Background
Soybean (
Glycine max L. Merr.) is valued worldwide for the high levels of protein and oil in its seeds, which have many uses in food, animal feed products, industrial feedstocks, and biodiesel production [
1]. Soybean production is challenged by diseases caused by numerous microbial pathogens such as bacteria, fungi, oomycetes, and viruses that reduce yield and/or seed quality [
2‐
8]. More than 100 viruses are known to infect soybean, and of these, at least 46 have been detected in naturally occurring infections in fields [
6,
9]. Some of these viruses, such as soybean mosaic virus (SMV) are globally distributed and threaten soybean production in many countries [
10‐
12]. In contrast, bean pod mottle virus (BPMV) is recognized as a major soybean pathogen mainly in the United States of America (USA) [
13,
14]. These and other viruses including tobacco streak virus (TSV), alfalfa mosaic virus (AMV), soybean dwarf virus (SbDV), and tobacco ringspot virus (TRSV) have been known for several decades to cause disease problems [
3,
4,
6].
In addition to well-established viruses, soybean production is also threatened by new and emerging viruses. Soybean vein necrosis virus (SVNV) was first identified from diseased fields in 2008. Since its discovery, SVNV has been reported on soybean in many states in the USA, Canada, and Egypt [
15‐
19]. There are also reports of well-known viruses such as peanut mottle virus (PeMoV) [
20], bean yellow mosaic virus (BYMV) [
21], and bean common mosaic virus [
22], associated with soybean diseases in the field. Of particular interest is clover yellow vein virus (ClYVV), a potyvirus that is primarily known to cause important diseases in forage legumes [
23]. ClYVV was recently reported in field-grown soybeans in South Korea, and a partial genome was found in an RNA sequencing study performed with soybean samples collected in Ohio, USA [
24,
25]. Although soybean is not normally considered as a host to ClYVV, a recent report showed wild soybeans (
Glycine soja) were susceptible to ClYVV in contrast to cultivated soybeans (
Glycine max) that were resistant to the ClYVV isolates tested [
26].
Identification of viruses in plants predominantly relies on visual assessments coupled with microscopy and immuno- or PCR-based assays [
27]. These tests require prior knowledge about the candidate virus causing the disease, and therefore have no or limited utility in identifying unknown viruses and unexpected viruses [
28]. High-throughput sequencing (HTS) does not rely on prior knowledge of viruses infecting plant samples [
27,
29‐
32]. The application of HTS has facilitated the identification and diagnosis of viruses, including unknown viruses in large-scale disease surveys [
33‐
35]. In addition, HTS has been extensively used for plant virome studies [
36‐
40]. Furthermore, HTS was successfully used to identify viruses and other pathogens in soybean vegetative parts [
25,
41,
42], seeds [
43], or in arthropod vectors that transmit them to soybean [
44].
In this work, we scouted soybean fields for plants with virus-like or unusual symptoms, extracted total RNA, and performed RNA sequencing followed by bioinformatic analyses to determine if viruses were present. A total of 135 samples were collected and sequenced over the 2016 to 2019 growing seasons. From 78 virus-containing samples, complete or nearly complete viral genomes were assembled, including TSV, AMV, TRSV, BPMV, SbDV, and SVNV, which are well known viruses infecting soybean in the USA. Surprisingly, ClYVV was identified in samples collected from Iowa, USA in two different years, and the isolates were recovered and confirmed to be infectious in soybean, Nicotiana benthamiana, and Vicia faba. In addition, a new ilarvirus, provisionally named soybean ilarvirus 1 ( SIlV1), was identified and confirmed by RT-PCR and Sanger sequencing. Finally, our results indicate that mixed virus infections of various combinations are common occurrences.
Discussion
The main goal of this study was to determine the identity of viruses associated with virus-like symptoms observed on soybean plants during scouting in the field. A total of 135 soybean samples were collected from soybean fields in Iowa (2016–2019) and other states including Alabama, Delaware, Indiana, Missouri, and Wisconsin (2016–2018), HTS -based sequencing was performed, and subsequent RT-PCR analyses were conducted on individual samples. Customized bioinformatics workflows and alignment-based sequence similarity searches were used to identify the viruses that occurred in individual and mixed infections in 78 of the samples. Of the remaining 57 samples, 27 samples had de novo contig length less than 1000 bp with few hits to known viruses and other pathogens such as bacteria, oomycetes and fungi. None of these samples had partial genomes. Additionally, 23 samples had no hits to viral genome sequence but uncovered pathogens such as bacteria, oomycetes and fungi while the remaining 7 samples had no pathogens detected. Attempts were made to detect known viruses from some of these samples by RT-PCR but the results were negative. The reason these samples had smaller contigs and negative RT-PCR results were most likely due to the quality of samples during sample collection in the fields. Because misleading interpretations of partial genomes for virus identity are possible in HTS studies [
63], a conservative approach of only contigs resulting in complete or near-complete (entire coding sequence(s)) viral genomes are reported here. Because HTS also generated data on the entire biota inhabiting the sampled soybean tissues, other organisms such as bacteria, fungi, arthropods, or oomycetes were identified from these samples using different bioinformatics workflows [
41].
