The Open Agriculture Journal




ISSN: 1874-3315 ― Volume 12, 2018
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Response of Selected Maize Inbred Germplasm to Maize Lethal Necrosis Disease and Its Causative Viruses (Sugarcane Mosaic Virus and Maize Chlorotic Mottle Virus) in Kenya



James Karanja1, *, John Derera2, Augustine Gubba2, Stephen Mugo3, Ann Wangai1
1 Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization, National Agriculture Research Laboratories P. O Box 14733-00800, Kabete, Nairobi
2 University of Kwa Zulu Natal, Pietermaritzburg Campus, Private Bag X01, Scottsville 3209, South Africa
3 International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT)-Kenya, ICRAF House, United Nations Avenue-Gigiri, and P.O Box 1041-00621, Nairobi, Kenya

Abstract

Background:

Maize lethal necrosis (MLN) disease continues to reduce the productivity of maize drastically threatening food security in the affected regions. It continues to cause yield loss of 30–100 percent in farmers’ fields, depending on the time of infestation which is valued at $198 million in Kenya. This has not only threatened regional trade, but also seed industry. It has been reported in the major maize belts of Uasin Gishu, Trans-Nzoia, Bomet, Narok and Nandi Counties. MLN is caused by the synergistic interaction between Sugarcane Mosaic Virus (SCMV) and Maize Chlorotic Mottle Virus (MCMV). The disease has then spread to other Eastern and Central African countries with devastating food security and economic consequences.

Objectives:

This study highlights result after screening selected maize inbred lines for resistance to MLN, SCMV and MCMV in identifying promising lines for integration into the breeding program for MLN resistance.

Methods:

Sixty-five (65) maize genotypes were artificially inoculated using virus strains collected from Bomet County in Kenya at 3-4 leaf stage. Data on disease severity and incidence, AUDPC and flowering were recorded.

Results:

From the result, the inbred lines had significant differences for SCMV, MCMV and MLN reactions. Based on Area Under Disease Progress Curve (AUDPC) score and ELISA analysis, genotypes MLN001 and MLN006 have the lowest score of 270, whereas OH28 had a maximum at 1259 under MCMV. Genotypes MLN042 and MLN041 were identified as the most promising sources of resistant against SCMV. However, no genotype was identified to have acceptable levels of tolerance to MLN, but MLN001 and MLN013 were identified as the best performers under MLN. This study also validated the presence of MLN tolerance in MLN013 (CKDHL120312) and MLN001 (CKDHL120918) as earlier reported by CIMMYT. These tolerant genotypes are now serving as donors in the introgression of the tolerance into the Kenyan adapted maize backgrounds and development of improved MLN tolerant varieties. This will go a long way in restoring and ensuring sustainable maize productivity in improving the livelihoods of the smallholder farmers who form 75% of the major maize producers in Kenya.

Conclusion:

The identified inbred lines would be recommended for use in varietal development, MLN management and to enhance maize productivity, in the MLN endemic regions and further research in understanding the mode of gene action for MLN tolerance.

Keywords: Maize, MCMV, SCMV MLN, Threatening food, AUDPC.


Article Information


Identifiers and Pagination:

Year: 2018
Volume: 12
First Page: 215
Last Page: 226
Publisher Id: TOASJ-12-215
DOI: 10.2174/1874331501812010215

Article History:

Received Date: 12/4/2018
Revision Received Date: 12/7/2018
Acceptance Date: 7/8/2018
Electronic publication date: 26/10/2018
Collection year: 2018

Article Metrics:

CrossRef Citations:
0

Total Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 151
Abstract HTML Views: 119
PDF Downloads: 74
ePub Downloads: 42
Total Views/Downloads: 386

Unique Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 98
Abstract HTML Views: 65
PDF Downloads: 61
ePub Downloads: 33
Total Views/Downloads: 257
Geographical View

© 2018 Karanja et al.

open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode). This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.


* Address correspondence to this author at the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization, National Agriculture Research Laboratories P. O Box 14733-00800, Kabete, Nairobi; Tel: +254721811561; E-mail: jakakah79@gmail.com




1. INTRODUCTION

Maize accounts for > 20% of total agricultural production, and 25% of agricultural employment in Kenya [1Muasya WNP, Diallo AO. Development of early and extra early drought and low nitrogen-tolerant varieties using exotic and local germplasm for the dry mid-altitude ecology. In: Friesen DK, Palmer AFE, Eds. Proceedings of the seventh eastern and southern africa regional maize conference February 5-11, 2001; Nairobi, Kenya. 2001; pp. 2001; 253-9.]. Thus, Kenya’s national food security is strongly linked to the production of adequate quantities of maize to meet an increasing domestic demand [2Groote Hugo De , Odongo Odendo M. Assessment of Farmers’ Preferences and Constraints to Maize Production in Moist Midaltitude Zone of Western Kenya. October 21-26, 2001; In: 5th International Conference of the African Crop Science Society; Lagos, Nigeria. , 3Food Security Statistics Http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/food-security-statistics/en/]. The total land area under maize in Kenya is about 1.5 million ha, with 70-80% of maize being produced by small-scale farmers with an average on-farm production of 1.5-2.6 tons per ha.

The major biotic causes of stress in maize include Striga a parasitic weed, insect pest, diseases mainly northern corn leaf blight, maize lethal necrosis (MLN), Maize streak virus (MSV), and common leaf rust, gray leaf spot (GLS), stalk and ear rot.

