Plant Pathol J > Volume 41(5); 2025 > Article
Kang, Kim, Hong, and Jeong: Managing Plant Viruses in Tissue-Cultured Apple and Grapevine: Strategies for Detection and Eradication

Abstract

Producing virus-free planting materials is fundamental to sustainable fruit tree cultivation, particularly for high-value crops such as apple (Malus domestica) and grapevine (Vitis vinifera). Given the systemic and persistent nature of most plant viruses and viroids, effective elimination remains a major challenge within a tissue culture-based propagation system. Therefore, this review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of conventional virus elimination strategies—including thermotherapy, meristem and shoot tip culture, chemotherapy, and electrotherapy—while highlighting their respective strengths and limitations. Concurrently, advancements in virus detection technologies have significantly enhanced the sensitivity, speed, and precision of virus indexing, enabling the early detection of low-titer or latent infections in plantlets cultured in vitro. Besides eradication strategies, increasing attention is directed toward virus inhibition approaches. RNA interference-based methods and plant-derived antiviral agents demonstrate promising antiviral activity in tissue-cultured apples and grapevines, offering chemical-free and eco-friendly alternatives. These biologically based inhibition strategies are particularly well-suited for integration into existing micropropagation systems. Collectively, this review emphasizes the importance of combining conventional sanitation methods with next-generation diagnostics and innovative biological inhibition technologies to develop robust, scalable, and sustainable protocols for virus-free certification.

Producing virus-free fruit trees is essential for maintaining the health, productivity, and long-term sustainability of fruit tree orchards. Among the various biotic stressors, plant viruses represent one of the most significant threats to fruit crop health, leading to significant agricultural and economic losses globally (Jones and Naidu, 2019; Lefeuvre et al., 2019). Climate change can exacerbate the spread of plant viruses by influencing the population dynamics of viral vectors and modifying environmental conditions that favor viral transmission. Producing virus-free fruit trees serves as a preventive strategy to mitigate the risks associated with these emerging challenges, thereby safeguarding fruit tree health amid changing environmental conditions (Tatineni and Hein, 2023). Viral infections in fruit trees commonly manifest as stunted growth, leaf chlorosis, mosaic patterns, reduced fruit size, fruit deformation, and premature fruit drop (Martelli, 2014). These symptoms directly affect the yield and marketable quality of fruits. Conversely, virus-free fruit trees are able to express their full genetic potential, producing higher yields with consistent fruit size, color, and flavor. The absence of viral infections enhances superior crop quality, aligning with market demands and consumer preferences (Meng et al., 2017; Naidu et al., 2015). Consequently, producing virus-free seedlings is essential to enhance orchard productivity, promote economic gains for growers, and support the long-term sustainability of fruit production systems.
The cultivated apple (Malus domestica Borkh) is one of the most extensively grown fruit tree crops globally (Janick et al., 1996; Kumar et al., 2012). To date, >30 viruses and viroids have been identified as infecting apple trees, posing significant threats to their health and productivity (Xiao et al., 2022). Among the most prevalent viruses are apple chlorotic leaf spot virus (ACLSV), apple stem grooving virus (ASGV), and apple stem pitting virus (ASPV), all members of the family Betaflexiviridae (Khan et al., 2024). These viruses can induce various symptoms, including leaf chlorosis, mosaic patterns, stunted growth, and bark necrosis, as well as a significant decline in fruit quality and yield (Barba et al., 2015). Grapevine (Vitis vinifera) is cultivated for fresh consumption, winemaking, and drying, making it susceptible to >100 viruses classified into 44 genera across 21 families (Fuchs, 2020; Martelli, 2014). These viruses induce various symptoms, including leaf rolling, yellowing, vein banding, mottling, and translucent spotting, which ultimately compromise vine longevity, reduce fruit quality, lower sugar content, and increase susceptibility to environmental stresses (Fuchs, 2020). Apple viruses and grapevine viruses are primarily transmitted via vegetative propagation (grafting and cuttings), insect vectors, nematodes, and mechanical means (Martelli, 2014).
Many plant viruses pose significant challenges to fruit tree production, affecting global agriculture through multiple pathways. The persistence of these viruses leads to long-term economic burdens, requiring growers to prematurely replace orchards. Furthermore, viral diseases can cause severe yield losses, affecting the quantity and quality of fruit produced (Jones, 2021; Savary et al., 2019). With few effective curative treatments available, growers face significant challenges in managing viral infections once they establish within an orchard. The emergence of new viral species or strains—driven by factors such as climate change and increased global trade—further complicates these management efforts. Vector populations, influenced by rising temperatures and changing environmental conditions, are expanding into new regions, thereby increasing the risk of virus transmission. These challenges highlight the urgent need for effective virus detection methods, elimination strategies, and preventive approaches to maintain healthy orchards and sustainable fruit production.
Therefore, this review aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of current strategies and methodologies for producing virus-free apple and grapevine trees, with a particular emphasis on viral detection technologies and virus elimination approaches. Additionally, this review aims to highlight the challenges posed by plant viruses in fruit trees, discuss emerging diagnostic tools, and explore future perspectives for managing viral diseases amid evolving environmental conditions. By addressing these topics, the review could provide a valuable resource for researchers, growers, and policymakers working to enhance the health and productivity of fruit tree orchards.

Challenges in Managing Plant Viruses in Tissue-Cultured Fruit Plants

Systemic nature of viral infections in fruit crops

Plant viruses infect various tissues, including phloem, xylem, and meristematic regions, which complicates eradication efforts. Some viruses—such as ACLSV, grapevine leafroll-associated virus (GLRaV), and grapevine fanleaf virus (GFLV)—are known for their deep tissue infections, where viral particles persist despite intensive eradication strategies (Schellenberger et al., 2011). Moreover, fruit trees are frequently simultaneously infected with multiple viruses or viroids, such as mixed infection of GLRaVs and grapevine virus A (GVA) in grapevine or ASGV and ACLSV in apples. These co-infections may interfere with diagnostic accuracy, complicate symptom expression, and reduce the effectiveness of virus elimination strategies (Meng et al., 2017). Although meristem culture is widely used to generate virus-free plants, its effectiveness is limited against certain viruses, such as GVA and ASPV, which are capable of invading meristematic tissues (Bettoni et al., 2021). The widespread systemic distribution of these viruses further complicates eradication efforts, as removing visibly infected parts does not eliminate the virus from the entire plant (Meng et al., 2017).

Ineffectiveness of conventional eradication approaches

Eradicating viruses from apple and grapevine is particularly challenging owing to their perennial nature, systemic viral movement, and vegetative propagation. Various conventional eradication approaches—including thermotherapy, meristem culture, chemotherapy, and cryotherapy—have been employed to eliminate viral infections. However, these methods often have limited efficiency owing to incomplete virus elimination, reinfection risks, and various technical constraints (Bettoni et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2003). In addition to viruses, viroids—such as apple scar skin viroid (ASSVd) and hop stunt viroid (HSVd)—pose significant challenges in fruit tree propagation. Their small genome size and high sequence variability frequently lead to undetected infections, particularly in in vitro plantlets (EFSA Panel on Plant Health, 2019).

Risk of viral reinfection post-tissue culture

Even after successful virus elimination, fruit trees remain highly susceptible to reinfection by vectors such as aphids, whiteflies, and nematodes (Gaafar and Ziebell, 2020). Several apple-infecting viruses, including ACLSV and apple mosaic virus (ApMV), are transmitted by aphids in a non-persistent or semi-persistent manner (Pedrelli et al., 2024). GLRaVs—the causal agents of grapevine leafroll disease—are transmitted by mealybugs (Pseudococcus spp.) and soft-scale insects (Naidu et al., 2014). Some grapevine-infecting viruses, such as GFLV, are transmitted persistently by soil-inhabiting nematodes (Xiphinema spp.), which feed on grapevine roots and facilitate virus spread (Garcia et al., 2019).
Some viruses, including GFLV and ASPV, persist in contaminated plant debris, soil, and root remnants, enabling reinfection of new plantings. Once an orchard or vineyard is contaminated, virus particles remain viable in the soil and rootstock for several years, serving as a reservoir for future infections (Demangeat et al., 2005).
Fruit trees are commonly propagated vegetatively via grafting, budding, and tissue culture. When the parent plant is infected, viruses are transmitted to all propagated offspring, significantly contributing to the persistence and spread of viruses within orchards. ACLSV and ASGV can be transmitted via grafting, leading to long-term infections in apple trees (Pedrelli et al., 2024). Similarly, GLRaVs and grapevine leafroll disease are efficiently spread via infected propagation material (Maree et al., 2013).

Limitations of virus-free certification programs

Virus-free certification programs are essential for producing healthy planting materials for fruit crops. These programs typically involve virus indexing, sanitation measures, and certification of disease-free plant stocks. However, despite their essential roles, these programs face significant limitations. A major challenge is the difficulty in detecting viruses present at low titers or in latent states. ASGV and ACLSV can persist at undetectable levels in tissue-cultured apple plants, leading to false negatives during routine diagnostic testing (Beaver-Kanuya and Harper, 2020; Zhao et al., 2018). In grapevine, grapevine red blotch virus and GLRaVs often exhibit delayed symptom expression, complicating early detection efforts (Reynard et al., 2018). Consequently, virus-free certification programs require constant monitoring, frequent testing, and rigorous maintenance of mother plants, thereby making them expensive and limiting accessibility for many growers. In the United States and Europe, producing virus-free grapevine stock via certification programs requires multiple years of rigorous testing, thereby making the process costly and time-consuming (Maliogka et al., 2015a). Additionally, many developing countries lack the necessary infrastructure to implement effective virus certification programs, leading to the widespread use of uncertified planting materials. The criteria for virus-free certification programs vary across countries and regions, leading to inconsistencies in virus detection methods and certification standards. The EU and the US enforce stringent virus indexing and quarantine measures, whereas other regions may lack mandatory testing protocols, leading to the unintended spread of viruses via international trade (EFSA Panel on Plant Health, 2019). Successful implementation of virus-free propagation programs requires adequate infrastructure, trained personnel, and strong regulatory support. However, many developing countries face resource limitations that impede regular virus indexing, mother plant maintenance, or access to certified materials, thereby hindering sustainable virus management on a large scale (Mumford et al., 2016).

Conventional Biotechniques for Eradicating Virus

Shoot tip and apical meristem culture

Shoot tip and apical meristem culture are well-established techniques for producing virus-free plants. These methods are based on the principle that viruses and viroids rarely invade the meristematic region owing to its lack of vascular tissue, high metabolic activity, and rapid cell division. Shoot tip culture typically involves excising a 0.5-5.0 mm segment of the shoot apex that includes leaf primordia, whereas apical meristem culture targets a smaller region (≤0.5 mm), excluding differentiated tissues to enhance the possibility of virus elimination (Fig. 1) (Nehra and Kartha, 1994).
In apple, meristem-based techniques have demonstrated high efficacy in eliminating viruses such as ASGV, ACLSV, and ASPV. Kwon et al. (2024) reported that apical meristem culture using segments ≤0.3 mm yielded >50% virus-free plantlet regeneration. Although efficiency varied among cultivars, the results highlighted the robustness of this approach in apple virus eradication programs (Table 1).
Similarly, in grapevine, shoot tip and meristem cultures have been successfully employed to eliminate GFLV, GLRaV, and GVA. High frequencies of virus-free regenerants are achieved from meristems or shoot tips (0.1-0.3 mm) cultured under controlled in vitro conditions (Gribaudo et al., 2006; Maliogka et al., 2009), thereby demonstrating the broad applicability of this approach across diverse grapevine cultivars.
Despite their effectiveness, shoot tip and meristem culture techniques have several limitations in producing virus-free plantlets. Although smaller explants enhance virus elimination, they often lead to reduced regeneration efficiency, particularly in woody species such as apple and grapevine. Additional challenges include genotypic variability, persistence of latent virus infections, and the risk of somaclonal variation during regeneration (Li et al., 2016; Panattoni et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2016a), but shoot tip and meristem remain foundational approaches for virus eradication, valued for their chemical-free, reliable, and cost-effective attributes (Table 2).