Several known RNA viruses (TSV, AMV, TRSV, SbDV, BPMV, SVNV, and ClYVV) were detected and identified in symptomatic soybean samples. Because a systematic sampling strategy was not used, these data should not be interpreted to indicate virus prevalence. However, it is interesting that SMV, which is generally regarded as one of the most common viruses of soybean [
69], was not found in any sample. Surprisingly, we discovered another potyvirus, ClYVV, in commercial soybean in two different years, which is significant, because cultivated soybean is not generally considered to be a host. The two ClYVV isolates were detected in fields in two different counties in central and southeastern Iowa, USA in 2016 and 2017, respectively. Sequencing and phylogenetic analysis showed that ClYVV IA-2016 and ClYVV IA-2017 shared 96.5% nt sequence identity and were most closely related to ClYVV I89-1 (Japan) and ClYVV-Gm (South Korea), the latter of which was also found in soybean [
24].
Previous reports indicated rare/sporadic occurrence of ClYVV in cultivated soybean in South Korea and more recently in Ohio, US [
24,
25]. ClYVV is naturally transmitted by soybean aphids and other aphids in a non-persistent manner [
70] and has a wide host range. It was originally isolated from white clover (
Trifolium repens) and causes severe lethal systemic necrosis in several legumes, including broad bean (
Vicia faba), common bean (
Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and pea (
P. sativum) [
23,
70‐
73]. Because we recovered both ClYVV isolates and identified a susceptible soybean variety, we were able to investigate biological properties, such as seed transmission, pathogenicity, and host range. The apparent lack of seed transmission suggests that the emergence of ClYVV in soybean may be due to the virus being transmitted from host plants in the landscape to soybean genotypes that also happen to be susceptible. Seed transmission within the
Potyviridae is not uncommon [
74], however, we are not aware of reports that ClYVV is seed transmitted in other legumes.
Symptoms of mosaic chlorosis and vein clearing were observed on the systemically-infected leaves of N. benthamiana, soybean, and broad bean, and systemic necrosis was observed in broad bean cv. Robin Hood. Based on symptom severity, ClYVV IA-2017 was more virulent than ClYVV IA-2016 in all three plant species. ClYVV IA-2017 and ClYVV IA-2016 share 96.5% nucleotide identity with mismatches dispersed across the genome. However, these isolates share 99% amino acid identity with only 13 non-conservative differences distributed among P1, HC-Pro, P3, VPg, NIb, and CP, which provides a short list of amino acid residues to investigate for roles in virulence.
The commercial soybean variety that was susceptible to the ClYVV isolates was originally identified as the host for ClYVV IA-2016, but the original host variety is not known for ClYVV IA-2017. It is interesting that Williams 82 and the 41 NAM parents representing diverse soybean germplasm were not susceptible to either ClYVV isolate. The lack of susceptibility in Williams 82 and the NAM parents is consistent with the idea that cultivated soybean is generally considered to be a non-host for ClYVV [
26], and demonstrates that the two ClYVV isolates we describe here did not gain the ability to infect a broad range of soybean germplasm. It is unclear if emerging viruses such as ClYVV may evolve to become more virulent following a jump to a new host such as soybean [
75]. It will be interesting to test if over time the ClYVV isolates may evolve to infect more soybean genotypes, which could potentially threaten soybean production. Another interesting avenue to explore is the genetic and molecular mechanisms enabling these ClYVV isolates to infect the Acre Edge 22R269 variety.
In another unexpected finding, we identified a novel virus provisionally named soybean ilarvirus 1 (SIlV1), a member of
Ilarvirus, which includes the well-known soybean pathogen, TSV. Phylogenetically, SIlV1 is closely related to PMoV, BCRV, TSV, SNSV, PRSV, AgLV, and CGIV-I, which are all members of ilarvirus subgroup 1. Therefore, SIlV1 is the second ilarvirus from subgroup 1 that infects soybean. Our results leading to the discovery of ClYVV and SIlV1 in soybean demonstrate the value of using HTS-based approaches for viruses, and more broadly, pathogen identification [
41].