MLN is a new disease in Kenya with its first incidences noticed in 2012 [4Adams IP, Harju VA, Hodges T, et al. First report of maize lethal necrosis disease in Rwanda. New Dis Rep 2014; 29: 22-4.[http://dx.doi.org/10.5197/j.2044-0588.2014.029.022] -6Wangai A, Kinyua ZM, Otipa MJ, et al. Maize (Corn) Lethal Necrosis Disease 2012. KARI Information Brochure [ed. by Ministry Of Agriculture]]. Earlier the disease was observed in Kansas, USA, in 1978 Niblett and Claflin where it was identified as corn lethal necrosis (CLN) disease [7Doupnik B Jr. Status of corn lethal necrosis Proceedings of the 34th Annual Corn and Sorghum Research Conference. Chicago, USA. 1979; pp. 16-34.]. Both MLN and CLN are caused by double infection of maize plants by maize chlorotic mottle virus (MCMV) (Machlomovirus: Tombusviridae) in combination with any of the cereal viruses in the Potyviridae group, Sugarcane mosaic virus (SCMV) (Potyvirus: Potyviridae), Maize dwarf mosaic virus (MDMV) or Wheat streak mosaic virus (WSMV). MCMV is transmitted by vectors such as Thrips (Frankliniellawilliamsi Hood) and beetles [8Cabanas D, Watanabe S, Higashi CHV, Bressan A. Dissecting the mode of Maize chlorotic virus (Tombusviridae: Machlomovirus) transmission by franliniella williamsi (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). J Econ Entomol 2013; 106: 16-24.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1603/EC12056] [PMID: 23448010] ] while SCMV is transmitted by Aphids [9Brandes EW. Artificial and insect transmission of sugarcane mosaic. J Agric Res 1920; 9: 131-8.]. Transmission and spread of MCMV have also been reported to be through seeds from infected plants [10Jensen SG, Wysong DS, Higley P M. Seed transmission of maize chlorotic mottle virus. Plant Dis 1991; 75(5): 497-8.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PD-75-0497] ] at a rate of 0.0003% which can translate into a high number of infected plants resulting in epidemics. MCMV is a threat on its own and may cause significant yield loss even in the absence of the other viruses.

Fig. (1)
Distribution and losses affiliated by MLN in Kenya.
Source: De Groote et al,. 2016


Since its first reports in Bomet county in 2011, the disease has spread into other areas [5Wangai AW, Redinbaugh MG, Kinyua ZM, et al. First report of Maize chlorotic mottle virus and maize lethal necrosis in Kenya. Plant Dis 2012; 96(10): 1582-3.http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/loi/pdis[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-06-12-0576-PDN] ] (Fig. 1). Yield losses of up to 100% which is an estimated grain loss of 126, 000 metric tonnes valued at $52 million have been reported in Kenya [2Groote Hugo De , Odongo Odendo M. Assessment of Farmers’ Preferences and Constraints to Maize Production in Moist Midaltitude Zone of Western Kenya. October 21-26, 2001; In: 5th International Conference of the African Crop Science Society; Lagos, Nigeria. ] while Castillo-loayza [11Castillo-Loayza J. Maize virus and virus-like diseases in Peru. In: Williams LE, Gordon DT, Nault LR, Eds. 1976; In: International Maize Virus Disease Colloquium andWorkshop.; OARDC, Wooster, OH. 1976; pp. 40-4.] reported yield losses of up to 59% due to MCMV in Peru. A survey conducted in the maize growing regions of Kenya in 2013/2014 indicated that 60% of the 2,467 randomly selected samples were positive for MCMV with more than 40% of these being infected with MCMV alone. In DRC, MCMV was detected in 40 to 80% of symptomatic samples collected from the Beni, Lubero, and Rutshuru territories of North Kivu Province in 2013 [12Mahuku G, Lockhart BE, Wanjala B, et al. Maize lethal necrosis (MLN) an emerging threat to maize-based food security in sub-Saharan Africa. Phytopathology 2015; 105(7): 956-65.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-12-14-0367-FI] [PMID: 25822185] , 13Lukanda M, Owati A, Ogunsanya P, et al. First report of Maize chlorotic mottle virus infecting maize in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Plant Dis 2014; 98: 1448-9.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-05-14-0484-PDN] ]. Other than seed, MCMV has also been reported to be transmitted through soil with 70% of emerging plants found to be infected [12Mahuku G, Lockhart BE, Wanjala B, et al. Maize lethal necrosis (MLN) an emerging threat to maize-based food security in sub-Saharan Africa. Phytopathology 2015; 105(7): 956-65.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-12-14-0367-FI] [PMID: 25822185] ].

Depending on the maize variety, a number of viruses infecting the plant, part of the plant infected, time of infection and prevailing environmental conditions, infected plants show a wide range of symptoms [14Redinbaugh MG, Pratt PC. Virus resistance. In: Bennetzen JL, Hake SC, Eds. Handbook of maize: its biology 2009; 251-68.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79418-1_13] ]. Common symptoms include; chlorotic mottle on the leaves usually starting from the base of the young leaves in the whorl and extending upwards towards the leaf tips, mild to severe leaf mottling, dwarfing and premature aging of the plants, necrosis of young leaves in the whorl before expansion leading to a “dead heart” and drying up of the whole plant. Severely affected plants form small cobs with little or no grain set. The entire plant can frequently be killed before flowering [5Wangai AW, Redinbaugh MG, Kinyua ZM, et al. First report of Maize chlorotic mottle virus and maize lethal necrosis in Kenya. Plant Dis 2012; 96(10): 1582-3.http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/loi/pdis[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-06-12-0576-PDN] , 15Niblett CL, Claflin LE. Corn lethal necrosis - a new virus disease of corn in Kansas. Plant Dis Rep 1978; 62(1): 15-9.-17Uyemoto JK, Bockelman DL, Claflin LE. Severe outbreak of corn lethal necrosis disease in Kansas. Plant Dis 1980; 64(1): 99-100. formerly Plant Disease Reporter.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PD-64-99] ] (Fig. 2).

Fig. (2)
Disease symptoms of MLN.


Poor agricultural practices like leaving infected maize crop residues in the field, relay maize planting and maize monoculture aid in inoculum build-up which increases the disease transmission season after season. In addition, poor crop rotation and lack of proper weed management practices has increased maize susceptibility and also aided in offering alternative hosts to the vectors where the weeds are susceptible to the MCMV and SCMV. The management of MLN disease could be achieved by integrating cultural methods, use of a chemical such as seed dressing and vector control with host resistance breeding. However, use of chemicals is uneconomical and environmentally unfriendly, especially among the resource-constrained smallholder maize farmers.