Thermotherapy

Thermotherapy is a widely used physical method for eliminating viruses from plant tissue cultures. This technique involves exposing infected plant tissues to elevated temperatures—typically 34-42°C—for a defined period to inactivate or inhibit the replication and systemic movement of pathogens such as viruses and viroids (Fig. 1) (Wahid et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2008). Thermotherapy impedes viral invasion of meristematic tissues by inhibiting viral replication and inducing intracellular disruption of viral particles (Cooper and Walkey, 1978). Regarding the raspberry bushy dwarf virus, viral RNA within leaves and shoot tips become disorganized at 38°C, probably as a result of an increased RNA silencing mechanism (Maliogka et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2008). These findings suggest that thermotherapy can effectively inhibit viral spread into meristematic tissues by activating antiviral defense responses in plants. Thermotherapy is commonly applied to whole plants or excised shoot tips before or in combination with meristem culture, significantly increasing the possibility of obtaining virus-free plants (Díaz-Barrita et al., 2008). This technique is applied to perennial fruit crops such as apples and grapevines to eliminate systemic viral and viroid infections that negatively affect fruit quality and yield. Targeted pathogens include ASGV, ACLSV, GFLV, and GLRaVs (Hu et al., 2017; Miljanić et al., 2022). Owing to their vegetative propagation and long-life cycles, virus elimination via thermotherapy has become an essential step in producing certified virus-free plant materials. The treatment duration can vary depending on the plant species, pathogen involved, and desired outcome, typically ranging from a few days to several weeks.
In apple, combining thermotherapy with apical meristem culture has been successfully employed to eliminate several latent viruses (Table 1). A commonly used protocol involves culturing infected in vitro shoots at 38-40°C for 4-6 weeks, followed by excision and culture of the apical meristem (0.2-0.5 mm). This approach significantly enhances virus eradication while minimizing tissue damage (Wang et al., 2008). Wang et al. (2006) reported the successful elimination of ASGV and ACLSV from infected apple cultivars using thermotherapy at 38°C for 4 weeks followed by meristem culture. Khafri et al. (2022) show that thermotherapy alone, incubating apple tissue at 38°C for 28 days, successfully eliminated 60% of ACLSV infections. The effectiveness of thermotherapy appears to increase with lower initial virus titer.
Grapevines are susceptible to multiple virus infections, many of which are localized in the shoots and challenging to eliminate using conventional treatments (Table 2). Previous studies show that thermotherapy has the potential to eliminate specific viruses under optimized conditions. Panattoni et al. (2013) conducted thermotherapy on grapevine shoots infected with GVA, exposing them to 38°C for 57 days under a 16-h photoperiod. The virus was detected in approximately 60% of the treated plantlets, indicating that thermotherapy alone can be utilized for virus sterilization in grapevines. This study highlighted the advantages of thermotherapy in mass propagation systems, including reduced technical complexity and lower cost. However, the successful application of thermotherapy requires careful environmental management. Precise control of humidity and light is essential during grapevine thermotherapy to prevent stress-induced necrosis and maintain tissue viability throughout the treatment process.
Despite the potential of thermotherapy, prolonged exposure to high temperatures or excessive heat can adversely affect plant viability, leading to tissue necrosis or growth inhibition. Furthermore, the effectiveness of thermotherapy varies with virus type, plant variety, and initial virus load, necessitating careful optimization. Therefore, precise regulation of temperature and treatment duration is essential to balance effective pathogen elimination with the maintenance of plant tissue health.

Chemotherapy

Chemotherapy involves applying antiviral chemicals to eliminate plant viruses in vitro. This application is especially effective against systemic viruses that are challenging to eradicate using thermotherapy or meristem culture alone. Antiviral agents such as ribavirin, acyclovir, and amantadine have been commonly applied individually to suppress viral replication in cultured tissues (Fig. 1) (Panattoni et al., 2013).
In apple and grapevine tissue cultures, ribavirin has been extensively used as a chemotherapy agent to eliminate viruses such as ASGV, ACLSV, and grapevine fleck virus (GFkV) (Komínek et al., 2016; Kwon et al., 2024). Depending on the virus strain and concentration applied, ribavirin can significantly reduce viral titers or achieve complete eradication of the infection. Ribavirin exerts its antiviral activity through various mechanisms, including inhibiting inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase, inducing mutagenesis through the interaction of its active triphosphate form with viral RNA polymerase, or inhibiting viral RNA synthesis (Table 1) (Parker, 2005).
Hu et al. (2012) reported successful elimination of ASGV and ACLSV from infected apple shoot tips, with treatment durations of 4-6 weeks leading to virus removal rates > 70%, depending on the concentration and cultivar. Similarly, Komínek et al. (2016) treated virus-infected grapevine shoot cultures with ribavirin at concentrations of 10-25 mg/L and observed a significant reduction in virus incidence after 4-5 weeks.
Chemotherapy can be readily standardized by adjusting the concentration of antiviral chemicals in the culture medium. Nevertheless, chemotherapy has several limitations. Phytotoxic effects of these antiviral agents can cause growth inhibition, leaf chlorosis, and even plant death, especially at high concentrations or in susceptible cultivars (Magyar-Tábori et al., 2021; Mazeikiene et al., 2019). The effects can also vary significantly depending on the virus type and host genotype, with some viruses developing resistance or recovering after treatment cessation (Mazeikiene et al., 2019). Prolonged exposure to antiviral agents can induce somatic mutations or epigenetic changes, affecting crop growth in regenerated plants (Špak et al., 2010). Therefore, careful optimization of the drug type and treatment duration is essential to maximize efficacy while minimizing adverse effects on plant viability.

Cryotherapy

Cryotherapy is an advanced physical method that involves rapid freezing of plant explants in liquid nitrogen (-196°C), followed by rapid thawing, to selectively eliminate virus-infected cells while preserving meristematic tissues. This approach leverages the high freeze tolerance of meristem cells—attributable to their small size and low vacuolation—compared to that of the susceptibility of differentiated, virus-infected cells. Owing to its broad applicability, cost-effectiveness, and ability to rapidly regenerate virus-free plants, cryotherapy has emerged as a promising strategy for restoring virus-infected, high-value cultivars (Fig. 1) (Bettoni et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2009).
Bettoni et al. (2016) show that cryotherapy applied to in vitro cultured apple shoot tips infected with common viruses yielded an average of 37.5% virus-free regenerants. Beyond effective virus elimination, the method also enhanced healthy plant regeneration while reducing symptom recurrence. In grapevine, Marković et al. (2015) reported virus-free regeneration rates of >70% following cryotherapy of vitrified shoot tips infected with GLRaV-3 and GVA, highlighting the high efficiency of this technique in woody species (Table 1).
While cryotherapy has demonstrated significant efficacy in virus elimination, comparative studies with other sanitation methods remain scarce, and comprehensive agronomic evaluations of treated plants are limited. Its effectiveness may also be restricted by genotype-dependent responses within and across species. Future research should prioritize developing genotype-independent protocols and assessing the genetic stability and agronomic performance of cryo-derived plants (Bettoni et al., 2016, 2022; Wang et al., 2009).

Electrotherapy

Electrotherapy is an emerging, non-chemical technique that involves short-term plant tissue exposure to low-voltage electric fields (typically 5-20 V) to inactivate viruses or disrupt their replication. The applied electric fields may damage viral RNA or interfere with membrane-associated replication complexes (Fig. 1) (González et al., 2006; Hu et al., 2024b).
Hu et al. (2024b) achieved a 16.7% virus elimination rate from ASPV-infected apple stem tips using 50 V for 30 min, with moderate survival rates; however, excessive voltage caused browning and necrosis. Although electrotherapy has been less explored in grapevine, some in vitro studies show reduced viral titers following electric pulse treatments (Table 1) (Adil et al., 2022; Bayati et al., 2011; Hu et al., 2024b).
Major limitations of electrotherapy include limited standardization, incomplete understanding of its underlying mechanisms, and high variability in responses depending on species, cultivar, and graft type (Hu et al., 2024b; Sastry and Zitter, 2014). Precise control over equipment settings also remains underdeveloped, thereby compromising reliability. Nevertheless, electrotherapy is valued for its rapid application and chemical-free nature, and continued refinement may enhance its effectiveness in virus sanitation protocols (Khafri et al., 2022; Magyar-Tábori et al., 2021).

Combined virus elimination techniques

Producing virus-free plantlets in apple (M. domestica) and grapevine (V. vinifera) often requires integrating multiple elimination techniques to overcome challenges posed by systemic and persistent infections. While individual approaches such as thermotherapy, chemotherapy, or shoot tip culture can be effective, their combined application significantly enhances virus elimination efficiency (Tables 1 and 2).
A widely adopted combination strategy involves thermotherapy followed by meristem culture. This approach has achieved virus elimination rates of approximately 80-90% for ASPV, ACLSV, and ASGV using thermotherapy at 37-40°C for 4 weeks, followed by excision of 0.3-0.6 mm meristems (Vivek and Modgil, 2018). Similarly, GFLV, grapevine rupestris stem pitting-associated virus (GRSPaV), and GLRaV-3 were effectively eliminated from infected V. vinifera via heat treatment at 37°C for 6 weeks, followed by culture of 0.1-0.3 mm shoot tips (Maliogka et al., 2009). In this method, sublethal high temperatures inhibit viral replication, while subsequent meristem excision eliminates residual infected cells.
The synergistic application of thermotherapy and cryotherapy has also been investigated. Zhao et al. (2018) show that applying cryotherapy to thermotherapy-pretreated apple shoots significantly increases the recovery of virus-free plantlets, especially for viruses resistant to conventional treatments. Integrating thermotherapy with advanced tissue culture techniques continues to expand the applicability and efficiency of virus elimination protocols.
Combining thermotherapy with chemotherapy or cryotherapy has also been investigated to enhance virus elimination efficiency. Antiviral agents such as ribavirin—applied during or after heat treatment—can inhibit residual viral replication and increase the possibility of obtaining virus-free regenerants. Li et al. (2016) and Hu et al. (2021) show that integrating thermotherapy with ribavirin treatment enhanced virus inhibition in infected apple rootstocks and grapevine plantlets.
Combining virus elimination techniques helps overcome the inherent limitations of individual methods. Thermotherapy alone may be ineffective against heat-tolerant viruses, while meristem tip culture may fail to eliminate viruses that have penetrated deeper tissues. Cryotherapy selectively destroys virus-infected differentiated cells, but its regeneration efficiency can be genotype-dependent (Bettoni et al., 2016; Bhojwani and Dantu, 2013; Díaz-Barrita et al., 2008). Integrated approaches can enhance virus elimination, enhance plant survival, and increase regeneration success across diverse cultivars.
Several challenges remain despite these advantages. The effectiveness of combined treatments depends heavily on the precise optimization of parameters such as treatment temperature, duration, explant size, cryoprotectant exposure, and culture medium composition. Moreover, genotypic variation in thermal and freezing tolerance requires the refinement of species- and cultivar-specific protocols (Faccioli and Marani, 1998; Meng and Rowhani, 2017; Wang et al., 2014).
Difference in eradication efficiency reported among studies may be attributed to factors such as virus species (heat-tolerant vs. heat-sensitive), host cultivars and their regeneration capacity, treatment parameters (temperature regimes, duration, explant size, and chemical concentrations), and initial virus titer. For example, Panattoni et al. (2013) and Wang et al. (2008) highlighted that even under similar thermotherapy or cryotherapy protocols, success rates varied significantly across cultivars and virus types. Likewise, Hu et al. (2012) observed that efficiency in apple and grapevine eradication depended strongly on cultivar genotype and treatment duration.

