Comparison of RNA Extraction Methods for the Identification of Grapevine fan leaf virus

پژوهش های حفاظت گیاهان ایران

Article 14, Volume 30, Issue 1 - Serial Number 31, March 2016, Pages 127-133   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jpp.v30i1.40075

Authors

Z. Gholampour; M. Zakiaghl^*

ferdowsi university of mashhad

Abstract

Introduction: To now, more than 70 viral diseases have been reported from grapevine. Serological methods are regular diagnostic tools of grapevine viruses, however, their sensitivity has affected by seasonal fluctuations of the virus. Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction provides significant improvement in detection of grapevine viruses. Extraction of high-quality RNA is essential for the successful application of many molecular techniques, such as RT-PCR. Extraction of high-quality RNA from the leaves of woody plants, such as grapevine, is particularly challenging because of high concentrations of polysaccharides, polyphenols, and other secondary metabolites. Some RNA extraction methods yield pellets that are poorly soluble, indicating the presence of unknown contaminants, whereas others are gelatinous, indicating the presence of polysaccharides. RNA can make complexes with polysaccharides and phenolic compounds render the RNA unusable for applications such as reverse transcription. Grapevine fanleaf virus is a member of the genus Nepovirus in the family Secoviridae. The GFLV genome consists of two positive-sense single stranded RNAs. The genome has a poly (A) tail at the 3´ terminus and a covalently linked VPG protein at the 5´ terminus. Several extraction methods had been reported to be used for identification of GFLV in grapevine. Some of them require harmful chemical material; disadvantages of other are high costs. Immunocapture-RT-PCR requires preparation of specific antibody and direct binding RT-PCR (DB-RT-PCR) has a high contamination risk. In this study, four RNA extraction protocols were compared with a commercial isolation kit to explore the most efficient RNA isolation method for grapevines.
Material and Methods: 40 leaf samples were randomly collected during the growing season of 2011-2012. GFLV was detected in leaf samples by enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) Using specific antibodies raised against Iranian isolate of the virus (Zakiaghl and Izadpanah 2003). The RNA isolation protocols of Triazol extraction, high salt phenol-chloroform extraction (Rowhani et al. 1993), RNA extraction using silicon dioxide, Silica (Boom et al 1990), CTAB-PVPP extraction and a commercial RNA isolation kit were used in the study. In all protocols, 50 mg leaf samples were used. The quality and purity of the extracted RNA were determined using spectrophotometry. For purity assessment, the absorbance for the A260/280 and A260/230 ratios was taking in water. RT-PCR was performed using DetF (5´-CGGCAGACTGGCAAGCTGT-3´) and DetR (5´-GGTCCAGTTTAATTGCCATCCA-3´) specific primer pair amplified 1000 bp of the coat protein gene of GFLV. PCR products were run on 1% agarose gel containing 0.5 µg/ml DNA Green Viewer, and visualized under UV irradiation.
Results: There were large differences in the amount of RNA extracted per gram of tissue depending on the protocol used. The commercial kit, CTAB-PVPP and TRIzol methods gave the highest yields in micrograms RNA per gram fresh weight (235-300 μg/g). In contrast, the application of Silica gave the lowest yield (11 μg/g). The high salt phenol-chloroform method gave a moderate yield of over 77 μg/g. In this respect, the CTAB-PVPP method provides the highest yield of RNA. RNA quality was assessed by three methods: A260/280, A260/230 and ability to produce RT-PCR products. A260/280 ratios indicate the level of protein contamination in the preparation. The commercial kit, CTAB-PVPP, TRIzol and high salt phenol-chloroform methods gave RNA with very low amounts of protein contamination. In contrast, RNA isolated by the Silica showed more protein contamination, as indicated by the lower A260/280 ratios. A260/230 ratios are used to assess the level of contamination by polysaccharides and polyphenols. The high salt phenol-chloroform method yielded RNA that was contaminated with polysaccharides. In contrast, the CTAB-PVPP, TRIzol methods yielded RNA with very little polysaccharide. RNA preparations were further tested for quality using RT-PCR reactions. In PCR analyses, whereas traditional methods yielded amplification ratios of 40-88% and the commercial isolation kits yielded amplification ratios of 16%. The RNA from Silica, high salt phenol-chloroform extraction, TRIzol and CTAB-PVPP extraction methods consistently resulted in amplification in 40, 56, 60 and 88% of the samples, respectively.
Discussion: The choice of extraction method depends upon the application in which the RNA will be used. Yield, A260/280, and A260/230 ratios are not good indicators of RT-PCR competent RNA. RNA should be checked for degradation. For RT-PCR, four extraction protocols of Silica, high salt phenol-chloroform extraction, TRIzol and CTAB-PVPP gave consistent product, and however, the last one was the most efficient method. The Silica extraction had significant RNA degradation, making problems in quantification with RT-PCR. Sodium perchlorate extractions had slight RNA degradation, low extraction efficiency, and cost substantially more than the Tris-LiCl method. The CTAB-PVPP method provided high yield and appropriate quality, consistent results for identification of the virus in RT-PCR. The high salt phenol-chloroform and TRIzol extraction were significantly cheaper than CTAB-PVPP methodical, but gave lower yields and were unsuitable for obtaining questionable results in RT-PCR.

Keywords

Comparison; Grapevine; RNA Extraction Method; RT-PCR

References

1- Bahloul M., and Burkard G.1993. An improved method for the isolation of total RNA from spruce tissues. Plant Molecular Biology Reporter, 11:212-215.