Other groups have used HTS for identifying viruses in soybean and other crops. For instance, soybean leaf materials collected from 172 plants throughout Korea [
42] exhibited virus-like symptoms. This study performed RT-PCR using primers that could detect five viruses SMV, soybean yellow mottle mosaic virus (SYMMV), soybean yellow common mosaic virus (SYCMV), PeMoV, and peanut stunt virus (PSV). Subsequently, this study pooled RNA from the samples according to province, and then performed RNA sequencing. Through RNA sequencing they added five additional viruses: cucumber mosaic virus (CMV), tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV), bean common mosaic virus (BCMV), bean common mosaic necrosis virus (BCNMV), and Wisteria vein mosaic virus (WVMV). While the other viruses have all been shown to infect soybean, the observation of WVMV was the first report of this virus infecting soybean. Additionally, this study did not identify a novel virus. Results of both RT-PCR and RNA sequencing showed that mixed infections are common, with co-infections being more common than single infections. Furthermore, their results show that the spectrum of viruses infecting soybean are different in the Midwestern US versus South Korea. There are no viruses in common between our two studies. Furthermore, they noted that some viruses, like AMV, ClYVV, and SbDV, were not found in their study even though they have been previously found in South Korea, suggesting that these viruses are not common in South Korea.
Not surprisingly, our results are much more similar to those recently reported [
25] with respect to the spectrum of viruses identified. This study conducted a multi-site sampling of 42 counties in Ohio and collected a total of 259 samples in 2011 and 2012. Most of the samples were from plants displaying virus-like symptoms, but also included healthy plants from fields in which no virus-like symptoms were found. This study [
25] also used a pooling strategy for sequencing by combining the samples collected in each year. They found that BPMV was by far the most common virus based on the number of sequencing reads and subsequent RT-PCR conducted on individual samples. SVNV, TRSV, and TSV were the next most common viruses found in multiple counties in their study. They also found isolated cases of SMV, AMV, ClYVV, BYMV, and soybean Putnam virus (SPuV) each in single fields indicating they were sporadic and not widely occurring. The SPuV was a novel
Caulimovirus that the group had previously reported [
25], but we did not observe it in any of our samples.
Unlike the recent studies reported [
25,
42], we did not pool samples prior to generating libraries for RNA sequencing, but instead we elected to make individual libraries from each sample. This strategy is more expensive and time consuming, but it did lend itself to assembly of the viral genomes present in each sample without the need for resequencing individual samples. This approach also facilitated comparison of individual virus genomes and direct identification of samples containing mixed infections. Since our initial goal was to identify viruses at the single plant level and not conduct a systematic survey, this approach was acceptable despite the higher cost and time involved. However, it is interesting to consider the case of a systematic survey that could involve hundreds to thousands of plant samples. In those cases, a pooling strategy would be necessary.
Similar to the study reported in 2016 [
25], we found that TSV was widely distributed, genetically diverse, and it occurs in mixed infections with SVNV. The presence of TSV in a coinfection with SVNV in a sample from Alabama in 2016 also represents a first report of TSV in soybean in this state. Both viruses are transmitted by thrips [
18,
76], and so, it may be expected that conditions favoring thrips could result in frequent co-infections by these viruses. It is interesting that the re-emergence of TSV in soybean was previously reported throughout the Midwest including Iowa, Kansas, and Wisconsin as well as Ontario, Canada [
76,
77]. The re-emergence of TSV in soybean in Iowa in 2013 occurred in several counties and was associated with irregular, black streaks and necrotic areas on pods and plants that tested positive for TSV using ELISA [
76]. TSV was also reported in several counties in Illinois from 2006–2008 [
78] as well as in 2013 [
76] and in Ohio in 2011 and 2012 [
25]. The occurrence and genetic diversity of TSV identified in 2016–2019 demonstrates that it remains a threat to soybean production, and that further work is warranted to investigate sources of inoculum, which may be due to its wide host range [
79‐
81], seed transmission [
82], and thrips transmission [
83,
84]. Climatic conditions such as hot and dry weather are favored for thrips propagation for TSV transmission. Additionally, high incidences of TSV among weeds bordering agricultural fields could serve as a source of TSV inoculum.