Other measures include; effective monitoring, rigorous implementation of the maize-free period (at least 3 months), timely planting, and use of certified, MCMV-free seed and crop rotation with non-cereal crops [18Phillips NJ, Uyemoto JK, Wilson DL. Maize chlorotic mottle virus and crop rotation: effect of sorghum on virus incidence. Plant Dis 1982; 66: 376-9.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PD-66-376] ]. However, these approaches are difficult to implement in Bomet, Kisii and Narok counties where relay planting of maize is a common practice due to frequent rainfalls. Therefore, the most effective control method for MLN, SCMV and MCMV, is the use of resistant maize genotypes.

Development of virus-resistant maize germplasm and hybrids is the most cost-effective and environmentally friendly approach to control disease [19Gururani MA, Venkatesh J, Upadhyaya CP, Nookaraju A, Pandey SK, Park SW. Plant disease resistance genes: current status and future directions. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol 2012; 78: 51-65.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pmpp.2012.01.002] , 20Ali F, Yan J. Disease resistance in maize and the role of molecular breeding in defending against global threat. J Integr Plant Biol 2012; 54(3): 134-51.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7909.2012.01105.x] [PMID: 22333113] ]. The utilization of disease nurseries and trials in the screen houses and field infestation is the easiest approach to screen for MLN resistance in maize.

The objective of this study was to identify sources of resistance to MCMV, SCMV and MLN in a set of selected maize genotypes that can support further research for genetic analysis and development of durable resistant maize lines and hybrids with good agronomic performance under MLN.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Host plants

Seeds of 65 selected maize genotypes were obtained from the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO), International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) [21Gowda M, Das B, Makumbi D, et al. Genome-wide association and genomic prediction of resistance to maize lethal necrosis disease in tropical maize germplasm. Theor Appl Genet 2015; 128(10): 1957-68.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00122-015-2559-0] [PMID: 26152570] ] and USDA, ARS Corn, Soybean and Wheat Quality Research Unit (CSWQRU) in Wooster, Ohio. The germplasm was selected based on previous studies and data on resistant to other diseases such as maize streak virus, grey leaf spot, Turcicum leaf blight, common leaf rust among others and/or which from previous screening showed indications of resistance or tolerance to MLN. Four yellow maize lines; P405, OH28, N211 and KS23-6 were used as checks where; PA405 is resistant to SCMV but susceptible to MCMV and MLN, OH28 (CI.112-1 X Oh920) X (I11.A x I11.B) which was released in 1943 [22Zambrano JL, Francis DM, Redinbaugh MG. Identification of resistance to maize rayado fino virus in maize inbred lines. Plant Dis 2013; 97: 1418-23.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-01-13-0037-RE] ]. and it is susceptible to Maize dwarf mosaic virus (MDMV), SCMV, Wheat streak mosaic virus (WSMV), Maize chlorotic dwarf virus (MCDV), Maize mosaic virus (MMV), and Maize fine streak virus (MFSV) [23Jones MW, Redinbaugh MG, Louie R. The Mdm1 locus and maize resistance to Maize dwarf mosaic virus. Plant Dis 2007; 91: 185-90.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-91-2-0185] -25McMullen MD, Louie R. The linkage of molecular markers to a gene controlling the symptom response in maize to maize dwarf mosaic virus. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 1989; 2: 309-14.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-2-309] , 14Redinbaugh MG, Pratt PC. Virus resistance. In: Bennetzen JL, Hake SC, Eds. Handbook of maize: its biology 2009; 251-68.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79418-1_13] ]was used as a susceptible check while N211 and KS23-6 were used as tolerant checks for both MCMV and MLN [12Mahuku G, Lockhart BE, Wanjala B, et al. Maize lethal necrosis (MLN) an emerging threat to maize-based food security in sub-Saharan Africa. Phytopathology 2015; 105(7): 956-65.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-12-14-0367-FI] [PMID: 25822185] ]. In the second and third screening, germplasm that had a severity score higher than OH28 in MCMV and MLN were removed, leaving only thirty genotypes. Plastic pots measuring 30 cm in diameter filled with autoclaved (heat-sterilized) silt- loam soil and manure mix (6:1, v/v) were arranged in a randomized complete block design of three replications. Seeds were sown at a rate of five seeds per pot, giving a total of 15 plants per genotype. Di-Ammonium Phosphate (DAP) and Calcium Ammonium Nitrate (CAN) were applied to give 60kgN and 60kgP2O5 ha-1 at planting and at 8 weeks after planting (WAP) respectively.

2.2. Virus isolates/ Inoculum preparation and inoculation

MCMV and SCMV isolates used in this study were originally collected from Bomet County in South Rift valley in Kenya and have been maintained at KALRO-Kabete, National Agricultural Research Laboratories (NARL) by serial passage on to susceptible maize hybrid H614 in separate greenhouses. Virus strain identity was verified at each passage time inoculum was prepared for a test by also inoculating susceptible maize germplasm OH28 and H614, Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench cv. Atlas and Sart. Atlas and Sart sorghums are resistant to MCMV while Sart is susceptible to MDMV and SCMV but resistant to WSMV [16Uyemoto JK. Biology and control of maize chlorotic mottle virus. Plant Dis 1983; 67(1): 7-10.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PD-67-7] ]. As in other crops, it is very difficult to diagnose virus diseases in maize-based solely on symptoms, as these vary significantly based on plant genotype, time of infection, environmental conditions and the potential for multiple infections. Therefore, the serological assay, ELISA, was used to check the Virus purity, inoculation and disease assessment for MCMV and SCMV.

At 3 to 4 leaf stage (10 days after planting) all plants were mechanically inoculated twice within a 1-week interval by rubbing the 2 youngest leaves [26Louie R. Effects of genotype and inoculum protocols on resistance evaluation of maize to maize dwarf mosaic virus strains. Phytopathology 1986; 76: 769-73.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/Phyto-76-769] ]. Virus inoculum was prepared from freshly harvested infected symptomatic young plants (infected 10-15 days prior to the main inoculation). Before inoculation, leaves were homogenated in 0.01 M phosphate buffer (pH 7.0) in 1:8 dilutions and 0.6% of 22µm carborundum were added prior to inoculation. The inoculum was kept in ice during inoculation time. The plants were watered daily until all the plants flowered.

2.3. Symptoms identification/rating

Disease incidences, severity and 50% days to anthesis (pollen shade) were recorded. Plants were diagnosed for virus symptoms from 7 days post-inoculation (dpi) every 2 days interval up to 56 days, using a 1 to 5 scale, where; 1= no symptoms, 3= mild symptoms and 5= Severe chlorosis (dieback of the plant) (Fig. 3). Included in the diagnoses were notations of whether symptoms were local lesions on inoculated leaves or systemic infections that were limited or general and consisted of mosaics, mottles, or flecks and streaks.

Fig. (3)
Disease severity rating scale for SCMV, MCMV and MLN in maize.


Double-antibody sandwich ELISA (DAS-ELISA) analysis was carried out to confirm virus identity prior to inoculation and non-symptomatic plants. 500 mg of tissue were taken from the tip of 6th and 7th leaf and homogenized in 2.5 ml of 1x extraction buffer; PBST, pH 7.2 (137 mM NaCl, 3 mM KCl, 10 mM Na2HPO4, 2 mM KH2PO4), containing 2% BSA and 0.05% Tween 20. The ground samples were placed at –20°C for long-term storage. The samples were thawed to room temperature before loading plates. Plates were coated with a 1:1000 dilution of virus-specific IgG (1mg/ml) in carbonate coating buffer, pH 9.6, and the secondary antibody; alkaline phosphatase conjugated IgG (1 mg/ml, Sigma) at a 1:5000 dilution, both of which proved to be optimal in a previous evaluation. After incubation of the plates containing a primary antibody for 1 hour at 37°C, the wells were washed with 200 µl of PBST, 200 µl of the diluted samples were added and plates were incubated at 37°C for 1 hour. Washing was done as above and secondary antibody was added, plates were incubated for 1 hour at 37°C. Finally, 200 µl of a 0.6 mg/ml solution of p-nitrophenyl phosphate (Sigma) was added to each well and color development was allowed to continue for 1 hour at room temperature. ELISA Nunc (Inter Med., Denmark) microtiter plates were used and absorbance was recorded at 405 nm in an MR700 Dynatech spectrophotometer (Dynatech, UK). Blank, buffer, positive control from the primary inoculum and health sample were used on all plates as controls. The readings were carried out at 60 minutes after addition of the substrate. In cases of doubt, the reading overnight was compared to the reading at one hour. A sample was judged as positive when the reading was greater than three times the absorbance value of a healthy (negative) plant extract reaction.

3. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Analysis of variance for each trial and combined analysis across years was performed using Multi-environment Trial analysis with R; version 5.0, GenStat 15th edition and Breeding management system software, version 3.0.9 to determine the level of significant difference between genotypes. Area Under the Disease Progress Curve (AUDPC) which is a better indicator of disease expression over time was calculated on a single plant basis by trapezoidal integration over the whole observation period as follows:

AUDPC= ∑i[ (DSi + DSi-1) x (ti-ti-1)]/2

Where “i” ={6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 31, 38, 45, 56} are the days of observation, “DS” is the disease score using the above severity score of 1 to 5 and “t” represents the number of days post-inoculation [27Campbell CL, Madden LV. Introduction to Plant Disease Epidemiology 1990., 28Jegger MJ, Viljanen-Rollinson SLH. The use of the area under the disease-progress curve to assess quantitative disease resistance in crop cultivars. Theor Appl Genet 2001; 102: 32-40.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s001220051615] ]. Genotypic correlations (Rg) between treatments were estimated according to Coopre et al., 1996 as:

Rg = Rp(12)/(H1 x H2)1/2

In which Rp(12) is the phenotypic correlation between the traits measured in treatments 1 and 2, H1 and H2 are the broad-sense heritability for the trait measured in screen houses 1 and 2, respectively.

4. RESULTS

Infection was observed in all the inoculated plants but the maize lines differed significantly (P <0.001) for the resistance to SCMV, MCMV and MLN. Disease severity differed significantly with plant growth with first disease symptoms in susceptible genotypes observed at 5 to 6 days post-inoculation (dpi) for SCMV, 10 to12 days for MLN and 14 to 15 days for MCMV. Disease severity was rated up to 56 dpi a time at which most of the lines had attained 50% flowering. There was significant genetic variation (p≤0.001) among the genotypes at 14, 35 and 56 dpi for disease severity, mean disease score and area under disease progress curve (AUDPC) (Figs. 4, 5, 6 and Table 1). Only 17% of the total germplasm screened under SCMV had a mean score < 2.5. Two maize genotypes; MLN041 and MLN 042 had the lowest AUDPC value of 286 compared to mean AUDPC value of 1338.4 for the susceptible germplasm Table 1.

Fig. (4)
SCMV disease severity progress for the top performing germplasm (bottom) compared to the susceptible (top) obtained by plotting disease severity scores against the number of days post inoculation at 14 (early), 35 (middle) and 56 days (late).


Fig. (5)
MCMV disease severity progress for the resistant germplasm (bottom), tolerant (middle) and susceptible (top) obtained by plotting disease severity scores against the number of days post inoculation at 14 (early), 35 (middle) and 56 days (late).


Fig. (6)
MLN disease severity progress for the tolerant germplasm (middle)and susceptible (top) obtained by plotting disease severity scores against the number of days post inoculation at 14 (early), 35 (middle) and 56 days (late).


Table 1
Mean performance of 10 lowest in disease severity from among 65 maize germplasm and 5 susceptible checks evaluated under SCMV, MCMV and MLN in 2015 P≤ 0.001.