Methods for Detecting Viruses in Tissue-Cultured Fruit Plants

Virus detection methodologies in tissue-cultured apple and grapevine plants have significantly advanced, enhancing accuracy and efficiency. Early approaches primarily rely on conventional diagnostic approaches, including visual symptom assessment and biological indexing, to identify viral infection. However, adopting molecular diagnostic techniques—such as nucleic acid-based amplification methods—significantly enhances the sensitivity and specificity of virus detection. More recently, advanced technologies, including high-throughput sequencing (HTS) and clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-based diagnostics, have been integrated into virus detection platforms, enabling rapid and precise viral pathogen identification in tissue-cultured fruit crops (Fig. 2) (Jiao et al., 2021; Soltani et al., 2021).

Conventional virus diagnostic methods

Visual symptom observation remains the initial step in diagnosing virus infection and serves as a primary approach for identifying infected fruit plants. In grapevines, some viruses induce characteristic symptoms, enabling preliminary diagnosis through visual inspection. For instance, GLRaV infection typically induces reddening or yellowing along leaf margins, while GFLV induces leaf malformations, such as twisting or fan-shaped malformations (Naidu et al., 2014; Zherdev et al., 2018). In such cases, visual diagnosis has been widely used as an initial screening tool before confirmatory diagnostic assays (Table 3).
Another conventionally employed method is biological testing, which involves inoculating suspected virus-infected plant tissue onto a susceptible indicator plant, followed by monitoring for viral replication and symptom expression over a defined period (Legrand, 2015). This approach has been effectively applied in tissue cultured-based virus-free plant selection for fruit crops such as grapevine and apple, as it enables infection assessment based on the response of the host to specific viruses. For instance, GFLV infection in grapevine has been evaluated by grafting onto a susceptible grapevine cultivar and monitoring symptom development (Demangeat et al., 2005). Similarly, biological indexing in apples is utilized to evaluate the pathogenicity of apple viruses using indicator plants such as Chenopodium quinoa and C. amaranticolor (Brakta et al., 2013).
However, visual symptom observation and biological testing have inherent limitations, as their effectiveness can vary with virus species and environmental conditions, and they may fail to detect latent infections (Soltani et al., 2021; Weber et al., 2002). Consequently, these methods alone are insufficient for accurate and reliable virus detection. Biological indexing, in particular, requires a prolonged incubation period for symptom development, and its reliability can be compromised by variability in indicator plant susceptibility and changing environmental conditions, leading to inconsistent outcomes.

Commonly used virus diagnostic methods

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) is a widely employed immunological technique for detecting viral infections by utilizing the specific binding interactions between viral antigens and corresponding antibodies (Table 3). As a protein-based detection method, ELISA complements nucleic acid-based diagnostic approaches (Torre et al., 2020). ELISA is employed in apple tissue culture to detect several viruses, including ACLSV, ApMV, ASGV, and ASPV (Hu et al., 2015b; Khafri et al., 2022). Similarly, ELISA is widely applied in grapevine to confirm infections caused by GFLV and GLRaVs (Gambino et al., 2006).
Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is a highly reliable molecular diagnostic technique used to detect RNA viruses by converting viral RNA into complementary DNA (cDNA), followed by amplification of target gene sequences to confirm viral presence (Table 3) (Bachman, 2013). In apple and grapevine tissue culture studies, RT-PCR is commonly employed in virus-free plant production to detect viral and viroid infections and to evaluate the effectiveness of virus elimination techniques. For instance, studies targeting the elimination of ACLSV, ASGV, ApMV, and ASPV using cryotherapy and thermotherapy combined with shoot culture have employed RT-PCR to assess virus eradication efficiency (Liu et al., 2021; Romadanova et al., 2016). A similar approach has been applied in grapes, where plants infected with GFLV, GVA, GLRaV-1, GLRaV-3, and GFkV underwent somatic embryogenesis subculturing. RT-PCR was used to verify the rate of virus reduction across successive generations (Gambino et al., 2006).
Quantitative RT-PCR (qRT-PCR) is a molecular diagnostic technique related to RT-PCR but incorporates real-time fluorescence detection to simultaneously detect and quantify viral RNA (Malan, 2009). By detecting fluorescence signals during amplification, qRT-PCR provides precise, real-time quantification of viral load. This technique is widely used alongside RT-PCR to verify virus-free status in tissue culture-based plant production. A key advantage of qRT-PCR is its ability to deliver more precise quantification of virus elimination efficiency (Hu et al., 2024a). For instance, in apple tissue culture research, qRT-PCR has been employed to evaluate the elimination efficiency of ASGV, ACLSV, ASPV, and ApMV (Beaver-Kanuya and Harper, 2020; Chen et al., 2014; Nabi et al., 2023). Similarly, in grapevine tissue culture, qRT-PCR has been employed to quantify the reduction of GLRaVs, GFkV, and GRSPaV (Hu et al., 2021). By integrating qRT-PCR, the effectiveness of virus elimination methods—such as thermotherapy and meristem culture—can be quantitatively analyzed, making it an essential tool in tissue culture-based virus-free plant production.
Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) is a nucleic acid amplification technique that enables rapid and specific detection of target DNA or RNA sequences under isothermal conditions. Contrary to conventional PCR, which requires thermal cycling, LAMP utilizes a strand-displacing DNA polymerase along with four to six specifically designed primers to initiate and accelerate amplification at a constant temperature (typically 60-65°C). The LAMP reaction proceeds via self-priming loop structures, producing large quantities of amplified DNA with a characteristic ladder-like pattern. This method generates turbidity or colorimetric changes from accumulated reaction byproducts, enabling visual detection without requiring electrophoresis or complex instrumentation. Owing to its high specificity, efficiency, and rapid reaction time, LAMP is widely adopted in virus diagnostics. For virus-free plant screening, LAMP offers several advantages over RT-PCR and qRT-PCR, including reduced reliance on specialized equipment and lower experimental costs, making it especially well-suited for field diagnostics (Zherdev et al., 2018). In apple and grapevine tissue culture studies, LAMP has been successfully applied to detect ASGV and GLRaV-3, demonstrating its efficacy as a practical and efficient virus detection method (Table 3) (Walsh and Pietersen, 2013; Zhao et al., 2014).
Recombinase polymerase amplification (RPA) is an isothermal nucleic acid amplification technique designed to overcome the limitations of conventional PCR methods, especially the need for thermal cycling. RPA enables rapid detection of viral DNA or RNA (via cDNA) from infected tissues at a constant temperature range of 25-42°C, with amplification completed in as little as 15 min (Table 3) (Bakheit et al., 2008). RPA relies on recombinase proteins (usvX and usvY) and single-strand DNA-binding proteins (gp32) to facilitate primer binding and homologous sequence recognition on the target DNA. Subsequently, a mesophilic DNA polymerase—typically Bacillus subtilis DNA polymerase I—extends the primers, synthesizing new DNA strands complementary to the target sequence (Piepenburg et al., 2006). Recent studies have demonstrated the successful application of RPA for diagnosing viral infections in apple and grapevine trees. RPA assays have been developed for detecting ASPV and ASSVd in apple trees. Additionally, in grapevine, RPA assays have been developed and successfully applied to field samples, offering a rapid and sensitive alternative to conventional diagnostic methods (Kim et al., 2019, 2021). These findings indicate that RPA is an effective diagnostic tool in virus-free plant production.

Next-Generation Approaches for Advancing Virus-Free Fruit Plant Production

Antiviral agents for virus eradication

RNA interference (RNAi) is a sequence-specific gene silencing mechanism mediated by double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) that directs the degradation of target messenger RNAs, thereby suppressing gene expression. In plants, RNAi is extensively applied to control viral, fungal, and insect threats through transgenic approaches and the exogenous application of synthetic dsRNA (Germing et al., 2025). Owing to its high specificity and eco-friendly profile, RNAi is increasingly recognized as a next-generation strategy for managing viruses in horticultural crops such as grapevine and apple.
Recent advancements in RNAi technology have demonstrated its potential for controlling fungal pathogens in grapevine. For example, Qiao et al. (2023) employed spray-induced gene silencing (SIGS) to deliver dsRNA targeting Botrytis cinerea via artificial vesicles, thereby enhancing dsRNA uptake and stability in grape leaves and berries. Although this study targeted a fungal pathogen, the compatibility of SIGS platforms with grapevine tissues suggests their potential adaptation for virus suppression within in vitro system, supporting future virus-free plant production strategies (Fig. 3).
In apples, RNAi-based studies show that exogenously applied dsRNA can be systemically delivered and stably maintained in woody perennial species (Wise et al., 2022). Trunk injection of dsRNA into mature apple trees leads to its persistence in leaf tissue for up to 141 days under field conditions. Although these RNAi approaches have not been applied in tissue culture for virus elimination, current findings indicate their potential to enhance virus-free plant production when combined with in vitro propagation techniques.
Garlic (Allium sativum) is renowned for its broad-spectrum therapeutic properties, including antiviral activity against animal and plant viruses (Tesfaye, 2021; Wang et al., 2020). In in vitro-grown grapevine plantlets (“Summer Black”) naturally infected with GLRaV-2 and GFkV, treatment with diluted garlic extract reduced viral RNA levels to 22-27% for GLRaV-2 and 20-30% for GFkV at 10 days post-treatment, as measured by RT-PCR. While the inhibitory effect diminished over time, it persisted up to 20 days (Wang et al., 2020). More recently, treatment of grapevine plantlets infected with HSVd using garlic extract results in a viroid reduction rate of up to 74.45%. Nanopore sequencing revealed structural alternations in the HSVd genome, suggesting that garlic-derived bioactive compounds may directly disrupt viroid integrity (Fig. 3) (Kang and Jeong, 2025).
Glycyrrhizin—a bioactive compound derived from licorice (Glycyrrhiza spp.)—has demonstrated antiviral activity against various human and animal viruses (Zuo et al., 2023). Glycyrrhizin combined with quercetin (0.1 mM) was evaluated for its antiviral effect against ASGV in apple tissue culture. Although initial RT-PCR results showed virus absence in two of eight explants, subsequent immunocapture (IC)/RT-PCR shows that all explants remained infected, suggesting that glycyrrhizin alone is insufficient for effective ASGV elimination in apple tissues (James et al., 1997).
While glycyrrhizin showed only partial suppression of ASGV without achieving complete virus elimination, recent research has identified more effective herbal extracts. Extracts of Hypericum perforatum (HPR) and Pelargonium sidoides were evaluated for their antiviral efficacy against ACLSV and ASGV in apple explants. Treatment with HPR reduced viral load by up to 33.5% in certain cultivars, as confirmed by ELISA and RT-PCR analyses. Although higher concentrations induced phytotoxic effects, lower concentrations preserved explant viability while providing partial suppression. These findings suggest that selected plant-derived extracts may offer more effective alternatives to earlier natural compounds for managing viruses in apple tissue culture (Masoudi et al., 2024).

