Vectoring ability of aphid clones of Rhopalosiphum padi (L.) and Sitobion avenae (Fabr.) and their capacity to retain barley yellow dwarf virus

Summary Vectoring ability of four aphid clones, Rp-M and Rp-R26 of Rhopalosiphum padi and Sa-R1 and Sa-V of Sitobion avenae, to transmit barley yellow dwarf (PAV, MAV and RPV) luteoviruses (BYDV) was compared in controlled conditions. Significant differences between highly efficient vectors (HEV), Rp-M and Sa-Rl, and poorly efficient vectors (PEV), Rp-R26 and Sa-V, were found in transmission of their specific viruses with acquisition and inoculation access periods (AAP, IAP) of 5 days. BYD-RPV was occasionally transmitted by both clones of S. avenae. None of 150 tested apterous adults of the Rp-R26 transmitted BYD-MAV, while 10% of transmission was observed from those of the Rp-M in a parallel test. An improved ELISA and immuno-PCR were adapted to test for viruses in aphids. The results obtained by the improved ELISA indicated there was a good correlation between virus detection in single aphids of HEV clones after a 5 day AAP and virus transmission by them. In contrast, the percentages of virus-carrying aphids of PEV clones were generally higher than those of their transmission rates. BYD-MAV and BYD-RPV were also detected by the improved ELISA in single aphids of their PEV clones, with the exception of BYD-RPV in those of Sa-V. However, after a 2-day IAP, the improved ELISA in most cases failed to detect these viruses in single aphids of PEV clones. Detection by immuno-PCR demonstrated that all three viruses could be acquired and retained by the aphids of both HEV and PEV clones. But, as visualised from electrophoretic bands, after the 2-day IAP the amplified products from aphid extracts of PEV clones were reduced. The detection in a batch of nine aphids by the improved ELISA revealed that virus content in PEV clones decreased more rapidly than that in HEV clones during transmission. Thus, the difference in transmission efficiency of the aphid clones within species was not caused by an inability to acquire virus, but was determined by variation in vectoring ability between them. This was due to differences in ability to prevent the passage of virions from haemocoel to salivary duct and/or different capacities for the retention of BYDV.