The symptoms were first observed at 14 dpi from the lower leaves and spread slowly to the newly emerging leaves in the MCMV experiment. At 20dpi, 45% of the germplasm screened had a disease severity score < 3, while at 56dpi, only 15% of the germplasm were <3. Only 9% of the total germplasm in the 2 years period of screening showed acceptable levels of tolerance to MCMV. Among the top-performing were; MLN001, MLN006 MLN012, MLN016, MLN008, MLN007 and MLN009 which had a disease severity score <2.0 at 56dpi. N211, unlike the others, developed symptoms slowly with the first symptoms been observed at 20 dpi and with moderate symptoms at 56dpi (Fig. 5).

Nearly all plants inoculated with MLN (SCMV and MCMV combined) developed symptoms within 10 dpi. At 35dpi, 95% germplasm screed had a mean disease severity score of < 2.5. However, symptoms for genotypes MLN001 and MLN006 developed moderately with a final score of < 3.0 at 56 dpi (Fig. 6). The disease severity on susceptible germplasm was high and reached a maximum score of 5 and highest AUDPC value of >650 Table 1. More than 60% of germplasm under MLN showed stunted growth and dead heart (Fig. 2b) or died before reaching knee height. Since the plants were allowed to grow to maturity, >50% of the germplasm did not tussle. For those that managed to produce tassel, they did not shed pollen (sterile) (Fig. 2e). Majority of the germplasm did not produce silk. The tolerant germplasm N211, KS23-6, MLN001, MLN006, MLN013 and MLN019 managed to tassel and produced silk. However, the ears were either deformed, partially filled or had husk cover senesced prematurely. If a maize field is infected with MLN late in the growing cycle, an increased dry husk (Fig. 2f) and a high number of rotten ears are observed (Karanja et al unpublished).

Other than Sart and Atlas sorghums, no other germplasm was found to be completely immune to MCMV based on ELISA tests Table 2. However, N211 and MLN016 can be considered to be moderately tolerant to MCVM given the low ELISA readings Table 2. Moreover, inbred MLN013, MLN041 and MLN019 were found to be resistant to SCMV as no virus was detected with ELISA analysis. In germplasm MLN042, MLN020, PA405 and CML 444, SCMV virus were detected when analysed with ELISA suggesting low virus titter hence tolerance to SCMV.

Table 2
Confirmation of enzymes-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) results for maize germplasm with the lowest and high disease severity under MCMV and SCMV screening.


However, there is a need to use real-time quantitative PCR (RTqPCR) to confirm these given the low sensitivity of ELISA.

A negative genetic and phenotypic correlation was observed under MLN between 56 days post inoculation (dpi), disease severity score pooled mean (dspm), Area Under Disease Progress Curve (AUDPC) and 50% days to anthesis (Anth) and silking (SLK) Table 3. Most of the plants in MLN experiment were stunted or died resulting in missing data on anthesis and silking, thus high cv(%) of 51.2 Table 1. However, the majority of plants under SCMV and MCMV managed to flower despite the severe symptoms even for the checks Table 1.

Table 3
Genotypic (upper triangle) and phenotypic (lower triangle) correlation estimates for 56 days post inoculation (dpi), disease severity score pooled mean (dspm), Area Under Disease Progress Curve (AUDPC) and 50% days to anthesis (Anth) and silking (SLK) measured in the screen house under; a) MCMV, b) MLN and c) SCMV


5. DISCUSSION

The analysis of disease severity revealed that the genotypic effect of SCMV, MCMV and MLN was highly significant on all assessment/scoring dates as well as on the pooled mean and AUDPC values. The susceptible genotypes; CML444, CML 312, CML442, CML 539 and OH 28, showed the highest disease scores at all assessment dates, pooled mean and AUDPC. Other than Atlas sorghum, no maize genotype was observed to be immune to MLN. Evaluation of the germplasm suggests that MLN041 and MLN042 may be carrying the desirable genes for SCMV resistance and MLN001, MLN006, MLN016 and N211 for MCMV tolerance. This study has also confirmed that PA405 developed in Pennsylvania is tolerant to SCMV strain used in this study. Inbred PA405 was reported to show complete resistance to MDMV and SCMV inoculation under both field and greenhouse conditions [29Louie R, Knoke JK, Findley WR. Elite maize germplasm: Reactions to maize dwarf mosaic and maize chlorotic dwarf viruses. Crop Sci 1990; 30: 1210-5.[http://dx.doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1990.0011183X003000060010x] ] with six major genes conferring resistance to SCMV and MDMV being identified [30Dussle CM, Melchinger AE, Kuntze L, Stork A, Lubberstedt T. Molecular mapping and gene action of Scm1 and Scm2, two major QTLs contributing to SCMV resistance in Maize. Plant Breed 2000; 119: 299-303.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0523.2000.00509.x] -34Uyemoto JK, Claflin LE, Wilson DL, Raney RJ. Maize chlorotic mottle and maize dwarf mosaic viruses; effect of single and double inoculations on symptomatology and yield. Plant Dis 1981; 65(1): 39-41.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PD-65-39] ]. Further studies need to be conducted in MLN042 and MLN041 to confirm and identify the number of genes conforming to resistance Inbred N211 which showed delayed symptoms expression with the first symptoms appearing at 20 dpi could be considered have partial tolerant to MCMV since a low viral load was detected at 25 dpi using ELISA. The delayed symptoms development in N211 was also observed by [12Mahuku G, Lockhart BE, Wanjala B, et al. Maize lethal necrosis (MLN) an emerging threat to maize-based food security in sub-Saharan Africa. Phytopathology 2015; 105(7): 956-65.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-12-14-0367-FI] [PMID: 25822185] ]. Similar observations were also made by Kovacs [35Kovacs G, Gaborjanyi R, Duong HN, Vasdinyei R. Susceptibility of maize inbred lines and hybrids to potyviruses under greenhouse and field conditions. Cereal Res Commun 1994; 4: 347-51.] after screening different maize inbred lines and hybrids with MCMV. Nelson [36Nelson S, Brewbaker J, Hu J. Maize Chlorotic Mottle Virus. Plant Dis 2011; 79: 1-6.] also observed that the level of resistance to MCMV varied widely among the maize lines screened suggesting that MCMV resistance is controlled by many minor genes. The extended incubation period observed in N211 is an indication of the presence of resistance genes which are providing a certain degree of MCMV resistance. Similar results of delayed symptoms were observed under MLN for the inbred N211, KS23-6, MLN016 and MLN009. This could be associated to reduce synergistic interaction between SCMV and MCMV gave their high level of tolerance to MCMV [37Retnosari A, Suvia W, Weny N, et al. Full sequence of the coat protein gene is required for the induction of pathogen-derived resistance against sugarcane mosaic virus in transgenic sugarcane. Mol Biol Rep 2018; 16.]. Zihao [38Xia Z, Zhao Z, Chen L, et al. Synergistic infection of two viruses MCMV and SCMV increases the accumulations of both MCMV and MCMV-derived siRNAs in maize. Sci Rep 2016; 6: 20520.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep20520] [PMID: 26864602] ] reported that the co-infection of MCMV and SCMV increases the accumulation of MCMV [38Xia Z, Zhao Z, Chen L, et al. Synergistic infection of two viruses MCMV and SCMV increases the accumulations of both MCMV and MCMV-derived siRNAs in maize. Sci Rep 2016; 6: 20520.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep20520] [PMID: 26864602] ]. The accumulation of MCMV genomic RNAs and the expression of MCMV CP have been observed to be higher in MLN-infected leaves than single-infected leaves, with no obvious difference observed for SCMV RNA and SCMV CP expression levels between MLN and single-infected leaves [38Xia Z, Zhao Z, Chen L, et al. Synergistic infection of two viruses MCMV and SCMV increases the accumulations of both MCMV and MCMV-derived siRNAs in maize. Sci Rep 2016; 6: 20520.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep20520] [PMID: 26864602] ]. This suggests that the symptoms expression in MLN for the inbred MLN042 and MLN041 were for MCMV given their high level of resistance to SCMV. This study also validated the presence of MLN tolerance to MLN013 (CKDHL120312) and MLN019 (CKDHL140918) as earlier reported by CIMMYT [39Yoseph B, Manje G, Suresh LM, et al. Genetic analysis of tropical maize inbred lines for resistance to maize lethal necrosis disease. Euphytica 2017; 213: 224.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10681-017-2012-3] ]. However, more study needs to be conducted on these germplasm together with N211, KS23-6, MLN001, MLN006, MLN009 and MLN016 to understand the mechanism underlying the synergistic interaction between MCMV and SCMV. The failure of >50% of screened germplasm to reach flowering and/or delayed flowering, male sterility, poorly filled cobs and a high number of rotten ears under MLN trials is an indication of the high impact of the disease on yield.