Toward a next-generation diagnostic framework

HTS—commonly referred to as next-generation sequencing—has emerged as a powerful tool for detecting viral pathogens in tissue-cultured apple and grapevine plants. HTS enables comprehensive nucleic acid analysis, enabling the identification of known and novel viruses with high sensitivity and specificity. By simultaneously sequencing millions of DNA or RNA fragments in parallel, HTS generates vast datasets that can be assembled and analyzed to detect the presence of viral genomes. This technology bypasses the need for prior knowledge of target sequences, making it especially valuable for identifying unexpected or novel pathogens (Liu et al., 2018; Maliogka et al., 2018).
In apple tissue cultures, HTS has been employed to detect various viral infections. For instance, in a study where high-throughput RNA sequencing was utilized, multiple viruses and viroids were identified across apple cultivars, including previously undetected pathogens. This comprehensive detection capability highlights the potential of HTS in producing virus-free apple plants (Ben Mansour et al., 2025; Liu et al., 2018). Similarly, HTS is effectively applied to grapevine tissue cultures. Several studies demonstrated the use of HTS to analyze the virome of grapevine samples, revealing a complex assemblage of viral pathogens. The sensitivity of HTS in detecting these viruses highlights its value for monitoring and managing viral infections in grapevine propagation materials (Turcsan et al., 2020). While HTS offers numerous advantages, factors such as cost, data analysis complexity, as well as the need for specialized equipment and expertise may influence its adoption in routine diagnostics. However, as HTS technology becomes more accessible and affordable, its integration into virus-free certification programs for apple and grapevine tissue cultures is expected to increase.
Nanopore sequencing has emerged as a transformative technology in genomics, offering real-time, long-read sequencing capabilities. Its application in plant virology, especially for diagnosing virus-like symptoms in plants, offers clear advantages over conventional diagnostic approaches (Lee et al., 2022a). This technology functions by translocating nucleic acid molecules via a biological or synthetic nanopore embedded in a membrane. As individual nucleotides pass through the pore, they induce characteristic disruptions in the ionic current, which are measured and decoded to determine the nucleotide sequence. This approach enables direct sequencing of native DNA or RNA strands without requiring amplification or chemical labeling, thereby preserving genetic integrity and enabling the detection of base modifications (Wang et al., 2021).
Nanopore sequencing offers several advantages that make it a powerful tool for detecting viruses in tissue-cultured plants. A major benefit is its real-time data acquisition capability, which enables the immediate generation of sequencing data. This enables rapid detection of viral pathogens and supports timely decision-making in plant health management (Marcolungo et al., 2022; Sun et al., 2022). Additionally, its long-read capability enables the resolution of complex genomic regions, structural variants, and full-length viral genomes, thereby enhancing the precision of virus identification. Another significant advantage is its portability—compact devices such as Oxford Nanopore Technologies' MinION enable on-site sequencing in field settings—enabling real-time monitoring and rapid decision-making (Liefting et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2022). Furthermore, nanopore sequencing requires minimal sample preparation, as it allows the direct sequencing of nucleic acids without the need for extensive processing or amplification. This reduces biases introduced during amplification (Zheng et al., 2023). Collectively, these features will enhance the efficiency, accessibility, and accuracy of virus detection, making nanopore sequencing a valuable tool for virus-free plant production in tissue culture systems. Despite its numerous advantages, nanopore sequencing also presents certain limitations that warrant consideration. A key challenge is its higher raw read error rates than that of other sequencing platforms, necessitating the application of robust bioinformatics pipelines and, in some cases, integrating complementary sequencing technologies to enhance accuracy. Throughput limitations also persist, as the sequencing capacity of current nanopore technology is generally lower than that of HTS platforms, potentially limiting its application in large-scale studies. Another key limitation is the complexity of data analysis—interpreting nanopore sequencing data requires advanced bioinformatics tools and expertise—posing challenges for laboratories with limited computational resources (Delahaye and Nicolas, 2021). While ongoing technological advancements are addressing these issues, researchers should carefully consider these limitations when integrating nanopore sequencing into virus detection and plant health monitoring workflows.
Recent studies have demonstrated the potential of nanopore sequencing for detecting viruses in apple and grapevine plants, although its application in tissue-cultured plantlets remains an emerging area of interest. Regarding virus-free plant production, nanopore sequencing has been employed to evaluate the effectiveness of garlic extract treatment in grapevines infected with HSVd. This approach enables whole-genome sequencing and detailed mutation analysis, demonstrating its value in assessing the effectiveness of virus elimination during the virus-free plant production process (Kang and Jeong, 2025). Adopting nanopore sequencing in virus-free certification programs holds the potential to enhance the health and quality of tissue-cultured plants, thereby supporting sustainable practices in apple and grapevine cultivation.
Digital PCR (dPCR) is a highly sensitive molecular technique that partitions nucleic acid samples into thousands of individual reaction compartments, each undergoing PCR amplification. This partitioning ensures that each compartment contains zero or one target molecule, enabling absolute quantification of viral nucleic acids without reliance on standard curves. Following amplification, the presence or absence of fluorescence signals in each compartment is analyzed to determine the precise concentration of the target virus (Tan et al., 2023). dPCR offers several key advantages, including absolute quantification that enables precise viral load measurements without relying on external calibration curves; high sensitivity and accuracy, facilitating the detection of low-abundance viral genomes and identification of latent infections and low-titer viruses; and increased resistance to PCR inhibitors, reducing the effect of sample impurities and ensuring reliable results even in complex plant matrices. However, PCR also has certain limitations, such as higher costs, longer processing times, and increased technical complexity than that of qPCR.
While studies on dPCR-based virus detection in tissue-cultured apple and grapevine plants are still emerging, the superior sensitivity and precision of this technique position it as a highly valuable tool in this field. dPCR is especially advantageous for virus-free plant certification programs, as it can enable the accurate detection of low viral loads in tissue-cultured plantlets before commercialization. For instance, dPCR has been successfully employed to detect and quantify viruses in woody perennial crops. It has enabled absolute quantification of ACLSV, ASGV, and ASPV, thereby enhancing the accuracy of virus detection in propagation materials (Kim et al., 2022, 2023). Within virus-free plant production, dPCR has been employed to evaluate HSVd inhibition following garlic extract treatment in micropropagated grapevine plants (Kang and Jeong, 2025).
CRISPR-Cas12a—also known as Cpf1—has emerged as a transformative tool in molecular diagnostics, especially for detecting plant viruses across various crops, including fruit trees. This system offers distinct advantages over conventional diagnostic methods owing to its unique mechanism and high adaptability. CRISPR-Cas12a functions as an RNA-guided endonuclease that specifically recognizes and binds to DNA sequences complementary to its CRISPR RNA. Upon target recognition, Cas12a cleaves the target DNA sequence and simultaneously exhibits nonspecific single-stranded DNase activity, enabling collateral cleavage of nearby single-stranded DNA molecules. This collateral activity forms the basis for sensitive and specific detection assays, where the cleavage of labeled reporter molecules generates a detectable signal, indicating the presence of the target viral DNA or RNA (Aman et al., 2020). The CRISPR-Cas12a-based detection platform offers several advantages, establishing it as a powerful tool for virus diagnostics in tissue-cultured apple and grapevine plants. It delivers high sensitivity and specificity through precise recognition of target nucleotide sequences, thereby minimizing false positives and enhancing diagnostic accuracy (Ali and Mahfouz, 2021; Sharma et al., 2021). Additionally, when combined with isothermal amplification techniques such as RPA or LAMP, it enables rapid virus identification within 20-60 min. Another key advantage of this platform is its minimal equipment requirements; the isothermal nature of the amplification process eliminates the need for sophisticated thermal cyclers, making it highly suitable for point-of-care testing and field diagnostics (Mahas et al., 2021). However, certain limitations should be acknowledged. The technique typically requires a pre-amplification step to enhance sensitivity, which can add complexity to assay design. Temperature sensitivity remains a challenge, as the enzymatic activity of Cas12a is influenced by reaction conditions, necessitating precise temperature control to maintain accuracy (Bhat et al., 2022). Despite these challenges, the distinctive benefits of CRISPR-Cas12a highlight its potential as a highly sensitive, rapid, and field-deployable tool for detecting viruses in tissue-cultured fruit plants. Within the tissue-cultured apple plants, CRISPR-Cas12a has been effectively employed to detect multiple RNA viruses and viroids. Jiao et al. (2021) developed a visual assay that integrates CRISPR-Cas12a with RPA, enabling the simultaneous detection of several pathogens directly in field conditions. This method demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity, producing results consistent with that of conventional RT-PCR, thereby validating its effectiveness for in-field diagnostics (Sharma et al., 2021). In grapevine, applying CRISPR-Cas12a for viral detection has been explored. A CRISPR-Cas12a-based detection assay has been developed for grapevine red-blotch virus, enabling rapid and sensitive identification of viral infections in vineyards (Li et al., 2019). Integrating CRISPR-Cas12a into virus detection workflows for tissue-cultured apple and grapevine plants holds significant promise. Its adaptability, combined with advancements in isothermal amplification techniques, supports the development of portable, user-friendly diagnostic platforms. These innovations are poised to enhance early virus detection and management, thereby enhancing the quality and yield of these economically important crops.

Conclusions and Prospects

Producing virus-free apple and grapevine plants through tissue cultured-based approaches has become an essential strategy for ensuring the sustainability of high-value fruit crops. Since viruses in these perennial plants are typically systemic and persist within vegetative propagation materials, their effective elimination remains a significant challenge (Maliogka et al., 2015a). Conventional eradication techniques—including thermotherapy, meristem culture, chemotherapy, and cryotherapy—have demonstrated varying levels of effectiveness. However, their effectiveness is often limited by incomplete virus elimination, reinfection risks, and labor-intensive procedures (Panattoni et al., 2013). Consequently, the demand for advanced virus inhibition strategies has increased, necessitating the integration of innovative molecular approaches into tissue-cultured-based virus management programs.
Recent advancements in plant-derived antiviral compounds and RNAi-based strategies have significantly transformed virus mitigation strategies in tissue-cultured fruit trees. Applying plant-derived antiviral agents—such as garlic extract and other bioactive phytochemicals—has shown promise in inhibiting viral replication and lowering viral titers in infected tissues (Kang and Jeong, 2025). These naturally occurring compounds offer an eco-friendly and non-transgenic alternative for virus inhibition, potentially alleviating regulatory hurdles and public concerns associated with genetic modifications. Concurrently, RNAi has emerged as a precise and highly effective tool for post-transcriptional gene silencing, wherein dsRNA effectively targets and degrades viral transcripts, thereby preventing systemic infection in plant hosts (Dalakouras et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2016b). Studies show that RNAi-based virus inhibition in tissue-cultured apples and grapevines holds significant potential for long-term virus management, especially when combined with virus-indexing protocols and strict phytosanitary measures. For RNA-based virus inhibition, designing highly specific dsRNA constructs that maximize viral inhibition while minimizing off-target effects remains a key objective (Zaidi et al., 2023). Emerging delivery technologies—such as nanoparticle-based systems—may enhance the efficiency and stability of RNAi applications in plants (Das and Sherif, 2020; Mitter et al., 2017).
Despite these advancements, several inherent challenges persist in integrating virus inhibition technologies into commercial tissue culture workflows. A primary concern is the risk of viral reinfection following successful virus elimination. Once virus-free apple and grapevine plants are transferred from in vitro conditions to greenhouse or field environments, they may remain susceptible to reinfection via insect vectors and other vector-mediated transmission pathways (Naidu et al., 2014). Additionally, certain viruses—such as ACLSV and GLRaVs—exhibit low replication rates and latent infection, which complicates their detection during early diagnostic stages (Beaver-Kanuya and Harper, 2020; Maliogka et al., 2015b). The ability of these viruses to integrate into host genomes or persist below detection thresholds highlights the need for enhanced molecular diagnostics to ensure comprehensive virus elimination.
To address these limitations, integrating HTS, dPCR, and CRISPR-based diagnostics has enabled more precise, sensitive, and rapid virus detection in tissue-cultured fruit plants (Trippa et al., 2024). HTS offers unbiased, comprehensive analysis of viral populations, identifying known and novel viral pathogens within apple and grapevine germplasm. dPCR offers absolute quantification of viral genomes, enabling researchers to monitor virus inhibition efficacy with unparalleled precision (Kim et al., 2023; Lee et al., 2022a). The emergence of CRISPR-Cas-based detection platforms has further transformed virus diagnostics by providing highly specific and field-deployable solutions for early virus screening (Jiao et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2024). However, the widespread adoption of these technologies remains constrained by high operational costs, complex bioinformatics demands, and limited accessibility in developing regions.
Equally important is the harmonization of virus inhibition strategies with established disease management frameworks. Integrating advanced molecular diagnostics, antiviral agents, and RNAi technologies into virus-free certification programs will significantly enhance the reliability of tissue-cultured planting materials (Maliogka et al., 2015b). Strengthening quarantine protocols, sanitation measures, and vector control strategies will be essential to prevent viral reinfection following eradication. Additionally, developing portable and cost-effective virus detection kits may enable rapid screening in commercial nurseries, thereby reducing the risk of widespread viral outbreaks in orchards and vineyards.
In conclusion, the long-term sustainability of virus-free apple and grapevine production depends on the continued evolution of virus detection, inhibition, and management technologies. By combining high-throughput diagnostics, plant-derived antiviral compounds, and RNAi-based strategies, researchers and industry stakeholders can develop a more resilient and sustainable framework for controlling plant viruses in tissue-cultured fruit crops. As technological innovations advance, the synergy between molecular biology, plant pathology, and agricultural biotechnology holds tremendous potential to transform virus-free plant production, ultimately securing the future of the global apple and grapevine industries.

