EPPO Global Database

Plum pox virus(PPV000)

EPPO Datasheet: Plum pox virus

Last updated: 2020-02-05


Preferred name: Plum pox virus
Taxonomic position: Viruses and viroids: Riboviria: Potyviridae
Other scientific names: PPV, Plum pox potyvirus, Prunus virus 7
Common names in English: pox of plum, sharka
view more common names online...
Notes on taxonomy and nomenclature

PPV is so far the only potyvirus known to infect temperate fruit trees. The potential existence of a serologically related virus in some Prunus materials of Asian origin has been reported (Hadidi & Levy, 1994). The existence and identity of this virus, tentatively named prunus latent potyvirus has however not been confirmed in further efforts. In particular, High-Throughput Sequencing of several Prunus sources initially reported to be infected by the prunus latent potyvirus or showing similar PPV-cross reactions to it failed to identify any potyvirus or PPV-like virus (Marais et al., 2016).

EPPO Categorization: A2 list
EU Categorization: RNQP (Annex IV)
EPPO code: PPV000

HOSTS 2019-11-19

The main woody hosts are the species of Prunus grown for fruit production, including apricot (P. armeniaca), peach (P. persica) and plum (P. domestica and P. salicina). Almond trees (P. dulcis) can be infected by PPV but show few symptoms (Dallot et al., 1997, Damsteegt et al., 2007). Natural infection of P. cerasus and P. avium, attributed to the cherry adapted PPV-C strain has been sporadically observed in Europe (Kalashyan et al. 1994; Crescenzi et al., 1997). The recent identification of two other cherry-adapted strains (PPV-CR and CV, Glasa et al., 2013; Chirkov et al., 2018) also shows the epidemiological potential of these PPV strains in the cherry hosts.

Many Prunus species used as rootstock or as ornamentals are natural hosts of PPV, together with a range of wild Prunus species, including their interspecific hybrids (James & Thompson, 2006; Damsteegt et al., 2007). PPV infects most wild or ornamental species of Prunus, such as P. besseyi, P. cerasifera, P. insititia, P. spinosa, P. tomentosa, serving as a potential reservoir and source of virus inoculum. Numerous annual cultivated plants or weeds have been shown to be experimental hosts of PPV (Virscek Marn et al., 2004; Llacer, 2006). However, as reports of natural infection of such herbaceous hosts have never been confirmed using two independent diagnostic techniques, and sequence information on the isolate(s) involved has never been provided, their host status is unconfirmed. In any case, natural transmission between such herbaceous plants and Prunus has never been demonstrated in nature, so that the epidemiological contribution of herbaceous hosts, if any, remains questionable.

Host list: Prunus americana, Prunus armeniaca, Prunus avium, Prunus besseyi, Prunus brigantina, Prunus cerasifera, Prunus cerasus, Prunus curdica, Prunus domestica subsp. insititia, Prunus domestica subsp. italica, Prunus domestica, Prunus dulcis, Prunus glandulosa, Prunus holosericea, Prunus incisa, Prunus japonica, Prunus laurocerasus, Prunus mahaleb, Prunus mandshurica, Prunus maritima, Prunus mume, Prunus nigra, Prunus persica, Prunus pumila, Prunus salicina, Prunus serotina, Prunus serrulata, Prunus sibirica, Prunus simonii, Prunus spinosa, Prunus tomentosa, Prunus triloba, Prunus virginiana, Prunus x blireana, Prunus x cistena, Prunus


Typical sharka symptoms, caused by PPV (Atanasoff, 1932) were observed for the first time in plums in Eastern Europe (Bulgaria) around 1914. PPV subsequently spread, over most of the European continent and Mediterranean basin during the 20th century (Garcia & Cambra, 2007). PPV has also been reported from the Americas (Levy et al., 2000; Thompson et al., 2001; Herrera, 2013), from Asia (Maejima et al., 2010) and from Africa (Boulila et al., 2004). It is not yet officially reported from Oceania. In 2019, PPV was reported to be eradicated in the USA (USDA, 2019).

