Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-rvbq7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T10:30:42.142Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some notes on the relationship of plant viruses with vector and non-vector insects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Kenneth M. Smith
Kenneth M. Smith
Affiliation:
Plant Virus Research Station and Molteno Institute, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Extracts of caterpillars and other insects are shown to inhibit the infective power of tobacco mosaic and tobacco necrosis viruses. The inhibitor is not sedimented after spinning for 2½ hr. at 30,000 r.p.m. Experiments with non-vector insects such as caterpillars have shown that the virus of sugar-beet curly-top, of tobacco ringspot and other viruses, are destroyed within the body of the insect. On the other hand, tobacco mosaic virus passes through the body of the caterpillar unchanged though greatly reduced in concentration. By the use of the specific insect vector and artificial feeding methods it was possible to recover the virus of curly-top 24 hr. after it had been injected into the blood of the caterpillar but the viruses of tobacco mosaic and tobacco necrosis could not be so recovered. Experimental evidence is given to show that the virus of beet curly-top is present in the saliva of viruliferous insects.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , March 1941 , pp. 110 - 116
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1941

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bennett, C. W. (1935). J. agric. Res. 50, 211–41.Google Scholar
Bennett, C. W. & Wallace, H. E. (1938). J. agric. Res. 56, 31–51.Google Scholar
Black, L. M. (1939). Phytopathology, 29, 321–37.Google Scholar
Carter, W. (1928). Phytopathology, 18, 675–80.Google Scholar
Fukushi, T. (1934). J. Fac. Agric. Hokkaido Univ. 37, 41–164.Google Scholar
McClintock, J. A. & Smith, L. B. (1918). J. agric. Res. 14, 1–60.Google Scholar
Smith, , Kenneth, M. (1929). Ann. appl. Biol. 16, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, , Kenneth, M. (1939). Trans. R. Soc. trap. Med. Hyg. 32, 557–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, , Kenneth, M. & Bald, J. G. (1935). Parasitology, 27, 231–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, W. M. (1934). Phytopathology, 24, 1055–85.Google Scholar
Storey, H. H. (1926). S. Afr. J. Sci. 23, 307.Google Scholar
Storey, H. H. (1932). Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 112, 46–60.Google Scholar
Whitman, L. & Antunes, P. C. A. (1937). Amer. J. trop. Med. 17, 803–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar