Rose seeds & virus ??
Patsy Cunningham
If I try breeding using a female plant with virus, how likely is
it that virus cells could cross over from the mother plant to the
seeds?? Thanks, Ed C. in R.I.
--
Patsy Cunningham
72327,17...@cus.com
RoseyNut
In article <4tm33f$nv6$1...@mhafc.production.compuserve.com>, Patsy
Cunningham <72327...@CompuServe.COM> writes:
>If I try breeding using a female plant with virus, how likely is
>it that virus cells could cross over from the mother plant to the
>seeds??
Zero chance. Virus cannot be transmitted thru the seeds of a plant.
That's one of the reasons we prefer to use _seedling_ understock. We know
it is virus-free.
Marily Young/Glenview, IL/Northeastern Illinois Rose Society
Henry Kuska
Patsy Cunningham <72327...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>
>If I try breeding using a female plant with virus, how likely is
>it that virus cells could cross over from the mother plant to the
virus but I can not give you any quantitative data as to what the
probability is.
William S. Hillman Jr.
In article <4tqc62$1g...@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com>, FMF...@prodigy.com says...
> Patsy Cunningham <72327...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> > >72327,17...@cus.com
> I think I have read that it is possible that the seed could cary the
> virus but I can not give you any quantitative data as to what the
> probability is.
>
Multiflora use seed to start their understock.
Bill in Sunny & Hot Southern California
pet...@earthlink.net
William S. Hillman Jr. wrote:
"The seed will not carry the virus'
I attended a lecture once by Dr. Charlotte Harwood who was then in
charge of virus control at J&P - she stated without reservation that
she had never observed nor seen reports of virus passing by seed.She
had in fact conducted tests on the subject. This conforms with
everything else I have read so I am convinced that my friends to the
South of me have this answer right.
Henry Kuska
The following is a quote from the book "Handbook of Plant Cell
Culture",Volume 1, D. A. Evans, W.R. Sharp, P. V. Ammirato, and Y. Yamada,
editors, Macmillan Co. Publisher, page 191 (1983).
"Although viral diseases are usually transmitted from generation to
generation through asexual propragated organs, about 10% of the known
plant viruses are also transmitted through seeds of infected host plants.
"
RoseyNut
In article <4u50um$1j...@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com>, FMF...@prodigy.com
(Henry Kuska) writes:
> The following is a quote from the book "Handbook of Plant Cell
>Culture",Volume 1, D. A. Evans, W.R. Sharp, P. V. Ammirato, and Y.
Yamada,
> editors, Macmillan Co. Publisher, page 191 (1983).
> "Although viral diseases are usually transmitted from generation to
>generation through asexual propragated organs, about 10% of the known
>plant viruses are also transmitted through seeds of infected host plants.
>"
Yes, but.... the various viruses that infect roses are NOT known to be
among that 10%. After all... this is not the same thing as saying that
known viruses are transmitted through seeds 10% of the time. Or that 10%
of the seeds of infected parents are also infected.
pet...@earthlink.net
Henry Kuska wrote:
> The following is a quote from the book "Handbook of Plant Cell
> Culture",Volume 1, D. A. Evans, W.R. Sharp, P. V. Ammirato, and Y. Yamada,
> editors, Macmillan Co. Publisher, page 191 (1983).
> "Although viral diseases are usually transmitted from generation to
> generation through asexual propragated organs, about 10% of the known
> plant viruses are also transmitted through seeds of infected host plants.
> "
any of the viruses of roses? I ask because I am doubtful that it so.
BTW - you are doing a woderful job as Editor of the Akron Rose Rambler
and I hereby encourage others on-line to get a subscription.
Henry Kuska
rose...@aol.com (RoseyNut) wrote:
>
>In article <4u50um$1j...@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com>, FMF...@prodigy.com
>(Henry Kuska) writes:
>
>>Culture",Volume 1, D. A. Evans, W.R. Sharp, P. V. Ammirato, and Y.
>Yamada,
>> editors, Macmillan Co. Publisher, page 191 (1983).
>> "Although viral diseases are usually transmitted from generation to
>>generation through asexual propragated organs, about 10% of the known
>>plant viruses are also transmitted through seeds of infected host
plants.
>>"
>
>Yes, but.... the various viruses that infect roses are NOT known to be
>among that 10%. After all... this is not the same thing as saying that
>known viruses are transmitted through seeds 10% of the time. Or that
10%
>of the seeds of infected parents are also infected.
