ArticleVirology journal2026
Viral manipulation of vector behaviour: cucumber mosaic virus has differential effects on specialist versus generalist aphids infesting Arabidopsis thaliana.
Article in Virology journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCucumber mosaic virus (CMV) is vectored by aphids. Infection of Arabidopsis thaliana plants with CMV affects their attractiveness to aphids (Myzus persicae) and the performance of aphids confined on these plants. CMV-induced changes in plant-aphid interactions ('viral manipulation') may promote transmission. M. persicae, an efficient CMV vector is a 'generalist', i.e., it has many plant hosts. A. thaliana is also exploited by crucifer-specialist aphids including Lipaphis erysimi (an efficient CMV vector) and Brevicoryne brassicae (a poor CMV vector). We explored the hypothesis that CMV-induced viral manipulation of aphid behaviour would exert stronger effects on M. persicae than on crucifer-specialists.
resultsM. persicae, B. brassicae and L. erysimi were released in microcosms and allowed to choose to settle on either CMV-infected or mock-inoculated plants. Initial experiments showed that as systemic CMV infection developed in A. thaliana, aphids of M. persicae were decreasingly likely to settle on infected plants. In subsequent experiments, using plants at 14 days post-infection, it was found that aphids of M. persicae were faster to choose between infected and uninfected plants than specialist aphids, but that both the generalist and specialists were less likely to settle on CMV-infected plants. Olfactometry showed that volatiles emitted by CMV-infected plants attracted M. persicae, and although the specialists showed no significant preferences, greater numbers of aphids of all three species responded when CMV-infected plant volatiles were presented to them.
conclusionsAs CMV infection develops, A. thaliana becomes less susceptible to aphid colonisation, however, plants continue to emit attractive olfactory cues. This is consistent with a model in which aphids are attracted to infected plants but discouraged from settling (e.g., by gustatory cues), which encourages aphids to carry CMV to non-infected plants. CMV appears to be more successful in manipulating the interactions of A. thaliana with the generalist aphid M. persicae, than with the crucifer specialists B. brassicae or L. erysimi.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.