EPPO Region: Albania, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, France (mainland, Corse), Germany, Greece (mainland), Hungary, Israel, Italy (mainland, Sicilia), Jordan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Moldova, Montenegro, Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal (mainland, Azores), Romania, Russia (Central Russia, Southern Russia), Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain (mainland), Switzerland, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom (England)
Africa: Egypt, Tunisia
Asia: China (Hunan), India (Himachal Pradesh), Iran, Israel, Japan (Honshu), Jordan, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Syria
North America: Canada (Ontario)
South America: Argentina, Chile

BIOLOGY 2019-11-19

Infected Prunus trees are the major source of inoculum. The virus is transmitted from them either by grafting and other vegetative multiplication techniques or non-persistently by aphid vectors (Ng & Falk, 2006; Moreno et al., 2009). Aphis spiraecola, Phorodon humuli, Hyalopterus pruni and Myzus persicae are the main vectors (Cambra & Vidal, 2017). Other aphids have also been shown to transmit the virus: Aphis craccivora, A. fabae, A. gossypii, A. hederae, Brachycaudus cardui, B. helychrysi, B. persicae, Myzus cerasi, M. varians, Rhopalosiphum padi and Sitobion fragariae (Labonne et al., 1995; Gildow et al., 2004).

The number of trees becoming infected in an orchard is directly related, in a given season, to the population level of winged aphids. These aphids probe or feed on infected leaves, then fly to other trees where they again probe or feed (Labonne & Quiot, 2006). Aphids can also acquire PPV from infected fruits (Labonne & Quiot, 2001). Analysing the spatial distribution of aphid-borne spread in eastern Spain, Gottwald et al. (1995) concluded that aphids do not spread the disease much to immediately adjacent trees, but to a few trees away. Experiments and modeling show that spread occurs generally within a few hundred meters with about 50% of transmission events occurring within 90 m of the source tree (Pleydell et al., 2018). The capacity for vector transmission can vary between viral isolates even within the same strain (Dallot et al., 2003; Glasa et al., 2004). After inoculation of a Prunus tree, the incubation period may last several months and systemic spread may take several years. Accordingly, the virus may be distributed very irregularly in trees, possibly explaining the dynamic structure and heterogeneous nature of PPV population(s) in individual hosts (Jridi et al., 2006; Predajňa et al., 2012). Seed or pollen transmission of PPV in Prunus has not been confirmed, and is unknown in practice (Glasa et al., 1999; Pasquini & Barba, 2006).

Various strains of PPV were originally distinguished (necrotic, intermediate, yellow) on the basis of symptoms obtained by inoculation of herbaceous indicator plants (Sutic et al., 1961). Then two isolates D (Dideron) and M (Markus), the former on apricot in France and the latter originally on peach in Greece, were serologically differentiated (Kerlan & Dunez, 1979). Further efforts led to the identification of these isolates as typifying two strains differing in serological and molecular properties (Candresse et al., 1998). Later sequencing efforts led to the recognition of further strains (Wetzel et al., 1991; Nemchinov et al., 1996; Glasa et al., 2004, Ulubas Serçe et al., 2009; James & Varga A, 2005; Palmisano et al., 2012; Glasa et al., 2013, Chirkov et al., 2018). Currently, a total of ten genetic strains are recognized for PPV (in the order of their discovery: D, M, EA, C, Rec, T, W, An, CR and CV). The three main strains, that have very wide geographical distributions, are PPV-M, D and Rec (Garcia et al., 2014). Some strains have particular biological/epidemiological features (e.g. cherry-adapted strains C, CR and CV) or a restricted geographical distribution (EA in Egypt, T in Turkey). However, due to a high intra-strain variability, most of strains do not show clear-cut epidemiological characteristics that would separate them from others (Sihelská et al., 2017). Several strains, including Rec and T have been shown to result from recombination events involving the D and M strains (Glasa et al., 2004; Glasa & Candresse, 2005; Hajizadeh et al., 2019).



