

[15] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Jones RAC (1990) Strain group specific and virus specific hypersensitive reactions to infection with potyviruses in potato cultivars. Ann Appl Biol 117:93–105.
View Article
Google Scholar

[17] View Article

[18] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Valkonen JPT (1994) Natural genes and mechanisms for resistance to viruses in cultivated and wild potato species (Solanum spp.). Plant Breed. 112:1–16.
View Article
Google Scholar

[20] View Article

[21] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Gebhardt C, Bellin D, Henselewski H, Lehmann W, Schwarzfischer J, et al. (2006) Marker-assisted combination of major genes for pathogen resistance in potato. Theor Appl Genet 112:1458–1464.
View Article
Google Scholar

[23] View Article

[24] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Bakker E, Borm T, Prins P, van der Vossen E, Uenk G, et al. (2011) A genome-wide genetic map of NB-LRR disease resistance loci in potato. Theor Appl Genet 123:493–508.
View Article
Google Scholar

[26] View Article

[27] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Singh RP, Valkonen JPT, Gray SM, Boonham N, Jones RAC, et al. (2008) Discussion paper: The naming of Potato virus Y strains infecting potato. Arch Virol 153:1–13.
View Article
Google Scholar

[29] View Article

[30] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Karasev AV, Gray SM (2013) Continuous and emerging challenges of Potato virus Y in potato. Annu Rev Phytopathol 51:571–586.
View Article
Google Scholar

[32] View Article

[33] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Clark MF, Adams AN (1977) Characteristics of microplate method of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for detection of plant viruses. J Gen Virol 34:475–483.
View Article
Google Scholar

[35] View Article

[36] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Keller H, Pomp R, Bakker J, Schots A (2005) Epitope identification and in silico prediction of the specificity of antibodies binding to the coat proteins of Potato virus Y strains. Eur J Plant Pathol 111:391–397.
View Article
Google Scholar

[38] View Article

[39] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Mallik I, Anderson NR, Gudmestad NC (2012) Detection and differentiation of Potato virus Y strains from potato using immunocapture multiplex RT-PCR. Am J Potato Res 89:184–191.
View Article
Google Scholar

[41] View Article

[42] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Huhnlein A, Drechsler N, Steinbach P, Thieme T, Schubert J (2013) Comparison of three methods for the detection of Potato virus Y in seed potato certification. J Plant Dis Protection 120:57–69.
View Article
Google Scholar

[44] View Article

[45] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Bolotova YV, Karasev AV, McIntosh CS (2009) Statistical analysis of the laboratory methods used to detect Potato virus Y. Am J Potato Res 86:265–271.
View Article
Google Scholar

[47] View Article

[48] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Chikh-Ali M, Gray SM, Karasev AV (2013) An improved multiplex IC-RT-PCR assay distinguishes nine strains of Potato virus Y. Plant Dis 97:1370–1374.
View Article
Google Scholar

[50] View Article

[51] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Rupar M, Kogovsek P, Pompe-Novak M, Gutiérrez-Aguirre I, Delaunay A, et al. (2013) Assessment of SNaPshot and single step RT-qPCR methods for discriminating Potato virus Y (PVY) subgroups. J. Virol. Methods 189:93–100.
View Article
Google Scholar

[53] View Article

[54] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Baratova LA, Efimov AV, Dobrov EN, Fedorova NV, Hunt B, et al. (2001) In situ spatial organization of potato virus A coat protein subunits as assessed by tritium bombardment. J Virol 20:9696–9702.
View Article
Google Scholar

[56] View Article

[57] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Regenmortel MHW, Dubs MC (1993) Serological procedures – antibody reagents. In: Matthews REFeditor. Plant Virus Diseases. Boca Raton: CRC Press, pp. 165–179.

