TABLE 3.
Presence of PepMV-Ch2 in the source plants, nutrient solutions, and bait plantsa
| Expt | No. of daysb | Presence of PepMV-Ch2 |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Source of inoculum |
Nutrient solution |
Bait plants |
|||||
| Leaves | Roots | RT-qPCR | No. of positive plant/no. of all test plantsc | Roots | Upper parts | ||
| PepMV-tomato | 0–30 | + (14) | + (13) | + (26–29) | 2 (29–35)/7 | + (29–37) | − |
| 31–60 | NT | + (14) | + (27–31) | 4 (27–36)/16 | + (18–31) | − | |
| 61–90 | NT | NT | + (29) | 0/6 | + (21) | − | |
| 91–120 | NT | + (16) | + (26–32) | 0/6 | + (23) | + (31–34)/−d | |
| 134 | NT | + (11–13) | + (27) | 0/3 | + (21–29) | + (25–33)/−d | |
| NC | 0–134 | − | − | − | − | − | − |
| PepMV+PVY-tomato | 0–30 | + (12) | + (15) | + (26–30) | 0/12 | + (30–33) | − |
| 31–60 | NT | + (12–15) | + (28)/−d | 2 (27–34)/12 | + (22–25) | − | |
| 61–90 | NT | + (12) | + (33) | 0/4 | + (21) | − | |
| 91–120 | + (8) | + (12) | + (26–35) | 1 (35)/4 | + (27) | + (36–38)/−d | |
| 134 | NT | + (12–13) | + (27) | 0/2 | + (23–33) | + (26–39)/−d | |
| NC | 0–134 | − | − | − | − | − | − |
a
RT-qPCR and test plants were used for the detection. In parentheses are the ranges of mean Cq values (as the means of three replicates) for positive samples. +, positive; −, negative. NT, not tested; NC, control plants, negative isolation, and RT-qPCR controls.
b
Days after initiation of irrigation with infested nutrient solution.
c
Test plants were inoculated with nutrient solution and tested 4 weeks later.
d
Different samples were tested; some of these were positive, the others negative.