Symptoms may appear on leaves or fruits as a consequence of physiological, biochemical, proteomic, and transcriptional or post-transcriptional changes induced by viral infection (Clemente-Moreno et al., 2015). The symptoms are particularly clear on leaves at the beginning of the vegetation period: chlorotic spots, bands or rings, vein clearing, or even leaf deformation in peaches. Infected fruits show chlorotic spots or rings. Diseased plums and apricots may be deformed and show internal browning of the flesh; in apricot, the stones show characteristic pale rings or spots. Premature fruit dropping (up to 100%) can occur in the most susceptible cultivars (Sochor et al., 2012; Garcia et al., 2014). Symptoms of sharka depend very much on PPV isolate, locality, season, Prunus species and cultivar and plant organ (leaf or fruit) (Dosba et al., 1986). 


PPV has filamentous virus particles 750 nm long and 15 nm in diameter. It has a single-stranded RNA genome of ca 10 000 nucleotides, coding for a large polyprotein with a molecular weight of 3.5 x 106 Da. The genome encodes 10 mature proteins processed from the viral polyprotein by the action of three viral proteases. As for other potyviruses, transcriptional slippage allows the extension of an out of frame short open reading frame P3N-PIPO (Rodamilans et al., 2015).

Protein inclusions of the pinwheel type are present in the cytoplasm of infected cells. The full-length nucleotide sequences of a number of virus isolates belonging to all recognized strains have been determined (García et al., 2014). Genome function in PPV is now increasingly understood, and this virus is now a model for studies on the molecular biology of potyviruses (García et al., 2014; Rodamilans et al., 2019).

Detection and inspection methods 

In spite of the irregular distribution of the virus in the tree, visual inspection may allow detection of symptoms in susceptible cultivars, especially during the period of active growth. Testing on susceptible indicators (peach GF305 or Prunus tomentosa) by chip-budding can produce symptoms in 6-8 weeks (Damsteegt et al.; 1997, Gentit, 2006). Mechanical inoculation on Chenopodium foetidum or Nicotiana benthamiana produces symptoms in 6-10 days but the inoculation efficiency from Prunus hosts is generally low (Sutic et al., 1961; Glasa & Candresse, 2005; Glasa et al., 2010).

Immunochemical methods, such as ELISA, have still an important role in the diagnostic of PPV (Šubr & Glasa, 2008; Cambra et al., 2011). A range of broad-spectrum or strain-specific antibodies are available (Cambra et al., 1994; Cambra et al., 2006a; Candresse et al., 2011), including monoclonal antibodies. Although all parts of the tree can be sampled for testing, the best detection results rely on the use of composite leaf samples from actively growing shoots taken in different parts of the canopy (Adams, 2008).

Molecular methods based on the amplification of specific parts of the PPV genome show a higher sensitivity than immunochemical methods (Lopez et al., 2003). Various modifications of RT-PCR in single or multiplex format have been developed both for the universal detection of all PPV isolates or for strain-specific detection (Olmos et al., 2002; Šubr et al., 2004). 

An effective detection coupled with the possibility to differentiate PPV strains can be achieved using real-time RT-PCR (Varga & James, 2005; Capote et al., 2009; Fotiou et al., 2019). Isothermal amplification methods, such as LAMP (Varga & James, 2006; Hadersdorfer et al., 2011) have also been developed for a simple and direct use in the field. Validated international protocols for detection and characterization of PPV are available (EPPO, 2004, IPPC-FAO, 2012).


The distribution of the disease appears to be at random in orchards. The virus is introduced as a consequence of aphid transmission or of the use of infected planting material. After 2-3 years, infection begins to spread from the first infected trees. Graft transmission can contribute significantly to spread in infected areas if certified virus-free material is not used. Movement of the virus between areas or countries is most often linked to the use of uncertified plants for planting (Rimbaud et al., 2015a, b).


Economic impact

The importance of sharka disease on the European stone-fruit production has been reviewed by Cambra et al. (2006b). The disease incidence is particularly high in the fruit-producing areas of central and eastern Europe. Virus infection can lead to considerable yield losses, reaching 100%. European plums may show premature fruit drop, while Japanese plums and peaches show ring-spotting on fruit, and apricots show serious fruit deformation.


