Next Article in Journal
Viral Infection at High Magnification: 3D Electron Microscopy Methods to Analyze the Architecture of Infected Cells
Previous Article in Journal
Evidence for Oncolytic Virotherapy: Where Have We Got to and Where Are We Going?
 
 
Correction

Correction: Graillot, B.; et al. Progressive Adaptation of a CpGV Isolate to Codling Moth Populations Resistant to CpGV-M. Viruses 2014, 6, 5135–5144

1
LGEI, Ecole des Mines d’Alès, Institut Mines-Telecom et Université de Montpellier Sud de France. 6, Avenue de Clavières, 30319 Alès, France
2
Natural Plant Protection, Arysta LifeScience Group, Avenue Léon Blum, 64000 Pau, France
3
Present address : CREA, 215 Avenue de la Roche Parnale, ZI Motte Longue, 74130 Bonneville, France
4
INRA, 6, Avenue de Clavières, 30319 Alès, France
5
INRA, unité PSH, Agroparc, 84914 Avignon Cedex 9, France
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editors: John Burand and Madoka Nakai
Viruses 2015, 7(12), 6313-6315; https://doi.org/10.3390/v7122939
Received: 16 November 2015 / Accepted: 26 November 2015 / Published: 3 December 2015
(This article belongs to the Section Insect Viruses)

Abstract

In our article “Progressive Adaptation of a CpGV Isolate to Codling Moth Populations Resistant to CpGV-M.” (Viruses 2014, 6, 5135–5144; doi:10.3390/v6125135) [1] we obtained resistance values of the codling moth, Cydia pomonella, RGV laboratory colony [2], when challenged with Cydia pomonella Granulovirus, Mexican Isolate (CpGV-M), that were lower than those previously published [2]. Careful analysis of both the RGV colony and the CpGV-M virus stock used led to the realization that a low level contamination of this virus stock with CpGV-R5 occurred. We have made new tests with a verified stock, and the results are now in agreement with those previously published.
Keywords: Cydia pomonella granulovirus; codling moth; biological control; resistance development Cydia pomonella granulovirus; codling moth; biological control; resistance development

In our article “Progressive Adaptation of a CpGV Isolate to Codling Moth Populations Resistant to CpGV-M.” (Viruses 2014, 6, 5135–5144; doi:10.3390/v6125135) [1] we obtained resistance values of the RGV laboratory colony, when challenged with Cydia pomonella Granulovirus, Mexican Isolate (CpGV-M), that were lower than those previously published [2].
Careful analysis of both the RGV colony and the CpGV-M virus stock used led to the realization that a low level contamination of this virus stock with CpGV-R5 occurred.
We have made new tests with a verified stock, and the results are now in agreement with those published by Berling et al. [2] and in the same range as those obtained with another insect population, CpRR1 [3].
Below you will find the corrected Table 2 for our recently published article [1], in which line 7 has changed.
Table 2. Pathogenicities, measured by lethal concentration (LC)50 and LC90 of four viral isolates on Cydia pomonella laboratory colonies susceptible and resistant to CpGV-M.
Table 2. Pathogenicities, measured by lethal concentration (LC)50 and LC90 of four viral isolates on Cydia pomonella laboratory colonies susceptible and resistant to CpGV-M.
Host ColonyVirus IsolateTotal No. of Insects TestedNo. of OB/µL (95% CI)Slope ± SEΧ2Resistance Factor (Fold) (a)
LC50LC90LC50LC90
SusceptibleCpGV-M78613.10 (6.55–23.20)223.10 (110.70–654.18)1.04 ± 0.095.991.01.0
NPP-R1 (b)68925.80 (14.48–39.93)328.55 (196.93–702.51)1.16 ± 0.131.282.01.5
2016-r4 (b)99939.65 (6.40–133.91)805.85 (260.20–1.36 × 103)0.98 ± 0.1113.63.03.5
2016-r844548.37 (21.18–81.44)280.52 (158.02–857.03)1.678 ± 0.254.673.71.3
2016-r167906.76 (2.6–13.37)59.63 (27.54–278.55)1.36 ± 0.1311.420.50.25
ResistantCpGV-M16192.22 × 106 (1.19 × 106–5.67 × 106)---0.50 ± 0.0710.61.7 × 105---
NPP-R1 (b)578166.31 (91.21–278.27)1.28 × 104 (5.95 × 103–3.80 × 104)0.70 ± 0.084.811357
2016-r4 (b)1201102.31 (63.20–146.91)1.57 × 103 (1.01 × 103–2.97 × 103)1.10 ± 0.106.217.87
2016-r845641.27 (26.97–58.96)319.24 (207.87–582.06)1.44 ± 0.171.833.21.5
2016-r1654522.43 (13.73–34.36)410.67 (240.16–846.43)1.02 ± 0.113.601.71.8
(a) The pathogenicity of CpGV-M on susceptible larvae is used as a reference level; (b) Results from [2]
As a consequence, the first paragraph in the Discussion section must also be changed:
“Codling moth resistant natural populations did not respond to control by CpGV-M. The resistance levels were variable, from a hundred-fold to more than a thousand-fold resistance as a function of the relative frequency of the resistant genotypes. The RGV resistant colony, developed from a natural population, exhibits a homogeneous resistance level against CpGV-M higher than 105 (for LC50) compared to the level for the susceptible colony.”
We apologize to the readers of Viruses for any inconvenience this may have caused.

References

  1. Graillot, B.; Berling, M.; Blachere-López, C.; Siegwart, M.; Besse, S.; López-Ferber, M. Progressive adaptation of a CpGV isolate to codling moth populations resistant to CpGV-M. Viruses 2014, 6, 5135–5144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Berling, M.; Blachere-Lopez, C.; Soubabere, O.; Lery, X.; Bonhomme, A.; Sauphanor, B.; Lopez-Ferber, M. Cydia pomonella granulovirus genotypes overcome virus resistance in the codling moth and improve virus efficiency by selection against resistant hosts. Appl. Environ. Microb. 2009, 75, 925–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Asser-Kaiser, S.; Fritsch, E.; Undorf-Spahn, K.; Kienzle, J.; Eberle, K.E.; Gund, N.A.; Reineke, A.; Zebitz, C.P.W.; Heckel, D.G.; Huber, J.; et al. Rapid emergence of baculovirus resistance in codling moth due to dominant, sex-linked inheritance. Science 2007, 317, 1916–1918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Back to TopTop