Notes

Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Acknowledgments

This work was carried out the support of “Research Program for Agriculture Science and Technology Development (Project No. RS-2025-02263567)” Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea.

Fig. 1
Schematic overview of virus elimination and regeneration of virus-free plants using shoot tip culture combined with in vitro therapies. Virus-infected fruit trees undergo shoot tip culture followed by one or a combination of virus eradication treatments, including thermotherapy, cryotherapy, electrotherapy, or combined technique. Treated shoot tips are then cultured via successive in vitro subcultures (generations) to regenerate virus-free plants. Virus-free status is confirmed before transferring the regenerated plants to in vivo conditions.
ppj-rw-07-2025-0092f1.jpg
Fig. 2
Overview of diagnostic methods for selecting and confirming virus-free tissue-cultured plants. This schematic illustrates various serological and molecular diagnostic tools utilized to detect viruses and viroids during the production of virus-free fruit plantlets. These methods are applied at various stages of tissue culture and regeneration to ensure precise identification and selection of virus-free individuals. CRISPR, clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats; ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; LAMP, loop-mediated isothermal amplification; RPA, recombinase polymerase amplification.
ppj-rw-07-2025-0092f2.jpg
Fig. 3
Schematic representation of virus elimination in fruit tree tissue culture using RNAi and antiviral agents. Applying exogenous dsRNA or antiviral compounds to in vitro-grown fruit tree plantlets triggers multiple antiviral defense mechanisms. dsRNA is processed via Dicer-like enzymes into siRNA, which are loaded into the RISC to guide sequence-specific degradation of viral or viroid RNAs. Concurrently, antiviral agents may inhibit viral infection by disrupting the viral capsid, preventing viral uncoating, denaturing viral proteins, or activating plant immune response, including PR gene expression and hypersensitive response. These combined mechanisms contribute to the effective selection and regeneration of virus-free plantlets during tissue culture. dsRNA, double-stranded RNA; RNAi, RNA interference; siRNA, small interference RNA; RISC, RNA-induced silencing complex.
ppj-rw-07-2025-0092f3.jpg
Table 1
Eradication of viruses and viroids from apple plantlets using traditional eradication methods
Target virus Species Utilized technology Efficiency (%) Reference

Che T E Cry STC ApM
Apple stem pitting virus (ASPV) Malus pumila - - - - - 35 Kwon et al. (2019)
- - - - - 15
- - - - - 60
Malus pumila - - - - 0 Hu et al. (2024b)
- - - - - 0
Apple root stock M26 - - - - - 100 Li et al. (2016)
Apple root stock M9 - - - - - 80-85
“Marubakaido” M. prunifolia apple rootstock - - - - - 70 Souza et al. (2020)
Malus × domestica Borkh - - - - 90.6 Hu et al. (2018)
Apple stem grooving virus (ASGV) Malus pumila - - - - - 25 Kwon et al. (2019)
- - - - - 10
- - - - - 50
- - - - - 47.7 Hu et al. (2022)
Malus pumila - - - - 60 Hu et al. (2024b)
- - - - - 0
“Marubakaido” M. prunifolia apple rootstock - - - - - 100 Souza et al. (2020)
Malus × domestica Borkh - - - - 88.9 Hu et al. (2015a)
Iranian apples - - - - - 42 Masoudi et al. (2024)
- - - - - 41
Apple mosaic virus (ApMV) Malus × domestica Borkh - - - - - 100 Lizárraga et al. (2017)
- - - - 66.7 Hu et al. (2015a)
Apple chlorotic leafspot virus (ACLSV) Malus × domestica - - - - - 92 Lizárraga et al. (2017)
Malus pumila - - - - - 30 Kwon et al. (2019)
- - - - - 20
- - - - - 40
Malus pumila - - - - - 0 Hu et al. (2024b)
- - - - 0
Malus × domestica Borkh - - - - 84.7 Hu et al. (2015a)
Iranian apples - - - - - 42 Masoudi et al. (2024)
- - - - - 20
Apple scar skin viroid (ASSVd) Malus pumila - - - - - 0 Hu et al. (2022)
Malus pumila - - - - - 0 Hu et al. (2024b)
- - - - 0
Malus × domestica Borkh - - - - 76.5 Hu et al. (2015a)
Apple rubbery wood virus 2 (ARWV-2) Chinese-grown apple - - - - - 44.3 Hu et al. (2024a)
Apple necrotic mosaic virus (ApNMV) Potted apple from China - - - - 89.5 Hu et al. (2019)

Che, chemotherapy; T, thermotherapy; E, electrotherapy; Cry, cryotherapy; STC, shoot tip culture; ApM, apical meristem culture.

Table 2
Eradication of viruses and viroids from grapevine plantlets using traditional eradication methods
Target virus Species Utilized technology Efficiency (%) Reference

Che T E Cry STC ApM
Grapevine virus A (GVA) Vitis vinifera - - - - - 42 Bayati et al. (2011)
- - - - - 40
Vitis berlandieri × riparia Kober 5BB - - - - - 70.2 Panattoni and Triolo (2010)
Vitis vinifera L. cv. Bruti - - - - - 97 ± 3 Wang et al. (2003)
Grapevine fleck virus (GFkV) Vitis vinifera L. - - - - - 100 Gută et al. (2014)
Vitis champini - - - - - 57.1 Hu et al. (2021)
- - - - - 79.5
- - - - 100
Vitis berlandieri × riparia Kober 5BB - - - - - 0 Panattoni and Triolo (2010)
Vitis vinifera L. - - - - 100 Miljanić et al. (2022)
Grapevine leafroll-associated virus 3 (GLRaV-3) Vitis champini - - - - 42.9 Hu et al. (2020)
Vitis berlandieri × riparia Kober 5BB - - - - - 24.7 Panattoni and Triolo (2010)
Vitis vinifera L. - - - - 100 Miljanić et al. (2022)
Vitis vinifera - - - - 100 Bi et al. (2018)
Vitis vinifera × Vitis labrusca - - - - 100
Vitis pseudoreticulata - - - - 100
Vitis vinifera L. Cabernet Sauvignon - - - - - 100 Marković et al. (2015)
Grapevine leafroll-associated virus Pr (GLRaV-Pr) Vitis vinifera L. Mantilaria - - - - - 92.45 Maliogka et al. (2009)
Vitis vinifera L. Prevezaniko - - - - - 89.29
Grapevine rupestris stem pitting-associated virus (GRSPaV) Vitis vinifera L. Mantilaria - - - - - 39.62
Vitis vinifera L. Prevezaniko - - - - - 92.85
Vitis champini - - - - - 13.6 Hu et al. (2021)
- - - - - 35.7
- - - - 100
Vitis vinifera L. - - - - 100 Miljanić et al. (2022)
Grapevine fanleaf virus (GFLV) Vitis berlandieri × Vitis riparia Kober 5BB - - - - - 100 Panattoni and Triolo (2010)
Vitis vinifera L. - - - - 100 Miljanić et al. (2022)
Vitis vinifera L. Chardonnay - - - - - 77.8 Marković et al. (2015)

Che, chemotherapy; T, thermotherapy; E, electrotherapy; Cry, cryotherapy; STC, shoot tip culture; ApM, apical meristem culture.

Table 3
Diagnostic methods for verifying virus-free plantlets
Target fruit Target virus Diagnosis method Reference
Apple ACLSV, ASGV, ASPV ELISA, RT-PCR Hu et al. (2015b)
ACLSV, ASGV, ASPV, ApMV RT-PCR Romadanova et al. (2016)
ACLSV, ASGV, ASPV RT-PCR Liu et al. (2021)
ACLSV, ApMV, TRSV ELISA, RT-PCR Khafri et al. (2022)
ASGV qRT-PCR Chen et al. (2014)
ACLSV, ASGV, ASPV, ASSVd RT-PCR, qRT-PCR Hu et al. (2024b)
ACLSV, ASPV, ApMV qRT-PCR Beaver-Kanuya and Harper (2020)
ACLSV, ASGV, ASPV HTS Liu et al. (2018)
ASGV RT-ddPCR Kim et al. (2022)
ASPV RT-ddPCR Kim et al. (2023)
ASSVd RT-ddPCR Lee et al. (2022b)
Grapevine GFLV, GVA, GLRaV-1, GLRaV-3, GFkV ELISA, RT-PCR Gambino et al. (2006)
GFLV RT-PCR Gambino et al. (2009)
GLRaV, GRSPaV RT-PCR Maliogka et al. (2009)
GFkV, GRSPaV qRT-PCR Hu et al. (2021)
GFkV, GRVFV, GSyV-1, GRSPaV, GVT, GPGV, HSVd, GYSVd-1 Small RNA HTS Turcsan et al. (2020)
HSVd dPCR, Nanopore sequencing Kang and Jeong (2025)

ACLSV, apple chlorotic leaf spot virus; ASGV, apple stem grooving virus; ASPV, apple stem pitting virus; ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; RT-PCR, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction; ApMV, apple mosaic virus; TRSV, tobacco ringspot virus; qRT-PCR, quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction; ASSVd, apple scar skin viroid; HTS, high-throughput sequencing; RT-ddPCR, reverse transcription droplet digital PCR; GFLV, grapevine fanleaf virus; GVA, grapevine virus A; GLRaV, grapevine leafroll-associated virus; GFkV, grapevine fleck virus; GRSPaV, grapevine rupestris stem pitting-associated virus; GRVFV, grapevine rupestris vein feathering virus; GSyV-1, grapevine Syrah virus 1; GVT, grapevine virus T; GPGV, grapevine Pinot gris virus; HSVd, hop stunt viroid; GYSVd-1, grapevine yellow speckle viroid 1; dPCR, digital PCR.