2- Boom R., Sol C.J.A., Salimans M.M.M., Jansen C.L., Wertheim-van Dillen P.M.E., Van der Noordaa. J. 1990. Rapid and simple method for purification of nucleic acids. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 28:495-503.

3- Fattouch S., Acheche H., Mhirsi S., Mellouli L., Bejar S., Marrakchi M., and Marzouki N. 2005. RT-PCR–RFLP for genetic diversity analysis of Tunisian Grapevine fanleaf virus isolates in their natural host plants. Journal of Virological Methods, 127:126–132.

4- Gambino G., Perrone I., and Gribaudo I. 2008. A rapid and effective method for RNA extraction from different tissues of grapevine and other woody plants. Phytochemical Analysis, 19: 520–525.

5- Hajizadeh M., Sokhandan-bashir N., Niknam A., and Nikkhah Sh. 2007. Optimization of Nucleic Acid Extraction and RT-PCR for Detection of Grapevine fanleaf virus Isolates from Vineyards in North-West of Iran. Journal of Agricultural Science. 16: 145-156.

6- Hewitt W.B., Raski D.J., and Goheen A.C. 1958. Nematode vector of soil-borne fanleaf virus of grapevines. Phytopathology, 48:586-595.

7- Katterman F.R., and Shattuck V.I. 1983. An effective method of DNA isolation from the mature leaves of Gossypium species that contain large amounts of phenolic terpenoids and tannins. Preparative Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 13: 347-359.

8- Loulakakis K.A. Roubelakis-Angelakis K.A. and A.K. Kanellis. 1996. Isolation of functional RNA from grapevine tissues poor in nucleic acid content. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 47: 181-185.

9- MacKenzie D.J., Mclean M.A., Mukerji S., and Green M. 1997. Improved RNA extraction from woody plants for the detection of viral pathogens by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. Plant Disease, 81:222-226.

10- Martelli G.P. 1993a. Grapevine degeneration - fanleaf. In: Martelli G.P. (ed). Graft-transmissible diseases of grapevines. Handbook for detection and diagnosis pp. 9-18. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome Italy.

11- Martelli G.P. 1993b. Graft-transmissible disease of grapevines. Handbook for detection and diagnosis. (Ed) G. P. Martelli (p. 263) FAO. Roma.

12- Naraghi-Arani P., Daubert S., and Rowhani A. 2001. Quasispecies nature of the genome of Grapevine fanleaf virus. Journal of General Virology, 82:1791-1795.

13- Noorinejad Zarqani Sh., Shamsbakhsh M., Sokhandan bashir N., and Pajoohandeh M. 2012. Identification and detection of Iranian osplates of Grapevine fanleaf virus using green-gfafting and RT-PCR. Iranian journal of Plant pathology, 48:381-391.

14- Raski D.J., Goheen A.C., Lider L.A., and Meredith C.P. 1983. Strategies against Grapevine fanleaf virus and its nematode vector. Plant Disease, 67:335-340.

15- Ritzenthaler C., Viry M., Pinck M., Margis R., Fuchs M., and Pinck L. 1991. Complete nucleotide sequence and organization of grapevine fanleaf nepovirus RNA1. Journal of General Virology, 72:2357-2365.

16- Rowhani A., Chay C., Golino D.A., and Falk W. 1993. Development of a polymerase chain reaction technique for the detection of Grapevine fanleaf virus in grapevine tissue. Phytopathology, 83:749-753.

17- Rowhani A., Manangas M.A., Lile L.S., Daubert S.D., and Golino D.A. 1995. Development of a detection system for viruses of woody plants based on PCR analysis of immobilized virions. Phytopathology, 85: 47-352.

18- Salzman R.A., Fujita T., Zhu-Salzman K., Hasegawa P.M., and Bressan R.A. 1999. An improved RNA isolation method for plant tissues containing high levels of phenolic compounds or carbohydrates. Plant Molecular Biology Reporter, 17:11-17.

19- Sanfacon H., Wellink J., Le Gall O., Karasev A., van der Vlugt R., and Wetzel T. 2009. Secoviridae: a proposed family of plant viruses within the order Picornavirales that combines the families Sequiviridae and Comoviridae, the unassigned genera Cheravirus and Sadwavirus, and the proposed genus Torradovirus. Arcives of Virology, 154:899-907.

20- Tattersall E., Ergul A.R., AlKayal A.F., DeLuc L., Cushman J.C., and Cramer G.R. 2005. Comparison of methods for isolating high-quality RNA from leaves of grapevine. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 56:400-407.

21- Tesniere C., and Vayda M.E. 1991. Method for the isolation of high-quality RNA from grape berry tissues without contaminating tannins or carbohydrates. Plant Molecular Biology Reporter, 9:242-251.

22- Vigne E., Komar V., and Fuchs M. 2004b. Field safety assessment of recombination in transgenic grapevines expressing the coat protein gene of Grapevine fanleaf virus. Transgenic Reearch, 13:165-179.

23- Vuittenz A. 1970. Fanleaf of grapevine. In: N. W. Frazier (ed). Virus disease of small fruits and grapevine. University of California, Berkeley, pp. 217-228.

24- Wetzel T.R., Jardak L., Meunier A., Ghorbel G., Reustle M., and Krczal G. 2002. Simultaneous RT-PCR detection and differentiation of arabis mosaic and Grapevine fanleaf nepovirus in grapevine with a single pair of primers. Journal of General Virology, 101: 63-69.