[ref23] 23. Gugerli P, Fries P (1983) Characterization of monoclonal antibodies to potato virus Y and their use for virus detection. J Gen Virol 64:2471–2477.
View Article
Google Scholar

[60] View Article

[61] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Rose DG, Hubbard AL (1986) Production of monoclonal antibodies for the detection of potato virus Y. Ann Appl Biol 109:317–321.
View Article
Google Scholar

[63] View Article

[64] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Boonekamp PM, Pomp H, Gussenhoven GC, Schots A (1991) The use of immunochemical techniques and monoclonal antibodies to study the viral coat protein structure of potato virus A, potato virus Y and beet necrotic yellow vein virus. Acta Bot Neerlandica 40:41–52.
View Article
Google Scholar

[66] View Article

[67] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. McDonald JG, Kristjansson GT (1993) Properties of strains of Potato virus Y^N in North America. Plant Dis 77:87–89.
View Article
Google Scholar

[69] View Article

[70] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Soto MJ, Luis Arteaga M, Fereres A, Ponz F (1994) Limited degree of serological variability in pepper strains of potato virus Y as revealed by analysis with monoclonal antibodies. Ann Appl Biol (1994) 124:31–43.
View Article
Google Scholar

[72] View Article

[73] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Ellis P, StaceSmith R, Bowler G, Mackenzie DJ (1996) Production of monoclonal antibodies for detection and identification of strains of potato virus Y. Can J Plant Pathol 18:64–70.
View Article
Google Scholar

[75] View Article

[76] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Boonham N, Barker I (1998) Strain specific recombinant antibodies to potato virus Y potyvirus. J Virol Methods 74:193–199.
View Article
Google Scholar

[78] View Article

[79] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Ounouna H, Kerlan C, Lafaye P, Loukili MJ, ElGaaied A (2002) Production of monoclonal antibodies against synthetic peptides of the N-terminal region of Potato virus Y coat protein and their use in PVY strain differentiation. Plant Pathol 51:487–494.
View Article
Google Scholar

[81] View Article

[82] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Nikolaeva OV, Roop DJ, Galvino-Costa SBF, Dos Reis Figueira AD, Gray SM, et al. (2012) Epitope mapping for monoclonal antibodies recognizing tuber necrotic isolates of Potato virus Y. Am J Potato Res 89:121–128.
View Article
Google Scholar

[84] View Article

[85] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Pappu HR, Pappu SS, Manjunath KL, Lee RF, Niblett CL (1993) Molecylar characterization of a structural epitope that is largely conserved among severe isolates of a plant virus. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90:3641–3644.
View Article
Google Scholar

[87] View Article

[88] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Chikh Ali M, Maoka T, Natsuaki KT (2007) A point mutation changes the serotype of a Potato virus Y isolate; genomic determination of the serotype of PVY strains. Virus Genes 35:359–367.
View Article
Google Scholar

[90] View Article

[91] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Karasev AV, Nikolaeva OV, Hu XJ, Sielaff Z, Whitworth J, et al. (2010) Serological properties of ordinary and necrotic isolates of potato virus Y: A case study of PVY^N misidentification. Am J Potato Res 87:1–9.
View Article
Google Scholar

[93] View Article

[94] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Gutiérrez-Aguirre I, Hodnik V, Glais L, Rupar M, Jacquot E, et al. (2014) Surface plasmon resonance for monitoring the interaction of Potato virus Y with monoclonal antibodies. Anal Biochem 447:74–81.
View Article
Google Scholar

[96] View Article

[97] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Pereira LG, Torrance L, Roberts IM, Harrison BD (1994) Antigenic structure of the coat protein of potato mop-top furovirus. Virology 203:277–286.
View Article
Google Scholar

[99] View Article

[100] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Andreeva L, Järvekülg L, Rabenstein F, Torrance L, Harrison BD, et al. (1994) Antigenic analysis of potato virus A particles and coat protein. Ann Appl Biol 125:337–348.
View Article
Google Scholar

[102] View Article

[103] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Van der Vlugt RAA, Leunissen J, Goldbach R (1993) Taxonomic relationships between distinct potato virus Y isolates based on detailed comparisons of the viral coat proteins and 3′-nontranslated regions. Arch Virol 131:361–375.
View Article
Google Scholar

[105] View Article

[106] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Frank R (2002) The SPOT-synthesis technique: Synthetic peptide arrays on membrane supports—principles and applications. J Immunol Methods 267:13–26.
View Article
Google Scholar

[108] View Article

[109] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Adams MJ, Antoniw JF (2006) DPVweb: a comprehensive database of plant and fungal virus genes and genomes. Nucleic Acids Res 34 , Database issueD382–D385.

