Nutritive Value of Rust-infected Leaves

Science (Impact Factor: 33.61). 04/1953; 117(3039):326-7. DOI: 10.1126/science.117.3039.326
Source: PubMed
1 Read
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Tobacco mosaic virus reached higher concentrations when inoculated tobacco leaves were placed in a solution containing 10 g.P. sucrose and 0.2 g.P. calcium phosphate than when in water. Detached leaves in water usually produced momvirus than leaves left on the plants. Other sugars and phosphates also increased virus production. Sugar and calcium phosphate sometimes separately increased the concentration of the virus, but the response was usually greatest to both together. The increase varied with the nutritional state of the plants from which the leaves me and some other environmental conditions. Virus concentration, and the effect of sucrose and calcium phosphate in increasing it, was greater when leaves were in the light than in the dark. Conditions which increased virus concentration also increased the total carbohydrates of the leaves. The effect of various substances on the multiplication of tobacco mosaic virus has been studied in detached tobacco leaves or in disks cut from the leaves. Most of such work has been done to find substances that inhibit multiplication, and there have been few experiments to find conditions under which the virus multiplies most extensively, although work with whole plants has demon- strated that host nutrition and environment both affect virus production. The experiments described below show that virus production is greater in detached leaves placed in solutions containing sugar and phosphate than in water, and that the extent to which sugar and phosphate affect virus multiplication vanes with the physiological conditions of the leaves and depends on whether they are kept in the light or dark.
    Journal of general microbiology 01/1954; 9(3):467-74. DOI:10.1099/00221287-9-3-467
  • Source
    Plant physiology 08/1954; 29(4):393-5. DOI:10.1104/pp.29.4.393 · 6.84 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Plant physiology 08/1954; 29(4):395-7. DOI:10.1104/pp.29.4.395 · 6.84 Impact Factor
Show more