There is no anti-virus treatment available to control sharka disease in orchards. There are, however, considerable differences in susceptibility between the cultivars available for use in countries where infection is widespread (Kegler et al., 1998, Martínez-Gómez et al., 2000). However, the frequent plantation of tolerant Prunus cultivars (their fruits remaining generally symptomless in case of infection) has probably contributed to the further spread of PPV in these countries (Glasa et al., 2004). Biological control by inoculation of trees with hypo-aggressive strains has not proved as successful in the field as under controlled conditions (Kerlan et al., 1980) and is not considered a realistic preventative option. Other effective control methods are the production and use of healthy plants for planting within a certification system, and the eradication of diseased trees or orchards to reduce inoculum pressure (Rimbaud et al., 2015a). As for other potyviruses, the control of aphid vectors by regular treatment with aphicides or mineral oils shows only limited effectiveness, with the possible exception of nurseries where some protection has been recorded (Vidal et al., 2013). Such methods are used to contain PPV in several countries (e.g. France, Italy). EPPO recommends a certification scheme for fruit trees, which takes into account PPV (EPPO, 1991/1992). Resistance to PPV shows some promise, whether by traditional breeding or by transgenic methods. The hypersensitive response in plums, resulting in localized cell death, has been found to be an effective resistance mechanism against PPV (Hartmann, 1998). Apricot varieties resistant to the PPV-D strain are now extensively planted in some areas of Spain. While progress has been obtained in plum and apricot, the development of resistant peach varieties has remained a challenge due to the paucity of resistance sources. Biotechnology has also contributed with the development of the transgenic plum cultivar Honeysweet which shows a high, broad spectrum resistance (Scorza et al., 2016). 

Phytosanitary risk

PPV is included in the EPPO A2 list of pests recommended for regulation as quarantine pests. It is a quarantine pest for the European Union and many other EPPO member countries. It is also of regulatory interest to other Regional Plant Protection Organizations (e.g. COSAVE, IAPSC and NAPPO).

In the EPPO region, PPV presents a major risk to apricot, plum and peach in many countries where it is still absent or very localized. In addition, its presence in a country creates difficulties for export of certified planting material.


In order to prevent entry or spread of PPV, all imported host material (except seeds) should come from a place of production subject to growing-season inspection (EPPO, 2016). If the virus is present in the exporting country, this inspection should also concern the immediate vicinity of the place of production, and the material should derive from tested mother plants. Material produced following the EPPO certification scheme for virus-free fruit trees would satisfy these requirements (EPPO, 1991/1992). 

Measures can effectively be taken to prevent spread of PPV from foci of infection and even to eradicate it. These include planting non-host plants in infected areas, using tolerant or resistant cultivars, controlling the vectors and destroying all diseased trees.

REFERENCES 2019-11-19

Adams A (2008) The detection of plum pox virus in Prunus species by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Annals of Applied Biology 90, 215-221.

Atanasoff D (1932) Plum pox. A new virus disease. Annals of the University of Sofia, Faculty of Agriculture and Silviculture 11, 49-69.

Boulila M, Briard P, Ravelonandro M (2004) Outbreak of Plum pox virus in Tunisia. Journal of Plant Pathology 86, 197-201.

Cambra M, Vidal E (2017) Sharka, a vector-borne disease caused by Plum pox virus: vector species, transmission mechanism, epidemiology and mitigation strategies to reduce its natural spread. Acta Horticulturae 1163, 57-68.

Cambra M, Boscia D, Gil M, Bertolini E, Olmos A (2011) Immunology and immunological assays applied to the detection, diagnosis and control of fruit tree viruses. In: Virus and Virus-like Disease of Pome and Stone Fruits (Hadidi, A., Barba, M., Candresse, T. and Jelkmann, W., eds), pp. 303–313. St. Paul, Minnesota: APS Press.

Cambra M, Boscia D, Myrta A, Palkovics L, Navrátil M, Barba M, Gorris MT, Capote N (2006a) Serological detection and characterisation of Plum pox virus. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 36, 254-261.

Cambra M, Capote N, Myrta A, Llácer G (2006b) Plum pox virus and the estimated costs associated with sharka disease. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 36, 202-204.