[ref41] 41. Sudarsono, Woloshuk SL, Xiong Z, Hellmann GM, Wernsman EA, et al. (1993) Nucleotide sequence of the capsid protein cistrons from six potato virus Y (PVY) isolates infecting tobacco. Arch Virol 132:161–170.
View Article
Google Scholar

[112] View Article

[113] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Hidaka M, Yoshida Y, Masaki H, Namba S, Yamashita S, et al. (1992) Cloning and sequencing of the 3′ half of a potato virus Y (O strain) genome encoding the 5K protein, protease, polymerase and coat protein. Nucleic Acids Res 20:3515.
View Article
Google Scholar

[115] View Article

[116] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Dhar AK, Singh RP (1997) Molecular characterization of coat protein genes of serologicaly distinct isolates of potato virus Y necrotic strain. Can J Microbiol 43:677–683.
View Article
Google Scholar

[118] View Article

[119] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. Vuento M, Paananen K, Vihinen-Ranta M, Kurppa A (1993) Characterization of antigenic epitopes of potato virus Y. Biochem Biophys Acta 1162:155–160.
View Article
Google Scholar

[121] View Article

[122] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. Ohshima K, Nakaya T, Inoue AK, Hataya T, Hayashi Y, et al. (1992) Production and characteristics of strain common antibodies against a synthetic polypeptide corresponding to the C-terminal region of Potato virus Y coat protein. J Virol Methods 40:265–273.
View Article
Google Scholar

[124] View Article

[125] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. Blanc S, Lopéz-Moya JJ, Wang R, García-Lampasona S, Thornbury DW, et al. (1997) A specific interaction between coat protein and helper component correlates with aphid transmission of a potyvirus. Virology 231:141–147.
View Article
Google Scholar

[127] View Article

[128] Google Scholar

[ref47] 47. Jayaram C, Van Deusen RA, Eggenberger AL, Schwabacher AW, Hill JH (1998) Characterization of a monoclonal antibody recognizing a DAG-containing epitope conserved in aphid transmissible potyviruses: evidence that the DAG motif is in a defined conformation. Virus Res 58:1–11.
View Article
Google Scholar

[130] View Article

[131] Google Scholar

[ref48] 48. Mink GI, Vetten HJ, Wyatt SD, Berger PH, Silbernagel MJ (1999) The epitopes located on the coat protein amino terminus of viruses in the bean common mosaic potyvirus subgroup. Arch Virol 144:1173–1189.
View Article
Google Scholar

[133] View Article

[134] Google Scholar

[ref49] 49. Candresse T, Saenz P, García JA, Boscia D, Navratil M, et al. (2011) Analysis of the epitope structure of Plum pox virus coat protein. Phytopathology 101:611–619.
View Article
Google Scholar

[136] View Article

[137] Google Scholar

[ref50] 50. Moury B. Caromel B, Johansen E, Simon V, Chauvin L, et al. (2011) The helper component proteinase cistron of Potato virus Y induces hypersensitivity and resistance in potato genotypes carrying dominant resistance genes on chromosome IV. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact 24:787–797.
View Article
Google Scholar

[139] View Article

[140] Google Scholar

[ref51] 51. Faurez F, Baldwin T, Tribodet M, Jacquot E (2012) Identification of new Potato virus Y (PVY) molecular determinants for the induction of vein necrosis in tobacco. Mol Plant Pathol 13:948–959.
View Article
Google Scholar

[142] View Article

[143] Google Scholar

[ref52] 52. Tian YP, Valkonen JPT (2013) Genetic determinants of Potato virus Y required to overcome or trigger hypersensitive resistance to PVY strain group O controlled by the gene Ny in potato. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact 26:297–305.
View Article
Google Scholar

[145] View Article

[146] Google Scholar

[ref53] 53. Govier DA, Kassanis B, Pirone TP (1977) Partial purification and characterization of the potato virus Y helper component. Virology 78:306–314.
View Article
Google Scholar

[148] View Article

[149] Google Scholar

[ref54] 54. Seo JK, Kang SH, Seo BY, Jung JK, Kim KH (2010) Mutational analysis of interaction between coat protein and helper component-proteinase of Soybean mosaic virus involved in aphid transmission. Mol Plant Pathol 11:265–276.
View Article
Google Scholar