References

Adil, S., Singh, V., Anjum, A. and Quraishi, A. 2022. A mini-review on electrotherapeutic strategy for the plant viral elimination. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 150:41-55.
crossref pdf
Ali, Z. and Mahfouz, M. M. 2021. CRISPR/Cas systems versus plant viruses: engineering plant immunity and beyond. Plant Physiol. 186:1770-1785.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
Aman, R., Mahas, A., Marsic, T., Hassan, N. and Mahfouz, M. M. 2020. Efficient, rapid, and sensitive detection of plant RNA viruses with one-pot RT-RPA-CRISPR/Cas12a assay. Front. Microbiol. 11:610872.
crossref pmid pmc
Bachman, J. 2013. Reverse-transcription PCR (RT-PCR). Methods Enzymol. 530:67-74.
crossref pmid
Bakheit, M. A., Torra, D., Palomino, L. A., Thekisoe, O. M. M., Mbati, P. A., Ongerth, J. and Karanis, P. 2008. Sensitive and specific detection of Cryptosporidium species in PCR-negative samples by loop-mediated isothermal DNA amplification and confirmation of generated LAMP products by sequencing. Vet. Parasitol. 158:11-22.
crossref pmid
Barba, M., Ilardi, V. and Pasquini, G. 2015. Control of pome and stone fruit virus diseases. Adv. Virus Res. 91:47-83.
crossref pmid
Bayati, S., Shams-Bakhsh, M. and Moieni, A. 2011. Elimination of grapevine virus A (GVA) by cryotherapy and electrotherapy. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 13:443-450.
Beaver-Kanuya, E. and Harper, S. J. 2020. Development of RT-qPCR assays for the detection of three latent viruses of pome. J. Virol. Methods 278:113836.
crossref pmid
Ben Mansour, K., Koloniuk, I., Brožová, J., Komínková, M., Přibylová, J., Sarkisova, T., Sedlák, J., Špak, J. and Komínek, P. 2025. High-throughput sequencing reveals apple virome diversity and novel viruses in the Czech Republic. Viruses 17:650.
crossref pmid pmc
Bettoni, J. C., Costa, M. D., Gardin, J. P. P., Kretzschmar, A. A. and Pathirana, R. 2016. Cryotherapy: a new technique to obtain grapevine plants free of viruses. Rev. Bras. Frutic. 38:e-833.
crossref
Bettoni, J. C., Fazio, G., Costa, L. C., Hurtado-Gonzales, O. P., Rwahnih, M. A., Nedrow, A. and Volk, G. M. 2022. Thermotherapy followed by shoot tip cryotherapy eradicates latent viruses and apple hammerhead viroid from in vitro apple rootstocks. Plants 11:582.
crossref pmid pmc
Bettoni, J. C., Marković, Z., Bi, W., Volk, G. M., Matsumoto, T. and Wang, Q.-C. 2021. Grapevine shoot tip cryopreservation and cryotherapy: secure storage of disease-free plants. Plants 10:2190.
crossref pmid pmc
Bettoni, J. C., Souza, J. A., Volk, G. M., Costa, M. D., da Silva, F. N. and Kretzschmar, A. A. 2019. Eradication of latent viruses from apple cultivar ‘Monalisa’ shoot tips using droplet-vitrification cryotherapy. Sci. Hortic. 250:12-18.
crossref
Bhat, A. I., Aman, R. and Mahfouz, M. 2022. Onsite detection of plant viruses using isothermal amplification assays. Plant Biotechnol. J. 20:1859-1873.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
Bhojwani, S. S. and Dantu, P. K. 2013. Production of virus-free plants. In: Plant tissue culture: an introductory text, eds. by S. S. Bhojwani and P. K. Dantu, pp. 227-243. Springer, New Delhi, India.
crossref pmid
Bi, W.-L., Hao, X.-Y., Cui, Z.-H., Pathirana, R., Volk, G. M. and Wang, Q.-C. 2018. Shoot tip cryotherapy for efficient eradication of grapevine leafroll-associated virus-3 from diseased grapevine in vitro plants. Ann. Appl. Biol. 173:261-270.
crossref pdf
Brakta, A., Thakur, P. D. and Handa, A. 2013. First report of apple top working disease caused by viruses (apple stem grooving virus, apple chlorotic leaf spot virus, and apple stem pitting virus) in apple in India. Plant Dis. 97:1001.
crossref pmid
Chen, S., Ye, T., Hao, L., Chen, H., Wang, S., Fan, Z., Guo, L. and Zhou, T. 2014. Infection of apple by apple stem grooving virus leads to extensive alterations in gene expression patterns but no disease symptoms. PLoS ONE 9:e95239.
crossref pmid pmc
Cooper, V. C. and Walkey, D. G. A. 1978. Thermal inactivation of cherry leaf roll virus in tissue cultures of Nicotiana rustica raised from seeds and meristem-tips. Ann. Appl. Biol. 88:273-278.
crossref
Dalakouras, A., Wassenegger, M., McMillan, J. N., Cardoza, V., Maegele, I., Dadami, E., Runne, M., Krczal, G. and Wassenegger, M. 2016. Induction of silencing in plants by high-pressure spraying of in vitro-synthesized small RNAs. Front. Plant Sci. 7:1327.
crossref pmid pmc
Das, P. R. and Sherif, S. M. 2020. Application of exogenous dsRNAs-induced RNAi in agriculture: challenges and triumphs. Front. Plant Sci. 11:946.
crossref pmid pmc
Delahaye, C. and Nicolas, J. 2021. Sequencing DNA with nanopores: troubles and biases. PLoS ONE 16:e0257521.
crossref pmid pmc
Demangeat, G., Voisin, R., Minot, J.-C., Bosselut, N., Fuchs, M. and Esmenjaud, D. 2005. Survival of Xiphinema index in vineyard soil and retention of Grapevine fanleaf virus over extended time in the absence of host plants. Phytopathology 95:1151-1156.
crossref pmid
Díaz-Barrita, A. J., Norton, M., Martĩnez-Peniche, R. A., Uchanski, M., Mulwa, R. and Skirvin, R. M. 2008. The use of thermotherapy and in vitro meristem culture to produce virus-free ‘Chancellor’ grapevines. Int. J. Fruit Sci. 7:15-25.
crossref
EFSA Panel on Plant Health 2019. Pest categorisation of non-EU viruses and viroids of Vitis L. EFSA J. 17:e05669.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
Faccioli, G. and Marani, F. 1998. Virus elimination by meristem tip culture and tip micrografting. In: Plant virus disease control, eds. by A. Hadidi, R. K. Kheatarpal and H. Koganezawa, pp. 346-380. APS Press, St. Paul, MN, USA.
Fuchs, M. 2020. Grapevine viruses: a multitude of diverse species with simple but overall poorly adopted management solutions in the vineyard. J. Plant Pathol. 102:643-653.
crossref pdf
Gaafar, Y. Z. A. and Ziebell, H. 2020. Aphid transmission of nanoviruses. Arch. Insect Biochem. Physiol. 104:e21668.
crossref pmid pdf
Gambino, G., Bondaz, J. and Gribaudo, I. 2006. Detection and elimination of viruses in callus, somatic embryos and regenerated plantlets of grapevine. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 114:397-404.
crossref pdf
Gambino, G., Di Matteo, D. and Gribaudo, I. 2009. Elimination of Grapevine fanleaf virus from three Vitis vinifera cultivars by somatic embryogenesis. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 123:57-60.
crossref pdf
Garcia, S., Hily, J.-M., Komar, V., Gertz, C., Demangeat, G., Lemaire, O. and Vigne, E. 2019. Detection of multiple variants of grapevine fanleaf virus in single Xiphinema index nematodes. Viruses 11:1139.
crossref pmid pmc
Germing, K., Navarrete, C. A. D., Schiermeyer, A., Hommen, U., Zühl, L., Eilebrecht, S. and Eilebrecht, E. 2025. Crop protection by RNA interference: a review of recent approaches, current state of developments and use as of 2013. Environ. Sci. Eur. 37:15.
crossref pdf
González, J. E., Sánchez, R. and Sánchez, A. 2006 Biophysical analysis of electric current mediated nucleoprotein inactivation process Preprint at arXiv: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.q-bio/0601014.
Gribaudo, I., Gambino, G., Cuozzo, D. and Mannini, F. 2006. Attempts to eliminate grapevine rupestris stem pitting-associated virus from grapevine clones. J. Plant Pathol. 88:293-298.
Gută, I. C., Buciumeanu, E.-C. and Vişoiu, E. 2014. Elimination of Grapevine fleck virus by in vitro chemotherapy. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. Cluj-Napoca 42:115-118.
Hu, G.-J., Dong, Y.-F., Zhang, Z.-P., Fan, X.-D. and Ren, F. 2021. Elimination of grapevine fleck virus and grapevine rupestris stem pitting-associated virus from Vitis vinifera 87-1 by ribavirin combined with thermotherapy. J. Integr. Agric. 20:2463-2470.
crossref
Hu, G., Dong, Y., Zhang, Z., Fan, X. and Ren, F. 2019. Elimination of apple necrosis mosaic virus from potted apple plants by thermotherapy combined with shoot-tip grafting. Sci. Hortic. 252:310-315.
crossref
Hu, G., Dong, Y., Zhang, Z., Fan, X. and Ren, F. 2020. Efficiency of chemotherapy combined with thermotherapy for eliminating grapevine leafroll-associated virus 3 (GLRaV-3). Sci. Hortic. 271:109462.
crossref
Hu, G., Dong, Y., Zhang, Z., Fan, X. and Ren, F. 2022. Inefficiency of ribavirin to eliminate apple scar skin viroid from apple plants. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 151:189-197.
crossref pdf
Hu, G., Dong, Y., Zhang, Z., Fan, X. and Ren, F. 2024a. Elimination potential of electrotherapy and cold therapy combined with chemotherapy on apple scar skin viroid on in vitro apple plants. Phytoparasitica 52:69.
crossref pdf
Hu, G.-J., Dong, Y.-F., Zhang, Z.-P., Fan, X.-D. and Ren, F. 2024b. Efficiency of thermotherapy for eliminating apple rubbery wood virus 2 and other viruses from apple plantsAustralas. Plant Pathol. 53:151-157.
Hu, G.-J., Dong, Y.-F., Zhang, Z.-P., Fan, X.-D., Ren, F. and Li, Z.-N. 2017. Efficacy of virus elimination from apple by thermotherapy coupled with in vivo shoot-tip grafting and in vitro meristem culture. J. Phytopathol. 165:701-706.
crossref pdf
Hu, G.-J., Dong, Y.-F., Zhang, Z.-P., Fan, X.-D., Ren, F. and Li, Z.-N. 2018. Effect of pre-culture on virus elimination from in vitro apple by thermotherapy coupled with shoot tip culture. J. Integr. Agric. 17:2015-2023.
crossref
Hu, G., Dong, Y., Zhang, Z., Fan, X., Ren, F. and Zhou, J. 2015a. Virus elimination from in vitro apple by thermotherapy combined with chemotherapy. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 121:435-443.
crossref pdf
Hu, G., Hong, N., Wang, L. P., Hu, H. J. and Wang, G. P. 2012. Efficacy of virus elimination from in vitro-cultured sand pear (Pyrus pyrifolia) by chemotherapy combined with thermotherapy. Crop Prot. 37:20-25.
crossref
Hu, G.-J., Zhang, Z.-P., Dong, Y.-F., Fan, X.-D., Ren, F. and Zhu, H.-J. 2015b. Efficiency of virus elimination from potted apple plants by thermotherapy coupled with shoot-tip graftingAustralas. Plant Pathol. 44:167-173.
James, D., Trytten, P. A., Mackenzie, D. J., Towers, G. H. N. and French, C. J. 1997. Elimination of Apple stem grooving virus by chemotherapy and development of an immunocapture RT-PCR for rapid sensitive screening. Ann. Appl. Biol. 131:459-470.
crossref
Janick, J., Cummins, J. N., Brown, S. K. and Hemmat, M. 1996. Apples. Plant Breed. Rev. 13:1-41.
crossref
Jiao, J., Kong, K., Han, J., Song, S., Bai, T., Song, C., Wang, M., Yan, Z., Zhang, H., Zhang, R., Feng, J. and Zheng, X. 2021. Field detection of multiple RNA viruses/viroids in apple using a CRISPR/Cas12a-based visual assay. Plant Biotechnol. J. 19:394-405.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