>
>Marily Young/Glenview, IL/Northeastern Illinois Rose Society
I find your facts that "the various viruses that infect roses are NOT
known to be among that 10 %" very interesting. Would you please share
your literature references with us so we can judge for ourselves whether
the size of the experimental data base, the controls utilized, etc. merit
extending that statement to a conclusion that viruses CANNOT be
transfered through rose seeds. In my training an experiment that does
not find something has only a very limited value. As a scientist I
interpret the data available to me to indicate that: Warning - there are
known cases where viruses are transferred through seeds; therefore, do
not knowningly use virus infected plants in your hybridizing program if
they can be avoided. Perhaps the virus will be blocked in a normal
healthy seed, but will be transferred if the growing conditions are such
that the seed coat is very thin, the season very wet, the temperature too
cool,or an insect has penerated the seeds, or some other unforseen
occurance. Science is full of examples of processes that should not
occur but do. A lot of nature's behavior is goverened by probability not
black or white statements like will happen or will not happen. Rosemarie
Sauer in her April 1994 article in the American Rose on Rose Mosaic
Viruses (which was edited by Dr. R. K. Horst, Cornell University) makes
the following statement: "Canadian and European growers prefer to use
seedling rootstock for propagation, because it is believed that seeds, in
general, have a lower probability of virus transmission."
Henry Kuska
"pet...@earthlink.net" <pet...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Henry Kuska wrote:
>> The following is a quote from the book "Handbook of Plant Cell
>> Culture",Volume 1, D. A. Evans, W.R. Sharp, P. V. Ammirato, and Y.
Yamada,
>> editors, Macmillan Co. Publisher, page 191 (1983).
>> "Although viral diseases are usually transmitted from generation
to
>> generation through asexual propragated organs, about 10% of the known
>> plant viruses are also transmitted through seeds of infected host
plants.
>> "
>any of the viruses of roses? I ask because I am doubtful that it so.
>BTW - you are doing a woderful job as Editor of the Akron Rose Rambler
>and I hereby encourage others on-line to get a subscription.
writes "Rose Mosaic virus disease is supposedly spread primarily through
using infected propagation stock, although pollen is considered an
occassional means - and who knows what future investigation will reveal."
The article closes with the following "To insure against mis-quoting the
USDA, this article was sent to and approved by the participants in the
meeting prior to publication."
Charles A. Bigelow
>Henry Kuska wrote:
> The following is a quote from the book "Handbook of Plant Cell
> Culture",Volume 1, D. A. Evans, W.R. Sharp, P. V. Ammirato, and Y. Yamada,
> editors, Macmillan Co. Publisher, page 191 (1983).
> "Although viral diseases are usually transmitted from generation to
> generation through asexual propragated organs, about 10% of the known
> plant viruses are also transmitted through seeds of infected host plants.
I would like to know if the 10% are viruses naturally occurring in the host
species. I would guess that they are, reasoning that seed transmission
requires extra sophistication from the virus because it has to go through a
more complex process to get itself inserted into the seed embryo.
Guessing still further, I would imagine that the typical rose mosaic
viruses, Apple Mosaic and Prunus Necrotic Ringspot, being, as their names
suggest, viruses usually occuring in different genera than roses, are not
equipped to accomplish seed transmission in the genus Rosa. Their infection
of roses is the result of asexual propagation techniques during the last
100 years or so. Of course, if growers keep on propagating these viruses,
perhaps someday some of the viruses will mutate enough to become better
adapted to roses, and able to be transmitted by insects, pruning shears, or
seed transmission. Just an uneducated guess, but maybe another reason to
pressure the rose growers to rid their crops of virus.
Maybe Dr. Manners, who has offered us his informed knowledge about viruses,
will comment.
-- Chuck Bigelow
ps: I wonder if anybody from J&P lurks in this newsgroup, like Keith Zary
or Charlene Harwood. Or maybe some of the J&P sales reps. And how about
John Elsley of Wayside? Are our suppliers hip to the Web?
bai...@teleport.com
In article <4u8tl9$m...@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com> FMF...@prodigy.com (Henry Kuska) writes:
>Path: nntp.teleport.com!netaxs.com!news.fast.net!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!prodigy.com!usenet
>From: FMF...@prodigy.com (Henry Kuska)
>Newsgroups: rec.gardens.roses
>Subject: Re: Rose seeds & virus ??
>Date: 7 Aug 1996 02:05:29 GMT
>Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY
>Lines: 46
>Distribution: world
>Message-ID: <4u8tl9$m...@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com>
>References: <4u50um$1j...@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com> <4u729j$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: innugap4-int.news.prodigy.com
>X-Newsreader: Version 1.2
>rose...@aol.com (RoseyNut) wrote:
>>
>>In article <4u50um$1j...@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com>, FMF...@prodigy.com
>>(Henry Kuska) writes:
>>
>>> The following is a quote from the book "Handbook of Plant Cell
>>>Culture",Volume 1, D. A. Evans, W.R. Sharp, P. V. Ammirato, and Y.