CONCLUSION

The results presented here reveal that the studied maize germplasm has sufficient variability for response to SCMV, MCMV and MLN. SCMV seems to play an important role in increasing MLN symptoms in MCMV susceptible maize genotypes and can be considered as a catalyst to its multiplication. This indicates that in developing MLN tolerant/resistant maize varieties, more focus should be on identifying and using SCMV tolerant maize germplasm. These tolerant genotypes are now serving as donors in the introgression of the tolerance into the Kenyan adapted maize backgrounds and development of improved MLN tolerant varieties combined with multiple abiotic and biotic stress tolerance traits. This will go a long way in restoring and ensuring sustainable maize productivity and improving the livelihoods of the smallholder farmers who form 75% of the major maize producers in Kenya.

In addition, the inbred lines should be used to conduct further research on the mechanism responsible for the healthy pollen-diseased silk relationship, SCMV and MCMV synergism as earlier suggested by Mikel [40Mikel MA, D’Arcy CJ, Rhodes AM, Ford RE. Effect of maize dwarf mosaic virus Infection on sweet corn pollen and silk. Phytopathology 1982; 72: 428-31.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/Phyto-72-428] ].

ETHICS APPROVAL AND CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE

Not applicable.

HUMAN AND ANIMAL RIGHTS

No Animals/Humans were used for studies that are base of this research.

CONSENT FOR PUBLICATION

Not applicable

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflict of interest, financial or otherwise.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank KALRO, CIMMYT and USDA-ARS for providing seeds of inbred lines used in this study. We are grateful to KAPAP and CIMMYT for proving the funds to support this study.