Jones, R. A. C. 2021. Global plant virus disease pandemics and epidemics. Plants 10:233.
crossref pmid pmc
Jones, R. A. C. and Naidu, R. A. 2019. Global dimensions of plant virus diseases: current status and future perspectives. Annu. Rev. Virol. 6:387-409.
crossref pmid
Kang, C.-M. and Jeong, R.-D. 2025. Inhibitory effects of garlic extract on Hop stunt viroid in micropropagated grapevine plantlets. Plant Pathol. J. 41:51-63.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
Khafri, A. Z., Zarghami, R., Naderpour, M., Ahmadi, B. and Mirzaei, L. 2022 Electrotherapy, thermotherapy, chemotherapy, and cryotherapy to regenerate Prunus armeniaca L. free of ACLSV, ApMV, and TRSV Preprint at Research Square: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2300972/v1.
Khan, Z. A., Diksha, D., Thapa, P., Mailem, Y. S., Sharma, S. K., Gupta, N., Kishan, G., Watpade, S. and Baranwal, V. K. 2024. Genome analysis of viruses of Phenuiviridae, Betaflexiviridae and Bromoviridae, and apple scar skin viroid in pear by high-throughput sequencing revealing host expansion of a rubodvirus and an ilarvirus. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 129:102196.
crossref
Kim, H.-J., Cho, I.-S., Choi, S.-R. and Jeong, R.-D. 2024. Identification of an isolate of Citrus tristeza virus by nanopore sequencing in Korea and development of a CRISPR/Cas12a-based assay for rapid visual detection of the virus. Phytopathology 114:1421-1428.
crossref pmid
Kim, N.-K., Lee, H.-J., Ryu, T.-H., Cho, I.-S., Ju, H.-J. and Jeong, R.-D. 2021. Detection of apple scar skin viroid by reverse transcription recombinase polymerase amplification assay. Res. Plant Dis. 27:79-83.
crossref pdf
Kim, N.-Y., Lee, H.-J. and Jeong, R.-D. 2019. A portable detection assay for apple stem pitting virus using reverse transcription-recombinase polymerase amplification. J. Virol. Methods 274:113747.
crossref pmid
Kim, S.-W., Lee, H.-J., Cho, K. H. and Jeong, R.-D. 2022. Detection and quantification of apple stem grooving virus in micropropagated apple plantlets using reverse-transcription droplet digital PCR. Plant Pathol. J. 38:417-422.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
Kim, S.-W., Lee, H.-J., Cho, S.-Y. and Jeong, R.-D. 2023. Development and preliminary application of a reverse-transcription droplet digital PCR assay for detection and quantification of apple stem pitting virus in vitro propagated apple plantlets. Sci. Hortic. 321:112363.
crossref
Komínek, P., Komínková, M. and Jandová, B. 2016. Effect of repeated ribavirin treatment on grapevine viruses. Acta Virol. 60:400-403.
crossref pmid
Kumar, S., Singh, R. M., Ram, R., Badyal, J., Hallan, V., Zaidi, A. A. and Varma, A. 2012. Determination of major viral and sub viral pathogens incidence in apple orchards in Himachal Pradesh. Indian J. Virol. 23:75-79.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
Kwon, Y. H., Lee, G. R., Eom, H., Kim, H. K., Yoo, S. E. and Park, S. 2024. Efficacy of antiviral agents and thermotherapy in eliminating viruses from in vitro plantlets derived from apical meristems of fire blight resistant apple rootstocks G11 and G30. Korean J. Plant Res. 37:579-588.
Kwon, Y. H., Lee, J. K., Kim, H. K., Kim, K. O., Park, J. S., Huh, Y. S., Park, E. K. and Yoon, Y. J. 2019. Efficient virus elimination for apple dwarfing rootstock M.9 and M.26 via thermotherapy, ribavirin and apical meristem culture. J. Plant Biotechnol. 46:228-235.
crossref
Lee, H.-J., Cho, I.-S. and Jeong, R.-D. 2022a. Nanopore metagenomics sequencing for rapid diagnosis and characterization of lily viruses. Plant Pathol. J. 38:503-512.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
Lee, H.-J., Han, Y. S., Cho, I.-S. and Jeong, R.-D. 2022b. Development and application of reverse transcription droplet digital PCR assay for sensitive detection of apple scar skin viroid during in vitro propagation of apple plantlets. Mol. Cell. Probes. 61:101789.
crossref pmid
Lefeuvre, P., Martin, D. P., Elena, S. F., Shepherd, D. N., Roumagnac, P. and Varsani, A. 2019. Evolution and ecology of plant viruses. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 17:632-644.
crossref pmid pdf
Legrand, P. 2015. Biological assays for plant viruses and other graft-transmissible pathogens diagnoses: a review. EPPO Bull. 45:240-251.
crossref pdf
Li, B.-Q., Feng, C.-H., Hu, L.-Y., Wang, M.-R. and Wang, Q.-C. 2016. Shoot tip culture and cryopreservation for eradication of apple stem pitting virus (ASPV) and apple stem grooving virus (ASGV) from apple rootstocks ‘M9’ and ‘M26’. Ann. Appl. Biol. 168:142-150.
crossref
Li, Y., Mansour, H., Wang, T., Poojari, S. and Li, F. 2019. Naked-eye detection of grapevine red-blotch viral infection using a plasmonic CRISPR Cas12a assay. Anal. Chem. 91:11510-11513.
crossref pmid
Liefting, L. W., Waite, D. W. and Thompson, J. R. 2021. Application of Oxford Nanopore technology to plant virus detection. Viruses 13:1424.
crossref pmid pmc
Liu, H., Wu, L., Nikolaeva, E., Peter, K., Liu, Z., Mollov, D., Cao, M. and Li, R. 2018. Characterization of a new apple luteovirus identified by high-throughput sequencing. Virol. J. 15:85.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
Liu, L., Chen, X., Yan, L., Jin, Y., Sun, L., Yang, Y., Wang, Y. and Zhao, Z. 2021. Different eradication effects of latent viruses by combining thermotherapy with shoot tip culture or cryotherapy in four apple cultivars. Sci. Hortic. 288:110356.
crossref
Lizárraga, A., Ascasíbar, J. and González, M. L. 2017. Fast and effective thermotherapy treatment for in vitro virus eradication in apple and pear trees. Am. J. Plant Sci. 8:2474-2482.
Magyar-Tábori, K., Mendler-Drienyovszki, N., Hanász, A., Zsombik, L. and Dobránszki, J. 2021. Phytotoxicity and other adverse effects on the in vitro shoot cultures caused by virus elimination treatments: reasons and solutions. Plants 10:670.
crossref pmid pmc
Mahas, A., Hassan, N., Aman, R., Marsic, T., Wang, Q., Ali, Z. and Mahfouz, M. M. 2021. LAMP-coupled CRISPR-Cas12a module for rapid and sensitive detection of plant DNA viruses. Viruses 13:466.
crossref pmid pmc
Malan, S. 2009. Real time PCR as a versatile tool for virus detection and transgenic plant analysis. M.S. thesis. University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa. 92.
Maliogka, V. I., Martelli, G. P., Fuchs, M. and Katis, N. I. 2015a. Control of viruses infecting grapevine. Adv. Virus Res. 91:175-227.
crossref pmid
Maliogka, V. I., Minafra, A., Saldarelli, P., Ruiz-García, A. B., Glasa, M., Katis, N. and Olmos, A. 2018. Recent advances on detection and characterization of fruit tree viruses using high-throughput sequencing technologies. Viruses 10:436.
crossref pmid pmc
Maliogka, V. I., Olmos, A., Pappi, P. G., Lotos, L., Efthimiou, K., Grammatikaki, G., Candresse, T., Katis, N. I. and Avgelis, A. D. 2015b. A novel grapevine badnavirus is associated with the Roditis leaf discoloration disease. Virus Res. 203:47-55.
crossref pmid
Maliogka, V. I., Skiada, F. G., Eleftheriou, E. P. and Katis, N. I. 2009. Elimination of a new ampelovirus (GLRaV-PR) and grapevine rupestris stem pitting-associated virus (GRSPaV) from two Vitis vinifera cultivars combining in vitro thermotherapy with shoot tip culture. Sci. Hortic. 123:280-282.
crossref
Marcolungo, L., Passera, A., Maestri, S., Segala, E., Alfano, M., Gaffuri, F., Marturano, G., Casati, P., Bianco, P. A. and Delledonne, M. 2022. Real-time on-site diagnosis of quarantine pathogens in plant tissues by nanopore-based sequencing. Pathogens 11:199.
crossref pmid pmc
Maree, H. J., Almeida, R. P. P., Bester, R., Chooi, K. M., Cohen, D., Dolja, V. V., Fuchs, M. F., Golino, D. A., Jooste, A. E. C., Martelli, G. P., Naidu, R. A., Rowhani, A., Saldarelli, P. and Burger, J. T. 2013. Grapevine leafroll-associated virus 3. Front. Microbiol. 4:82.
crossref pmid pmc
Marković, Z., Preiner, D., Stupić, D., Andabaka, Ž, Šimon, S., Vončina, D., Maletić, E., Kontić, J. K., Chatelet, P. and Engelmann, F. 2015. Cryopreservation and cryotherapy of grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.). Vitis 54:247-251.
Martelli, G. P. 2014. Directory of virus and virus-like diseases of the grapevine and their agents. J. Plant Pathol. 96:1-136.
Masoudi, S., Hajnajari, H., Soleimani, A., Kermani, M. J., Razaghi, K. and Hosseini, Z. S. 2024. Evaluation of herbal extracts for apple virus eradication compared to chemotherapy and thermotherapy. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 170:973-984.
crossref pdf
Mazeikiene, I., Kviklys, D., Siksnianiene, J. B., Zinkus, D. and Stanys, V. 2019. Influence of ribavirin on Prunus domestica L. regeneration, genome stability and virus eradication in vitro. Proc. Latv. Acad. Sci. Sect. B 73:238-243.
crossref
Meng, B., Martelli, G. P., Golino, D. A. and Fuchs, M. 2017. Grapevine viruses: molecular biology, diagnostics and management. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Germany. pp. 698.
Meng, B. and Rowhani, A. 2017. Grapevine rupestris stem pitting-associated virus. In: Grapevine viruses: molecular biology, diagnostics and management, eds. by B. Meng, G. P. Martelli, D. A. Golino and M. Fuchs, pp. 257-287. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland.
crossref pmid
Miljanić, V., Rusjan, D., Škvarč, A., Chatelet, P. and Štajner, N. 2022. Elimination of eight viruses and two viroids from preclonal candidates of six grapevine varieties (Vitis vinifera L.) through in vivo thermotherapy and in vitro meristem tip micrografting. Plants 11:1064.
crossref pmid pmc
Mitter, N., Worrall, E. A., Robinson, K. E., Li, P., Jain, R. G., Taochy, C., Fletcher, S. J., Carroll, B. J., Lu, G. Q. and Xu, Z. P. 2017. Clay nanosheets for topical delivery of RNAi for sustained protection against plant viruses. Nat. Plants 3:16207.
crossref pmid pdf
Mumford, R. A., Macarthur, R. and Boonham, N. 2016. The role and challenges of new diagnostic technology in plant biosecurity. Food Secur. 8:103-109.
crossref pdf
Nabi, S. U., Mir, J. I., Yasmin, S., Din, A., Raja, W. H., Madhu, G. S., Parveen, S., Mansoor, S., Chung, Y. S., Sharma, O. C., Sheikh, M. A., Al-Misned, F. A. and El-Serehy, H. A. 2023. Tissue and time optimization for real-time detection of apple mosaic virus and apple necrotic mosaic virus associated with mosaic disease of apple (Malus domestica). Viruses 15:795.
crossref pmid pmc
Naidu, R. A., Maree, H. J. and Burger, J. T. 2015. Grapevine leafroll disease and associated viruses: a unique pathosystem. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 53:613-634.
crossref pmid