[151] View Article

[152] Google Scholar

[ref55] 55. Andrejeva J, Puurand U, Merits A, Rabenstein F, Järvekülg L, et al. (1999) Potyvirus helper component-proteinase and coat protein (CP) have coordinated functions in virus-host interactions and the same CP motif affects virus transmission and accumulation. J Gen Virol 80:1133–1139.
View Article
Google Scholar

[154] View Article

[155] Google Scholar

[ref56] 56. Roudet-Tavert G, German-Retana S, Delaunay T, Delecolle B, Candresse T, et al. (2002) Interaction between potyvirus helper component-proteinase and capsid protein in infected plants. J Gen Virol 83:1765–1770.
View Article
Google Scholar

[157] View Article

[158] Google Scholar

[ref57] 57. Canto T, Ellis P, Bowler G, López-Zabella D (1995) Production of monoclonal antibodies to potato virus Y helper component protease and their use for strain differentiation. Plant Dis 79:234–237.
View Article
Google Scholar

[160] View Article

[161] Google Scholar

[ref58] 58. Glais L, Tribodet M, Kerlan C (2002) Genomic variability in Potato potyvirus Y (PVY): evidence that PVY^NW and PVY^NTN variants are single to multiple recombinants between PVY^O and PVY^N isolates. Arch Virol 147:363–378.
View Article
Google Scholar

[163] View Article

[164] Google Scholar

[ref59] 59. Chikh Ali M, Maoka T, Natsuaki KT (2008) Whole genome sequence and characterization of a novel isolate of PVY inducing tuber necrotic ringspot in potato and leaf mosaic in tobacco. J. Phytopathol. 156:413–418.
View Article
Google Scholar

[166] View Article

[167] Google Scholar

[ref60] 60. Barker H, McGeachy KD, Toplak N, Gruden K, Žel J, et al. (2009) Comparison of genome sequence of PVY isolates with biological properties. Am J Potato Res 86:227–238.
View Article
Google Scholar

[169] View Article

[170] Google Scholar

[ref61] 61. Jakab G, Droz E, Brigneti G, Baulcombe D, Malnoë P (1997) Infectious in vivo and in vitro transcripts from a full-length cDNA clone of PVY-N605, a Swiss necrotic isolate of Potato virus Y.. J Gen Virol 78:3141–3145.
View Article
Google Scholar

[172] View Article

[173] Google Scholar

[ref62] 62. Schubert J, Fomitcheva V, Sztangret-Wiśniewska J (2007) Differentiation of Potato virus Y strains using improved sets of diagnostic PCR-primers. J Virol Methods 140:66–74.
View Article
Google Scholar

[175] View Article

[176] Google Scholar

[ref63] 63. Oruetxebarria I, Valkonen JPT (2001) Analysis of the P1 gene sequences and the 3′-terminal sequences and secondary structures of the single-stranded RNA genome of Potato virus V. Virus Genes 22:335–343.
View Article
Google Scholar

[178] View Article

[179] Google Scholar

[ref64] 64. Kaikkonen L, Lankinen H, Harjunpää I, Hokyna K, Söderlund-Venermo M, et al. (1999) Acute-phase-specific heptapeptide epitope for diagnosis of Parvovirus B19 infection. J Clin Microbiol 37:3952–3956.
View Article
Google Scholar

[181] View Article

[182] Google Scholar

[ref65] 65. Rajamäki M, Merits A, Rabenstein F, Andrejeva J, Paulin L, et al. (1998) Biological, serological, and molecular differences among isolates of potato A potyvirus. Phytopathology 88:311–321.
View Article
Google Scholar

[184] View Article

[185] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Background

Methodology/Principal Findings

Conclusions/Significance

Introduction

Results

Mapping Epitopes on CP Using SPOT Peptide Array

Alanine Scanning and Deletion Analysis Define the Minimal Epitopes

Influence of Mutations in CP Epitopes on MAb Detection

Discussion

Materials and Methods

Antibodies

Peptide Synthesis

Probing of SPOT Membranes

Mutagenesis and Expression of PVY CP in E. coli

Supporting Information

S1 Fig.

S1 Table.

Acknowledgments

Author Contributions

References