>>Yamada,
>>> editors, Macmillan Co. Publisher, page 191 (1983).
>>> "Although viral diseases are usually transmitted from generation to
>>>generation through asexual propragated organs, about 10% of the known
>>>plant viruses are also transmitted through seeds of infected host
>plants.
>>>"
>>
Year ago, two of my seedlings from both virus parents have shown virus
symptom, I called and disscussed this issue with Dr. Ken Horst. He said
there is no prove of virus not transmit from seed or pollen or egg....Dr.
Horst did many virus research on rose, I went to one of his Rose Virus
symposium in late 80's. I also met two of his PhD. students in Cornell
University and Singapore talked about virus in rose...I highly respect Dr.
Horst suspicion.
Ping Lim
Yamhill, Oregon
P. Dutta
In article <4u8tl9$m...@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com>,
FMF...@prodigy.com says...
>
>...Would you please
>whether the size of the experimental data base, the controls utilized, etc.
>merit extending that statement to a conclusion that viruses CANNOT be
>transfered through rose seeds. In my training an experiment that does
>not find something has only a very limited value. As a scientist I
>interpret the data available to me to indicate that: Warning - there are
>known cases where viruses are transferred through seeds; therefore, do
>not knowningly use virus infected plants in your hybridizing program if
Using an analogy with another virus that is not easily transmitted, there is
indeed a clear difference between "AIDS is unlikely to be transmitted
through x" (where x could be touching, toilet seats, whatever) and "AIDS
cannot be transmitted through x". But for many practical purposes the
statements are the same, because if the probablity of transmission is not
exactly zero, it is quite small. If one were to insist on documented zero
risk one could not drive, fly, eat, breathe, etc.
I can't claim any first-hand knowledge of rose virus transmission or of
any published research on the subject, but my impression is that rose
virus transmission through seeds works the same way; there are some
reports that should be investigated, but if indeed the probablity is not
exactly zero, it is small. One has to live with that level of assurance in
most areas of one's life. (Referring, at some personal risk, to other recent
discussions: if statements to the effect that a particular rose is cold-hardy
or disease-resistant were 99% reliable rather than 100%, it would be quite
acceptable, but of course they are not so reliable.)
P. Dutta
In article <4u8tl9$m...@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com>,
FMF...@prodigy.com says...
>
>...Would you please
>share your literature references with us so we can judge for ourselves
>whether the size of the experimental data base, the controls utilized, etc.
>merit extending that statement to a conclusion that viruses CANNOT be
>transfered through rose seeds. In my training an experiment that does
>not find something has only a very limited value. As a scientist I
>interpret the data available to me to indicate that: Warning - there are
>known cases where viruses are transferred through seeds; therefore, do
>not knowningly use virus infected plants in your hybridizing program if
>they can be avoided...
Using an analogy with another virus that is not easily transmitted, there is
certainly a clear difference between "It has not been shown that AIDS
can be transmitted through x" (where x could be touching, toilet seats,
whatever) and "It has been shown that AIDS cannot be transmitted
through x". But for many practical purposes the difference is essentially
semantic, because even if the probablity of transmission is not exactly
zero, it must be small since it has not been reliably measured. If one were
to insist on documented zero risk one could not drive, fly, eat, breathe,
etc.
I can't claim any first-hand knowledge of rose virus transmission or of
any published research on the subject, but I gather that rose virus
transmission through seeds is somewhat like the above...given the debate
about whether it is possible at all, I can accept that it may be possible and
at the same time not care much because the probability must be small or
there would be no debate. The statement "there is no prove of virus not
transmit..." (message from Ping Lim) is presumably true, but I can't get
too excited about the double negative.
Referring to other recent discussions...I wish claims to the effect that a
given rose is cold-hardy or disease-resistant were always 98% reliable if
they cannot be 100%. Of course, they are not usually that reliable!
tom...@aloha.net
> big...@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Charles A. Bigelow) writes:
>
> Maybe Dr. Manners, who has offered us his informed knowledge about viruses,
> will comment.
>
> -- Chuck Bigelow
Chuck:
Dr. Manners will be in Egypt as a consultant on mango growing during the month of August.
Found out from him that the mangos there aren't the same kind as we grow here.
Henry Kuska
> If I try breeding using a female plant with virus, how likely is
> it that virus cells could cross over from the mother plant to the
> seeds?? Thanks, Ed C. in R.I.
>
> --
> Patsy Cunningham
> 72327,17...@cus.com
https://sites.google.com/site/rosevirusinformation/home