Naidu, R., Rowhani, A., Fuchs, M., Golino, D. and Martelli, G. P. 2014. Grapevine leafroll: a complex viral disease affecting a high-value fruit crop. Plant Dis. 98:1172-1185.
crossref pmid
Nehra, N. S. and Kartha, K. K. 1994. Meristem and shoot tip culture: requirements and applications. In: Plant cell and tissue culture, eds. by I. K. Vasil and T. A. Thorpe, pp. 37-70. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands.
crossref pmid
Panattoni, A., Luvisi, A. and Triolo, E. 2013. Elimination of viruses in plants: twenty years of progress. Span. J. Agric. Res. 11:173-188.
crossref pdf
Panattoni, A. and Triolo, E. 2010. Susceptibility of grapevine viruses to thermotherapy on in vitro collection of Kober 5BB. Sci. Hortic. 125:63-67.
crossref
Parker, W. B. 2005. Metabolism and antiviral activity of ribavirin. Virus Res. 107:165-171.
crossref pmid
Pedrelli, A., Nali, C., Panattoni, A., Pellegrini, E. and Cotrozzi, L. 2024. Apple chlorotic leaf spot virus infection affects the physiology and biochemistry of leaves and the quality of fruits of Tuscany (Italy) autochthonous apple varieties. Plant Pathol. 74:158-170.
crossref
Piepenburg, O., Williams, C. H., Stemple, D. L. and Armes, N. A. 2006. DNA detection using recombination proteins. PLoS Biol. 4:e204.
crossref pmid pmc
Qiao, L., Niño-Sánchez, J., Hamby, R., Capriotti, L., Chen, A., Mezzetti, B. and Jin, H. 2023. Artificial nanovesicles for dsRNA delivery in spray-induced gene silencing for crop protection. Plant Biotechnol. J. 21:854-865.
crossref pmid pmc
Reynard, J.-S., Brodard, J., Dubuis, N., Zufferey, V., Schumpp, O., Schaerer, S. and Gugerli, P. 2018. Grapevine red blotch virus: absence in Swiss vineyards and analysis of potential detrimental effect on viticultural performance. Plant Dis. 102:651-655.
crossref pmid
Romadanova, N. V., Mishustina, S. A., Gritsenko, D. A., Omasheva, M. Y., Galiakparov, N. N., Reed, B. M. and Kushnarenko, S. V. 2016. Cryotherapy as a method for reducing the virus infection of apples (Malus sp.). Cryo Letters 37:1-9.
crossref pmid
Sastry, K. S. and Zitter, T. A. 2014. Management of virus and viroid diseases of crops in the tropics. In: Plant virus and viroid diseases in the tropics. Vol 2. Epidemiology and management, eds. by K. S. Sastry and T. A. Zitter, pp. 149-480. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands.
crossref pmid
Savary, S., Willocquet, L., Pethybridge, S. J., Esker, P., McRoberts, N. and Nelson, A. 2019. The global burden of pathogens and pests on major food crops. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3:430-439.
crossref pmid pdf
Schellenberger, P., Sauter, C., Lorber, B., Bron, P., Trapani, S., Bergdoll, M., Marmonier, A., Schmitt-Keichinger, C., Lemaire, O., Demangeat, G. and Ritzenthaler, C. 2011. Structural insights into viral determinants of nematode-mediated Grapevine fanleaf virus transmission. PLoS Pathog. 7:e1002034.
crossref pmid pmc
Sharma, A., Balda, S., Apreja, M., Kataria, K., Capalash, N. and Sharma, P. 2021. COVID-19 diagnosis: current and future techniques. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 193:1835-1844.
crossref pmid pmc
Soltani, N., Stevens, K. A., Klaassen, V., Hwang, M.-S., Golino, D. A. and Al Rwahnih, M. 2021. Quality assessment and validation of high-throughput sequencing for grapevine virus diagnostics. Viruses 13:1130.
crossref pmid pmc
Souza, J. A., Bogo, A., Bettoni, J. C., Costa, M. D., da Silva, F. N., Casa, R. T. and Rufato, L. 2020. Droplet-vitrification cryotherapy for eradication of apple stem grooving virus and apple stem pitting virus from “Marubakaido” apple rootstock. Trop. Plant Pathol. 45:148-152.
crossref pdf
Špak, J., Holý, A., Pavingerová, D., Votruba, I., Špaková, V. and Petrzik, K. 2010. New in vitro method for evaluating antiviral activity of acyclic nucleoside phosphonates against plant viruses. Antiviral Res. 88:296-303.
crossref pmid
Sun, K., Liu, Y., Zhou, X., Yin, C., Zhang, P., Yang, Q., Mao, L., Shentu, X. and Yu, X. 2022. Nanopore sequencing technology and its application in plant virus diagnostics. Front. Microbiol. 13:939666.
crossref pmid pmc
Tan, L. L., Loganathan, N., Agarwalla, S., Yang, C., Yuan, W., Zeng, J., Wu, R., Wang, W. and Duraiswamy, S. 2023. Current commercial dPCR platforms: technology and market review. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 43:433-464.
crossref pmid
Tatineni, S. and Hein, G. L. 2023. Plant viruses of agricultural importance: current and future perspectives of virus disease management strategies. Phytopathology 113:117-141.
crossref pmid
Tesfaye, A. 2021. Revealing the therapeutic uses of garlic (Allium sativum) and its potential for drug discovery. Sci. World J. 2021:8817288.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
Torre, C., Agüero, J., Gómez-Aix, C. and Aranda, M. A. 2020. Comparison of DAS-ELISA and qRT-PCR for the detection of cucurbit viruses in seeds. Ann. Appl. Biol. 176:158-169.
crossref pdf
Turcsan, M., Demian, E., Varga, T., Jaksa-Czotter, N., Szegedi, E., Olah, R. and Varallyay, E. 2020. HTS-based monitoring of the efficiency of somatic embryogenesis and meristem cultures used for virus elimination in grapevine. Plants 9:1782.
crossref pmid pmc
Trippa, D., Scalenghe, R., Basso, M. F., Panno, S., Davino, S., Morone, C., Giovino, A., Oufensou, S., Luchi, N., Yousefi, S. and Martinelli, F. 2024. Next-generation methods for early disease detection in crops. Pest Manag. Sci. 80:245-261.
crossref pmid
Vivek, M. and Modgil, M. 2018. Elimination of viruses through thermotherapy and meristem culture in apple cultivar ‘Oregon Spur-II’. VirusDisease 29:75-82.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
Wahid, A., Gelani, S., Ashraf, M. and Foolad, M. R. 2007. Heat tolerance in plants: an overview. Environ. Exp. Bot. 61:199-223.
crossref
Walsh, H. A. and Pietersen, G. 2013. Rapid detection of Grapevine leafroll-associated virus type 3 using a reverse transcription loop-mediated amplification method. J. Virol. Methods 194:308-316.
crossref pmid
Wang, B., Wang, R.-R., Cui, Z.-H., Bi, W.-L., Li, J.-W., Li, B.-Q., Ozudogru, E. A., Volk, G. M. and Wang, Q.-C. 2014. Potential applications of cryogenic technologies to plant genetic improvement and pathogen eradication. Biotechnol. Adv. 32:583-595.
crossref pmid
Wang, L., Wang, G., Hong, N., Tang, R., Deng, X. and Zhang, H. 2006. Effect of thermotherapy on elimination of apple stem grooving virus and apple chlorotic leaf spot virus for in vitro-cultured pear shoot tips. HortScience 41:729-732.
crossref
Wang, M.-R., Li, B.-Q., Feng, C.-H. and Wang, Q.-C. 2016a. Culture of shoot tips from adventitious shoots can eradicate apple stem pitting virus but fails in apple stem grooving virus. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 125:283-291.
crossref pdf
Wang, M., Weiberg, A., Lin, F.-M., Thomma, B. P. H. J.n, Huang, H.-D. and Jin, H. 2016b. Bidirectional cross-kingdom RNAi and fungal uptake of external RNAs confer plant protection. Nat. Plants 2:16151.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
Wang, Q., Cuellar, W. J., Rajamäki, M.-L., Hirata, Y. and Valkonen, J. P. T. 2008. Combined thermotherapy and cryotherapy for efficient virus eradication: relation of virus distribution, subcellular changes, cell survival and viral RNA degradation in shoot tips. Mol. Plant Pathol. 9:237-250.
crossref pmid pmc
Wang, Q., Mawassi, M., Li, P., Gafny, R., Sela, I. and Tanne, E. 2003. Elimination of grapevine virus A (GVA) by cryopreservation of in vitro-grown shoot tips of Vitis vinifera L. Plant Sci. 165:321-327.
crossref
Wang, Q. C., Panis, B., Engelmann, F., Lambardi, M. and Valkonen, J. P. T. 2009. Cryotherapy of shoot tips: a technique for pathogen eradication to produce healthy planting materials and prepare healthy plant genetic resources for cryopreservation. Ann. Appl. Biol. 154:351-363.
crossref
Wang, X. Y., Zhang, C. W., Huang, W. T., Yue, J., Dou, J. J., Wang, L. Y., Wang, Q. and Cheng, Y. Q. 2020. Crude garlic extract significantly inhibits replication of grapevine viruses. Plant Pathol. 69:149-158.
crossref pdf
Wang, Y., Zhao, Y., Bollas, A., Wang, Y. and Au, K. F. 2021. Nanopore sequencing technology, bioinformatics and applications. Nat. Biotechnol. 39:1348-1365.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
Weber, E., Golino, D. and Rowhani, A. 2002. Laboratory testing for grapevine diseases. Pract. Winery Vineyard 1:14-18.
Wise, J. C., Wise, A. G., Rakotondravelo, M., Vandervoort, C., Seeve, C. and Fabbri, B. 2022. Trunk injection delivery of dsRNA for RNAi-based pest control in apple trees. Pest Manag. Sci. 78:3528-3533.
pmid pmc
Xiao, H., Hao, W., Storoschuk, G., MacDonald, J. L. and Sanfaçon, H. 2022. Characterizing the virome of apple orchards affected by rapid decline in the Okanagan and Similkameen valleys of British Columbia (Canada). Pathogens 11:1231.
crossref pmid pmc
Zaidi, S. S. A., Fatima, F., Ali Zaidi, S. A. A., Zhou, D., Deng, W. and Liu, S. 2023. Engineering siRNA therapeutics: challenges and strategies. J. Nanobiotechnol. 21:381.
Zhao, L., Feng, C.-H., Li, B.-Q., Hao, X.-A., Liu, H., Wu, Y.-F. and Wang, Q.-C. 2014. Rapid detection of apple stem grooving virus by reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification. J. Plant Pathol. 96:407-409.
Zhao, L., Wang, M.-R., Cui, Z.-H., Chen, L., Volk, G. M. and Wang, Q.-C. 2018. Combining thermotherapy with cryotherapy for efficient eradication of apple stem grooving virus from infected in vitro-cultured apple shoots. Plant Dis. 102:1574-1580.
crossref pmid
Zheng, P., Zhou, C., Ding, Y., Liu, B., Lu, L., Zhu, F. and Duan, S. 2023. Nanopore sequencing technology and its applications. MedComm 4:e316.
crossref pmid pmc
Zherdev, A. V., Vinogradova, S. V., Byzova, N. A., Porotikova, E. V., Kamionskaya, A. M. and Dzantiev, B. B. 2018. Methods for the diagnosis of grapevine viral infections: a review. Agriculture 8:195.
crossref
Zuo, J., Meng, T., Wang, Y. and Tang, W. 2023. A review of the antiviral activities of glycyrrhizic acid, glycyrrhetinic acid and glycyrrhetinic acid monoglucuronide. Pharmaceuticals 16:641.
crossref pmid pmc
TOOLS
METRICS Graph View
  • 0 Crossref
  •  0 Scopus
  • 2,842 View
  • 159 Download
ORCID iDs

Rae-Dong Jeong
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6370-8909

Related articles


ABOUT
BROWSE ARTICLES
EDITORIAL POLICY
FOR CONTRIBUTORS
Editorial Office
Rm,904 (New Bldg.) The Korean Science & Technology Center 22,
Teheran-ro 7-Gil, Gangnamgu, Seoul 06130, Korea
Tel: +82-2-557-9360    Fax: +82-2-557-9361    E-mail: paper@kspp.org                

Copyright © 2026 by Korean Society of Plant Pathology.

Developed in M2PI

Close layer
prev next