REFERENCES

[1] Muasya WNP, Diallo AO. Development of early and extra early drought and low nitrogen-tolerant varieties using exotic and local germplasm for the dry mid-altitude ecology. In: Friesen DK, Palmer AFE, Eds. Proceedings of the seventh eastern and southern africa regional maize conference February 5-11, 2001; Nairobi, Kenya. 2001; pp. 2001; 253-9.
[2] Groote Hugo De , Odongo Odendo M. Assessment of Farmers’ Preferences and Constraints to Maize Production in Moist Midaltitude Zone of Western Kenya. October 21-26, 2001; In: 5th International Conference of the African Crop Science Society; Lagos, Nigeria.
[3] Food Security Statistics Http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/food-security-statistics/en/
[4] Adams IP, Harju VA, Hodges T, et al. First report of maize lethal necrosis disease in Rwanda. New Dis Rep 2014; 29: 22-4.[http://dx.doi.org/10.5197/j.2044-0588.2014.029.022]
[5] Wangai AW, Redinbaugh MG, Kinyua ZM, et al. First report of Maize chlorotic mottle virus and maize lethal necrosis in Kenya. Plant Dis 2012; 96(10): 1582-3.http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/loi/pdis[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-06-12-0576-PDN]
[6] Wangai A, Kinyua ZM, Otipa MJ, et al. Maize (Corn) Lethal Necrosis Disease 2012. KARI Information Brochure [ed. by Ministry Of Agriculture]
[7] Doupnik B Jr. Status of corn lethal necrosis Proceedings of the 34th Annual Corn and Sorghum Research Conference. Chicago, USA. 1979; pp. 16-34.
[8] Cabanas D, Watanabe S, Higashi CHV, Bressan A. Dissecting the mode of Maize chlorotic virus (Tombusviridae: Machlomovirus) transmission by franliniella williamsi (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). J Econ Entomol 2013; 106: 16-24.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1603/EC12056] [PMID: 23448010]
[9] Brandes EW. Artificial and insect transmission of sugarcane mosaic. J Agric Res 1920; 9: 131-8.
[10] Jensen SG, Wysong DS, Higley P M. Seed transmission of maize chlorotic mottle virus. Plant Dis 1991; 75(5): 497-8.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PD-75-0497]
[11] Castillo-Loayza J. Maize virus and virus-like diseases in Peru. In: Williams LE, Gordon DT, Nault LR, Eds. 1976; In: International Maize Virus Disease Colloquium andWorkshop.; OARDC, Wooster, OH. 1976; pp. 40-4.
[12] Mahuku G, Lockhart BE, Wanjala B, et al. Maize lethal necrosis (MLN) an emerging threat to maize-based food security in sub-Saharan Africa. Phytopathology 2015; 105(7): 956-65.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-12-14-0367-FI] [PMID: 25822185]
[13] Lukanda M, Owati A, Ogunsanya P, et al. First report of Maize chlorotic mottle virus infecting maize in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Plant Dis 2014; 98: 1448-9.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-05-14-0484-PDN]
[14] Redinbaugh MG, Pratt PC. Virus resistance. In: Bennetzen JL, Hake SC, Eds. Handbook of maize: its biology 2009; 251-68.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79418-1_13]
[15] Niblett CL, Claflin LE. Corn lethal necrosis - a new virus disease of corn in Kansas. Plant Dis Rep 1978; 62(1): 15-9.
[16] Uyemoto JK. Biology and control of maize chlorotic mottle virus. Plant Dis 1983; 67(1): 7-10.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PD-67-7]
[17] Uyemoto JK, Bockelman DL, Claflin LE. Severe outbreak of corn lethal necrosis disease in Kansas. Plant Dis 1980; 64(1): 99-100. formerly Plant Disease Reporter.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PD-64-99]
[18] Phillips NJ, Uyemoto JK, Wilson DL. Maize chlorotic mottle virus and crop rotation: effect of sorghum on virus incidence. Plant Dis 1982; 66: 376-9.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PD-66-376]
[19] Gururani MA, Venkatesh J, Upadhyaya CP, Nookaraju A, Pandey SK, Park SW. Plant disease resistance genes: current status and future directions. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol 2012; 78: 51-65.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pmpp.2012.01.002]
[20] Ali F, Yan J. Disease resistance in maize and the role of molecular breeding in defending against global threat. J Integr Plant Biol 2012; 54(3): 134-51.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7909.2012.01105.x] [PMID: 22333113]
[21] Gowda M, Das B, Makumbi D, et al. Genome-wide association and genomic prediction of resistance to maize lethal necrosis disease in tropical maize germplasm. Theor Appl Genet 2015; 128(10): 1957-68.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00122-015-2559-0] [PMID: 26152570]
[22] Zambrano JL, Francis DM, Redinbaugh MG. Identification of resistance to maize rayado fino virus in maize inbred lines. Plant Dis 2013; 97: 1418-23.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-01-13-0037-RE]
[23] Jones MW, Redinbaugh MG, Louie R. The Mdm1 locus and maize resistance to Maize dwarf mosaic virus. Plant Dis 2007; 91: 185-90.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-91-2-0185]
[24] Louie R. Vascular pucture of maize kernel for the mechanical transmission of maize white line mosaic-virus and other viruses of maize. Phytopathology 1995; 85: 139-683.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/Phyto-85-139]
[25] McMullen MD, Louie R. The linkage of molecular markers to a gene controlling the symptom response in maize to maize dwarf mosaic virus. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 1989; 2: 309-14.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-2-309]
[26] Louie R. Effects of genotype and inoculum protocols on resistance evaluation of maize to maize dwarf mosaic virus strains. Phytopathology 1986; 76: 769-73.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/Phyto-76-769]
[27] Campbell CL, Madden LV. Introduction to Plant Disease Epidemiology 1990.
[28] Jegger MJ, Viljanen-Rollinson SLH. The use of the area under the disease-progress curve to assess quantitative disease resistance in crop cultivars. Theor Appl Genet 2001; 102: 32-40.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s001220051615]
[29] Louie R, Knoke JK, Findley WR. Elite maize germplasm: Reactions to maize dwarf mosaic and maize chlorotic dwarf viruses. Crop Sci 1990; 30: 1210-5.[http://dx.doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1990.0011183X003000060010x]
[30] Dussle CM, Melchinger AE, Kuntze L, Stork A, Lubberstedt T. Molecular mapping and gene action of Scm1 and Scm2, two major QTLs contributing to SCMV resistance in Maize. Plant Breed 2000; 119: 299-303.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0523.2000.00509.x]
[31] Dussle M, Quint M, Xu L, Melchinger E, Lübberstedt T. Conversion of AFLP fragments tightly linked to SCMV resistance genes Scmv1 and Scmv2 into simple PCR-based markers. Theor Appl Genet 2002; 105(8): 1190-5.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00122-002-0964-7] [PMID: 12582898]
[32] Gemechu AL, Chiemsombat P, Attathom S, Reanwarakorn K, Lersrutaiyotin R. Cloning and sequence analysis of coat protein gene for characterization of sugarcane mosaic virus isolated from sugarcane and maize in Thailand. Arch Virol 2006; 151(1): 167-72.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00705-005-0643-5] [PMID: 16195785]
[33] Rosenkranz E, Scott GE. Determination of the number of genes for resistance to maize dwarf mosaic virus strain A in five corn inbred lines. Phytopathology 1986; 74: 71-6.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/Phyto-74-71]
[34] Uyemoto JK, Claflin LE, Wilson DL, Raney RJ. Maize chlorotic mottle and maize dwarf mosaic viruses; effect of single and double inoculations on symptomatology and yield. Plant Dis 1981; 65(1): 39-41.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PD-65-39]
[35] Kovacs G, Gaborjanyi R, Duong HN, Vasdinyei R. Susceptibility of maize inbred lines and hybrids to potyviruses under greenhouse and field conditions. Cereal Res Commun 1994; 4: 347-51.
[36] Nelson S, Brewbaker J, Hu J. Maize Chlorotic Mottle Virus. Plant Dis 2011; 79: 1-6.
[37] Retnosari A, Suvia W, Weny N, et al. Full sequence of the coat protein gene is required for the induction of pathogen-derived resistance against sugarcane mosaic virus in transgenic sugarcane. Mol Biol Rep 2018; 16.
[38] Xia Z, Zhao Z, Chen L, et al. Synergistic infection of two viruses MCMV and SCMV increases the accumulations of both MCMV and MCMV-derived siRNAs in maize. Sci Rep 2016; 6: 20520.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep20520] [PMID: 26864602]
[39] Yoseph B, Manje G, Suresh LM, et al. Genetic analysis of tropical maize inbred lines for resistance to maize lethal necrosis disease. Euphytica 2017; 213: 224.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10681-017-2012-3]
[40] Mikel MA, D’Arcy CJ, Rhodes AM, Ford RE. Effect of maize dwarf mosaic virus Infection on sweet corn pollen and silk. Phytopathology 1982; 72: 428-31.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/Phyto-72-428]