Cambra M, Asensio M, Gorris, M, Pérez E, Camarassa E, García JA, Moya JJ, López-Abella D, Vela C, Sanz A (1994) Detection of Plum pox potyvirus using monoclonal antibodies to structural and non-structural proteins. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 24, 569-577.

Candresse T, Cambra M, Dallot S, Lanneau M, Asensio M, Gorris MT, Revers F, Macquaire G, Olmos A, Boscia D, Quiot JB, Dunez J (1998) Comparison of monoclonal antibodies and polymerase chain reaction assays for the typing of isolates belonging to the D and M serotypes of Plum pox potyvirus. Phytopathology 88, 198-204.

Candresse T, SaenzP, García JA, Boscia D, Navratil M, Gorris MT, Cambra M (2011) Analysis of the epitope structure of Plum pox virus coat protein. Phytopathology 101, 611–619.

Capote N, Bertolini E, Olmos A, Vidal E, Martínez MC, Cambra M (2009) Direct sample preparation methods for the detection of Plum pox virus by real-time RT-PCR. International Microbiology 12, 1-6.

Chirkov S, Sheveleva A, Ivanov P, Zakubanskiy A (2018) Analysis of genetic diversity of Russian sour cherry Plum pox virus isolates provides evidence of a new strain. Plant Disease 102, 569-575. 

Clemente-Moreno MJ, Hernández JA, Diaz-Vivancos P (2015) Sharka: how do plants respond to Plum pox virus infection? Journal of Experimental Botany 66, 25-35.

Crescenzi A, d'Aquino L, Comes S, Nuzzaci M, Piazzolla P, Boscia D, Hadidi A (1997) Characterization of the sweet cherry isolate of Plum pox potyvirus. Plant Disease 81, 711-714.

Dallot S, Bousalem M, Boeglin M, Renaud LY, Quiot JB (1997) Potential role of almond in sharka epidemics: susceptibility under controlled conditions to the main types of Plum pox potyvirus and survey for natural infections in France. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 27, 539–546.

Dallot S, Gottwald T, Labonne G, Quiot JB (2003) Spatial pattern analysis of sharka disease (Plum pox virus strain M) in peach orchards of southern France. Phytopathology 93, 1543-1552.

Damsteegt VD, Scorza R, Stone AL, Schneider WL, Webb K, Demuth M, Gildow FE (2007) Prunus host range of Plum pox virus (PPV) in the United States by aphid and graft inoculation. Plant Disease 91, 18-23.

Damsteegt VD, Waterworth HE, Mink GI, Howell WE, Levy L (1997) Prunus tomentosa as a diagnostic host for detection of Plum pox virus and other Prunus viruses. Plant Disease 81, 329-332.

Dosba F, Lansac M, Pêcheur G, Teyssier B, Piquemal JP, Michel M (1986) Plum pox virus detection by ELISA technique in peach and apricot infected trees at different growing stage. Acta Horticulturae 193, 187-191.

EPPO (1991/1992) Certification schemes. Virus-free or virus-tested fruit trees and rootstocks. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 21, 267-278; 22, 253-284.

EPPO (2004) Diagnostic protocol for regulated pests. Plum pox potyvirus. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 34, 247-256.

EPPO (2016) Phytosanitary procedures. PM 3/76 (1) Trees of Malus, Pyrus, Cydonia and Prunus spp. – inspection of places of production. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 46, 28–39.

Fotiou IS, Pappi PG, Efthimiou KE, Katis NI, Maliogka VI (2019) Development of one-tube real-time RT-qPCR for the universal detection and quantification of Plum pox virus (PPV). Journal of Virological Methods 263, 10-13.

García JA, Glasa M, Cambra M, Candresse T (2014) Plum pox virus and sharka: A model potyvirus and a major disease. Molecular Plant Pathology 15, 226-241.

García JA, Cambra M (2007) Plum pox virus and sharka disease. Plant Viruses 1, 69–79.

Gentit P (2006) Detection of Plum pox virus: biological methods. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 36, 251–253.

Gildow F, Damsteegt V, Stone A, Schneider W, Luster D, Levy L (2004) Plum pox in North America: identification of aphid vectors and a potential role for fruit in virus spread. Phytopathology 94, 868–874.