Like TSV, AMV was also genetically diverse and frequently found in our study, being present in 27/78 soybean samples of which 23 samples originated from 7 counties in Iowa during 2017 and 2018 growing seasons, and in samples collected in Ohio and Missouri in 2017. In previous studies, AMV has caused yield loss in soybean when introduced during early vegetative growth stages with final incidence of infected plants exceeding 30% [
85]. Currently, there are limited reports on the detection of AMV in field-grown soybean plants [
86‐
88], with fewer reports in the Midwest states that include Wisconsin [
85,
89] and Nebraska [
90], and no recent reports of AMV detected in Iowa. The occurrences of AMV in 2017 and 2018 could be due to its wide alternate host range [
91‐
93]. Since AMV is found commonly in alfalfa and this host represents a potential source of inoculum, there are possibilities for the movement of AMV into soybean growing in neighboring fields. The combination of seed transmission [
94] and the rapid dispersal of soybean aphids (
Aphis glycines Matsumura) [
87,
95] may also be responsible for recurrent detection of AMV in Iowa.
SVNV, a
Tospovirus transmitted by soybean thrips, recently emerged in the United States. It was originally reported in Arkansas and Tennessee in 2008 [
96], and later also first reported in Iowa and Wisconsin from surveys conducted in 2013 [
18,
76,
97,
98]. Since its discovery, SVNV has become prevalent in all major soybean growing regions across North America [
16,
25] and was found in more than 98% of the soybean fields [
15]. The pairwise alignments of SVNV isolates from 8 samples from four different states (Indiana, Delaware, Maryland, and Alabama) suggest that there were at least 8 different SVNV isolates present in 2016. However, analysis of SVNV population structure revealed that there was not significant diversity among the SVNV isolates identified from 3 states (Indiana, Delaware and Alabama) and that the virus populations are not rapidly changing.
TRSV, a
Nepovirus, was found in 10/78 soybean samples from 4 counties in Iowa during 2017 growing season. The pairwise alignments of TRSV isolates suggest that there were at least 3 different TRSV isolates present in 2017, with the two RNA genomes (RNA1 and RNA2) sharing > 90% nt sequence identities between the IA-1-2017, IA-2-2017, and IA-3-2017 isolates. The remaining 7 TRSV-positive samples had the two RNA genomes sharing > 99% nt sequence identities to IA-3-2017 isolate. TRSV can cause severe disease in soybean. In particular, TRSV-induced bud blight significantly reduces yield and quality in soybeans. TRSV has a wide host range [
99] and its primary source of transmission in soybean remains unclear. However, TRSV can be seed transmitted at a low rate [
100,
101] and is transmitted by nematodes and inefficiently spread by several insects including thrips and grasshoppers [
6].
BPMV and SbDV were found in a few of the samples displaying virus-like symptoms collected in Iowa. BPMV, a
Comovirus, is generally considered to be widespread in the major soybean-growing areas in the US and has also significantly increased throughout the north central region [
25,
102,
103]. These incidences of BPMV have been attributed to increases in bean leaf beetles as a major mode of transmission [
102,
104‐
106]; although other sources of transmission such as seed-to-seedling and alternative leguminous weed hosts have been reported [
104]. BPMV has been one of the most prevalent soybean viruses in Iowa for several years [
107]. SbDV, a
Luteovirus, was detected in 4 samples from 1 county during 2016–2018 growing seasons. SbDV was first reported in soybean in the USA in 2003 in Wisconsin and since then detected in several states including Iowa [
6]. SbDV has a limited host range [
6] with no reports of seed transmission in soybean. However, some SbDV isolates from the USA were reported to be transmitted efficiently from soybean to soybean and clover and from clover to clover and soybean by soybean aphids [
108,
109]. This raises the interesting possibility of ClYVV and SbDV moving between clover and soybean by similar mechanisms.
Several mixed infections were identified in samples collected from Iowa: AMV/TSV, AMV/TRSV, AMV/BPMV, AMV/SbDV, TSV/TRSV, and TSV/SbDV. Mixed infections of SVNV and TSV were detected in 3 different states (Indiana, Maryland, and Alabama), while co-infections of SVNV and AMV was also found in Ohio, USA. A recent report identified mixed infections of multiple viruses in field-grown soybean from a multi-site survey in Ohio using HTS [
25]. They identified several SVNV-positive samples co-infected with BPMV, TRSV, ClYVV or BYMV, while BPMV-positive samples were also co-infected with TSV, TRSV, or SMV. These observations coupled with the work by Jo et al. [
42] in Korea show that mixed infections are quite common wherever soybeans are produced. The occurrence of mixed infections of viruses in soybean can alter disease symptoms, transmission and pathogenicity [
110‐
112]. However, mixed infections may not necessarily cause serious problems on plants [
113], either due to the equilibrium maintained among viruses or possibly due to the convergent evolution of viruses toward mild interactions with the host [
114]. An interesting line of study in the future may be to develop a better understanding of how and under what conditions the variety of mixed infections occur, and which ones have the highest potential for impact on crop yields.