Endorsements



"Open access will revolutionize 21st century knowledge work and accelerate the diffusion of ideas and evidence that support just in time learning and the evolution of thinking in a number of disciplines."


Daniel Pesut
(Indiana University School of Nursing, USA)

"It is important that students and researchers from all over the world can have easy access to relevant, high-standard and timely scientific information. This is exactly what Open Access Journals provide and this is the reason why I support this endeavor."


Jacques Descotes
(Centre Antipoison-Centre de Pharmacovigilance, France)

"Publishing research articles is the key for future scientific progress. Open Access publishing is therefore of utmost importance for wider dissemination of information, and will help serving the best interest of the scientific community."


Patrice Talaga
(UCB S.A., Belgium)

"Open access journals are a novel concept in the medical literature. They offer accessible information to a wide variety of individuals, including physicians, medical students, clinical investigators, and the general public. They are an outstanding source of medical and scientific information."


Jeffrey M. Weinberg
(St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center, USA)

"Open access journals are extremely useful for graduate students, investigators and all other interested persons to read important scientific articles and subscribe scientific journals. Indeed, the research articles span a wide range of area and of high quality. This is specially a must for researchers belonging to institutions with limited library facility and funding to subscribe scientific journals."


Debomoy K. Lahiri
(Indiana University School of Medicine, USA)

"Open access journals represent a major break-through in publishing. They provide easy access to the latest research on a wide variety of issues. Relevant and timely articles are made available in a fraction of the time taken by more conventional publishers. Articles are of uniformly high quality and written by the world's leading authorities."


Robert Looney
(Naval Postgraduate School, USA)

"Open access journals have transformed the way scientific data is published and disseminated: particularly, whilst ensuring a high quality standard and transparency in the editorial process, they have increased the access to the scientific literature by those researchers that have limited library support or that are working on small budgets."


Richard Reithinger
(Westat, USA)

"Not only do open access journals greatly improve the access to high quality information for scientists in the developing world, it also provides extra exposure for our papers."


J. Ferwerda
(University of Oxford, UK)

"Open Access 'Chemistry' Journals allow the dissemination of knowledge at your finger tips without paying for the scientific content."


Sean L. Kitson
(Almac Sciences, Northern Ireland)

"In principle, all scientific journals should have open access, as should be science itself. Open access journals are very helpful for students, researchers and the general public including people from institutions which do not have library or cannot afford to subscribe scientific journals. The articles are high standard and cover a wide area."


Hubert Wolterbeek
(Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands)

"The widest possible diffusion of information is critical for the advancement of science. In this perspective, open access journals are instrumental in fostering researches and achievements."


Alessandro Laviano
(Sapienza - University of Rome, Italy)

"Open access journals are very useful for all scientists as they can have quick information in the different fields of science."


Philippe Hernigou
(Paris University, France)

"There are many scientists who can not afford the rather expensive subscriptions to scientific journals. Open access journals offer a good alternative for free access to good quality scientific information."


Fidel Toldrá
(Instituto de Agroquimica y Tecnologia de Alimentos, Spain)

"Open access journals have become a fundamental tool for students, researchers, patients and the general public. Many people from institutions which do not have library or cannot afford to subscribe scientific journals benefit of them on a daily basis. The articles are among the best and cover most scientific areas."


M. Bendandi
(University Clinic of Navarre, Spain)

"These journals provide researchers with a platform for rapid, open access scientific communication. The articles are of high quality and broad scope."


Peter Chiba
(University of Vienna, Austria)

"Open access journals are probably one of the most important contributions to promote and diffuse science worldwide."


Jaime Sampaio
(University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Portugal)

"Open access journals make up a new and rather revolutionary way to scientific publication. This option opens several quite interesting possibilities to disseminate openly and freely new knowledge and even to facilitate interpersonal communication among scientists."


Eduardo A. Castro
(INIFTA, Argentina)

"Open access journals are freely available online throughout the world, for you to read, download, copy, distribute, and use. The articles published in the open access journals are high quality and cover a wide range of fields."


Kenji Hashimoto
(Chiba University, Japan)

"Open Access journals offer an innovative and efficient way of publication for academics and professionals in a wide range of disciplines. The papers published are of high quality after rigorous peer review and they are Indexed in: major international databases. I read Open Access journals to keep abreast of the recent development in my field of study."


Daniel Shek
(Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong)

"It is a modern trend for publishers to establish open access journals. Researchers, faculty members, and students will be greatly benefited by the new journals of Bentham Science Publishers Ltd. in this category."


Jih Ru Hwu
(National Central University, Taiwan)


Browse Contents



Advertisements


Webmaster Contact: info@benthamopen.com
Copyright © 2018 Bentham Open