Glasa M, Candresse T (2005) Plum pox virus. AAB Description of Plant Viruses. No. 410. http://www.dpvweb.net/dpv/showdpv.php?dpvno=410

Glasa M, Hričovský I, Kúdela O (1999) Evidence for non-transmission of Plum pox virus by seed in infected plum and myrobalan. Biologia 54, 481-484.

Glasa M, Candresse T (2005) Partial sequence analysis of an atypical Turkish isolate provides further information on the evolutionary history of Plum pox virus (PPV). Virus Research 108, 199-206.

Glasa M, Palkovics L, Komínek P, Labonne G, Pittnerova S, Kudela O, Candresse T, Šubr Z (2004) Geographically and temporally distant natural recombinant isolates of Plum pox virus (PPV) are genetically very similar and form a unique PPV subgroup. Journal of General Virology 85, 2671–2681.

Glasa M, Predajna L, Šubr Z (2010) Competitiveness of different Plum pox virus isolates in experimental mixed infections reveals rather isolate- than strain specific behaviour. Journal of Plant Pathology 92, 267-271.

Glasa M, Prikhodko Y, Predajna L, Nagyova A, Shneyder Y, Zhivaeva T, Subr Z, Cambra M, Candresse T (2013) Characterization of sour cherry isolates of Plum pox virus from the Volga basin in Russia reveals a new cherry strain of the virus. Phytopathology 103, 972-979.

Gottwald TR, Avinent L, Llácer G, Hermoso de Mendoza A, Cambra M (1995) Analysis of the spatial spread of sharka (Plum pox virus) in apricot and peach orchards in eastern Spain. Plant Disease 79, 266-278.

Hadersdorfer J, Neumüller M, Treutter D, Fischer TC (2011) Fast and reliable detection of Plum pox virus in woody host plants using the Blue LAMP protocol. Annals of Applied Biology 159, 456-466.

Hadidi A, Levy L (1994) Accurate identification of Plum pox potyvirus and its differentiation from Asian prunus latent potyvirus in Prunus germplasm. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 24, 633-643.

Hajizadeh M, Gibbs AJ, Amirnia F, Glasa M (2019) The global phylogeny of Plum pox virus is emerging. Journal of General Virology 100, 1457-1468.

Hartmann W (1998) Hypersensitivity—a possibility for breeding sharka resistant plum hybrids. Acta Horticulturae 472, 429–432.

Herrera G (2013) Investigations of the Plum pox virus in Chile in the past 20 years. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research 73, 60-65.

IPPC-FAO (2012) International standards for phytosanitary measures: diagnostic protocols: Plum pox virus. ISPM 27, Annex 2 (DP2).

James D, Thompson D (2006) Hosts and symptoms of Plum pox virus: ornamental and wild Prunus species. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 36, 222-224.

James D, Varga A (2005) Nucleotide sequence analysis of Plum pox virus isolate W3174: evidence of a new strain. Virus Research 110, 143-150.

Jridi C, Martin JF, Marie-Jeanne V, Labonne G, Blanc S (2006) Distinct viral populations differentiate and evolve independently in a single perennial host plant. Journal of Virology 80, 2349-2357.

Kalashyan YA, Bilkey ND, Verderevskaya TD, Rubina EV (1994) Plum pox potyvirus on sour cherry in Moldova. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 24, 645-649.

Kegler H, Fuchs E, Gruntzig M, Schwarz S (1998) Some results of 50 years of research on the resistance to Plum pox virusActa Virologica 42, 200-215.

Kerlan C, Dunez J (1979) Différenciation biologique et sérologique des souches du virus de la sharka. Annales de Phytopathologie 11, 241-250.

Kerlan C, Maison P, Lansac M, Dunez J (1980) Preliminary studies of the antagonism between strains of Plum pox virusActa Phytopathologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 15, 57-68.

Labonne G, Quiot JB (2001) Aphids can acquire Plum pox virus from infected fruits. Acta Horticulturae 550, 79-84.

Labonne G, Quiot JB (2006) The behaviour of alate aphids inside a Prunus orchard: an element to take into account for Plum pox virus spread? Acta Horticulturae 701, 427-432.

Labonne G, Yvon M, Quiot JB, Avinent L, Llacer G (1995) Aphids as potential vectors of Plum pox virus: comparison of methods of testing and epidemiological consequences. Acta Horticulturae 386, 207-218.

Levy L, Damsteegt V, Welliver R (2000) First report of Plum pox virus (sharka disease) in Prunus persica in the United States. Plant Disease 84, 202.

Llácer G (2006) Hosts and symptoms of Plum pox virus: herbaceous hosts. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 36, 227–228.

López MM, Bertolini E, Olmos A, Caruso P, Gorris MT, Llop P, Penyalver R, Cambra M (2003) Innovative tools for detection of plant pathogenic viruses and bacteria. International Microbiology 6, 233-243.

Maejima K, Hoshi H, Hashimoto M, Himeno M, Kawanishi T, Komatsu K, Yamaji Y, Hamamoto H, Namba S (2010) First report of Plum pox virus infecting Japanese apricot (Prunus mume Sieb. et Zucc.) in Japan. Journal of General Plant Pathology 76, 229-231.

Marais A, Faure C, Candresse T (2016) New insights into Asian Prunus viruses in the light of NGS-based full genome sequencing. PLoS One 11 (1): e0146420. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146420

Martínez-Gómez P, Dicenta F, Audergon JM (2000) Behaviour of apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) cultivars in the presence of sharka (Plum pox potyvirus): a review. Agronomie 20, 407-422.

Moreno A, Fereres A, Cambra M (2009) Quantitative estimation of Plum pox virus targets acquired and transmitted by a single Myzus persicae. Archives of Virology 154, 1391-1399.

Nemchinov L, Hadidi A, Maiss E, Cambra M, Candresse T, Damsteegt V (1996) Sour cherry strain of Plum pox potyvirus (PPV): molecular and serological evidence for a new subgroup of PPV strains. Phytopathology 86, 1215-1221.

Ng JC, Falk BW (2006) Virus-vector interactions mediating nonpersistent and semipersistent transmission of plant viruses. Annual Reviews of Phytopathology 44, 183–212.

Olmos A, Bertolini E, Cambra M (2002). Simultaneous and Co-operational amplification (Co-PCR) for detection of plant viruses. Journal of Virological Methods 106, 51-59. 

Palmisano F, Boscia D, Minafra A, Myrta A, Candresse T (2012) An atypical Albanian isolate of Plum pox virus could be the progenitor of the Marcus strain. In: 22nd International Conference on Virus and Other Graft Transmissible Diseases of Fruit Crops, June 3–8, Rome, Book of Abstracts, p. 33.

Pasquini G, Barba M (2006) The question of seed transmissibility of Plum pox virusBulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 36, 287-292.

Pleydell DRJ, Soubeyrand S, Dallot S, Labonne G, Chadœuf J, Jacquot E, Thebaud G (2018) Estimation of the dispersal distances of an aphid-borne virus in a patchy landscape. PLoS Computational Biology 14(4): e1006085, doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006085

Predajňa L, Šubr Z, Candresse T, Glasa M (2012) Evaluation of the genetic diversity of Plum pox virus in a single plum tree. Virus Research 167, 112–117.

Rimbaud L, Dallot S, Delaunay A, Borron S, Soubeyrand S, Thébaud G, Jacquot E (2015b) Assessing the mismatch between incubation and latent periods for vector-borne diseases: The case of sharka. Phytopathology 105, 1408-1416.

Rimbaud L, Dallot S, Gottwald T, Decroocq V, Jacquot E, Soubeyrand S, Thébaud G (2015a) Sharka epidemiology and worldwide management strategies: learning lessons to optimize disease control in perennial plants. Annual Reviews of Phytopathology 53, 357-378. 

Rodamilans B, Valli AA, Garcia JA (2019) Molecular Plant-Plum pox virus interactions. Molecular Plant Microbe Interactions, doi: 10.1094/MPMI-07-19-0189-FI (in press)

Rodamilans B, Valli A, Mingot A, San León D, Baulcombe D, López-Moya JJ, García JA (2015) RNA  polymerase slippage as a mechanism for the production of frameshift gene products in plant viruses of the Potyviridae family. Journal of Virology 89, 6965-6967.

Scorza R, Ravelonandro M, Callahan A, Zagrai I, Polak J, Malinowski T, Cambra M, Levy L, Damsteegt V, Krška B, Cordts J, Gonsalves D, Dardick C (2016) ‘HoneySweet’(C5), the first genetically engineered plum pox (Prunus domestica L.) cultivar. HortScience 51, 601–603.

Sihelská N, Glasa M, Šubr Z (2017) Host preference of the major strains of Plum pox virus – opinions based on regional and world-wide sequence data. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 16, 510-515.

Sochor J, Babula,P, Adam V, Krska B, Kizek R (2012) Sharka: the past, the present and the future. Viruses 4, 2853-2901.

Šubr Z, Glasa M (2008) Plum pox virus variability detected by the advanced analytical methods. Acta Virologica 52, 75-90.

Šubr Z, Pittnerova S, Glasa M (2004) A simplified RT-PCR-based detection of recombinant Plum pox virus isolates. Acta Virologica 48, 173-176.

Sutic D (1961) Assay of transmission of sharka virus disease by sap inoculation to herbaceous plants. T. Planteavl. 65, 138-146.

Thompson D, McCann M, McLeod M, Lye D, Green M, James D (2001) First report of Plum pox potyvirus in Canada. Plant Disease 85, 97.

Ulubas Serçe C, Candresse T, Svanella-Dumas L, Krizba, L, Gazel M, Çaglayan K (2009) Further characterization of a new recombinant group of Plum pox virus isolates, PPV-T, found in orchards in the Ankara province of Turkey. Virus Research 142, 121-126.

USDA (2019) USDA declares United States free from Plum pox virus. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/newsroom/news/sa_by_date/sa-2019/plum-pox-declaration

Varga A, James D (2006) Use of reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification for the detection of Plum pox virus. Journal of Virological Methods 138, 184-190. 

Varga A, James D (2005) Detection and differentiation of Plum pox virus using real-time multiplex PCR with SYBR Green and melting curve analysis: a rapid method for strain typing. Journal of Virological Methods 123, 213-220.

Vidal E, Zagrai L, Milusheva S, Bozhkova V, Tasheva-Terzieva E, Kamenova I, Zagrai I, Cambra M (2013) Horticultural mineral oil treatments in nurseries during aphid flights reduce Plum pox virus incidence under different ecological conditions. Annals of Applied Biology 162, 299-308.

Virscek Marn M, Mavric I, Urbancic-Zemljic M, Skerlavaj V (2004) Detection of Plum pox potyvirus in weeds. Acta Horticulturae 657, 251-254.

Wetzel T, Candresse T, Ravelonandro M, Delbos RP, Mazyad H, Aboul-Ata AE, Dunez J (1991) Nucleotide sequence of the 3' terminal region of the RNA of the El Amar strain of Plum pox potyvirus. Journal of General Virology 72, 1741-1746.


This datasheet was extensively revised in 2019 by Thierry Candresse and Miroslav Glasa. Their valuable contribution is gratefully acknowledged.

How to cite this datasheet?

EPPO (2020) Plum pox virus. EPPO datasheets on pests recommended for regulation. Available online. https://gd.eppo.int

Datasheet history 2019-11-19

This datasheet was first published in the EPPO Bulletin in 1983 and revised in the two editions of 'Quarantine Pests for Europe' in 1992 and 1997, as well as in 2019. It is now maintained in an electronic format in the EPPO Global Database. The sections on 'Identity', ‘Hosts’, and 'Geographical distribution' are automatically updated from the database. For other sections, the date of last revision is indicated on the right.

CABI/EPPO (1992/1997) Quarantine Pests for Europe (1st and 2nd edition). CABI, Wallingford (GB).

EPPO (1983) Data sheets on quarantine organisms No. 96, Plum pox virus. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 13(1), 1-7.