Various serological and molecular techniques are available for the detection of WDV infection as well as for a precise assignment of isolates to the corresponding strain designations. For the verification of WDV infections in the field, direct virus detection, especially via ELISA [
283] and PCR [
284,
285,
98,
286], has proven to be a reliable method [
287,
154]. A differentiation of the WDV strains in the host plants and vector samples can be made on the basis of the characteristics of viral compounds (capsid proteins, nucleic acids). Due to the high sequence similarity between the CP of the isolates, serological differentiation of these using polyclonal antisera is not possible [
149], but the use of monoclonal antibodies has been reported [
288]. Several established molecular methods are available for the identification of WDV strain-specific sequences, such as standard PCR [
100,
77], restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) [
289], rolling circle amplification restriction fragment length polymorphism [
101], and isothermal recombinase polymerase amplification methods [
290]. In addition, molecular-based quantification assays in form of real-time PCR assays targeting a conserved region of the CP gene sequence and using a Taq-Man probe have been added to the list of detection methods [
176].
6.1. Status quo of the resistance in wheat
So far, no highly resistant WDV bread wheat variety is known. However, tendencies to favor different wheat varieties [
291] and differences in susceptibility have been found. Based on yield reduction, studies were conducted on winter wheat to define susceptible groups [
151]. These showed only minor quantitative differences between the tested host plants and reference genotypes [
149,
3]. Most genotypes were susceptible to WDV infection and only a few genotypes could be classified as moderately resistant. Within screenings, the Czech winter wheat cultivars ‘Banquet’ and Svitava’ showed reduced virus levels, with moderate susceptibility at a yield reduction of 87.3-93.1% [
151]. Moderate yield reductions of 82.5-92.6% after WDV inoculation were shown by the Russian cultivars ‘Belocerkovskaya’, ‘Kharkovskaya’, ‘Mironovskaya 808’, ‘Yubileynaya’ and ‘Kawvale’ and the Slovak and Czech cultivars ‘Astella’, ‘Boka’, ‘Bruneta’, ‘Bruta’, ‘Ilona’, ‘Ina’, ‘Mona’, ‘Regina’, ‘Saskia’ and ‘Senta’ [
149]. The winter wheat varieties ‘Mv Dalma’ and ‘Mv Vekni’ from Martonvásár (Hungary) were described by Benkovics et al. [
292] as the first partially resistant varieties. In leafhopper Transmission tests, both cultivars were infected (50%), but showed milder symptoms and a 100-10,000 times lower virus titer than the susceptible reference host cultivars ‘Mv Emese’ and ‘Mv Regiment’ (100% infection) four weeks after infection. A difference in the survival rates of the leafhoppers could not be determined. It can therefore be assumed that the resistance mechanism of the cultivars is rather based on the movement or replication of the virus and not at insect feeding [
292]. ‘Mv Dalma’ carries a homozygous 1AL.1RS, while ‘Mv Vekni’ carries a homozygous 1BL.1RS rye translocation and contains several stem, leaf and yellow rust resistance genes derived from
Aegilops ventricose (VPM-1, SR38, Lr37, YR17) [
293,
292,
294].
To clarify the genetic basis of partial resistance in ’MV Vekni’, in a recent work, F2 populations based on a cross between the susceptible cultivar Regiment were inoculated in greenhouse experiments and quantitative trait loci (QTL) analysis was performed. Significant QTL were found for the peak markers RFL_Contig6053_2072 and Kukri_rep_c95718_868 on chromosome 6A for virus extinction (LOD=22.6), explaining a phenotypic variance of 38.4%. The significant deviation from the expected segregation ratio of 3r:1s observed in this work indicated that the resistance is primarily inherited monogenetically due to the action of one major gene, eventually accompanied by additional minor QTL that could not be detected within the analysis. The hypothesis of coupling rye introgression with WDV resistance in Vekni could not be confirmed in this work. Within the main QTL interval, among others, a gene encoding protein kinase activity could be identified [
295]. These are involved in various defense mechanisms against geminiviruses and lead to attenuation and reduction of infection [
296]. Furthermore, genes associated with DNA-directed transcriptional regulation in
Triticum aestivum have been found to act as viral defense modulators and influence the host-dependent DNA replication cycle [
48,
295].
In a recent study [
297], the changes in transcriptome profiles of the resistant wheat genotypes ‘Svitava’ and ‘Fengyou 3’ compared to the susceptible cultivar ‘Akteur’ were investigated after WDV infection. The study provides insights into the specific transcriptome profiles and pathways associated with resistance and susceptibility to WDV in wheat genotypes. RNA-Seq analysis revealed significantly different expression of transcripts in response to WDV infection in ‘Akteur’, ‘Fengyou 3’, and ‘Svitava’ genotypes. Gene ontology (GO) analysis showed that different biological processes, cellular components, and molecular functions were activated in the tested genotypes. The resistant genotype showed significant activation of biological processes compared to the susceptible genotype. Certain classes of genes were affected by WDV infection. For example, transport activity was suppressed [
297], which could prevent virus movement and accumulation [
298]. On the other hand, oxidoreductase and lyase activities were activated [
297], which are involved in defense responses and limit virus accumulation [
299]. The ‘Svitava’ genotype suppressed reductase protein classes and chaperones. The latter include heat shock proteins (HSP), which play a role in viral DNA/protein aggregation and viral reduction [
300,
301,
302]. Suppression of reductase activity is associated with a reduction in reactive oxygen species (ROS) accumulation, which is associated with better adaptation to viral infections [
303]. Analyses of GO and KEGG metabolic pathways revealed reprogramming of several transcripts in response to WDV infection, particularly in the carbohydrate, energy, lipid, nucleotide, amino acid, glycan, and vitamin metabolism. Secondary metabolic and photosynthetic pathways were induced in ‘Svitava’. The susceptible genotype showed down-regulation of photosynthesis-related carbon fixation genes, which, in contrast, were induced in the resistant genotypes. Transcripts for biosynthesis of other secondary metabolites were upregulated in ‘Svitava’ and downregulated in ‘Fengyou 3’ and ‘Akteur’, possibly contributing to higher resistance through their antiviral properties [
304,
297]. Transcription factors (TFs), including AP2/ERF, bHLH, MYB, and WRKY families, were highly enriched under WDV infection [
297]. These TFs are known to regulate plant responses to various biotic and abiotic stresses [
305,
306]. In particular, ERFs have been linked to plant immune responses and resistance to plant viruses [
307].
In greenhouse experiments with 13 wild and 5 domesticated wheat taxa of different ploidy, accessions of the species
Aeg. tauschii,
Aeg. cylindrical,
Aeg. Searsii and
T. spelta showed WDV tolerance. The accessions were initially strongly affected by symptoms 28 days after infection (dpi). Thereafter, there was a decline in symptoms with a relative increase in leaves and shoots at 112 dpi. Within the study, the domesticated wheat cultivars did not always show more severe symptoms, but there was a differential impact of infection on growth traits and leaf chlorosis in wild and domesticated wheat cultivars [
280]. This could be attributed to a slight RNA silencing suppressor activity of the WDV proteins Rep and RepA [
308,
59]. Both viral proteins, when expressed in infiltrated transgenic leaves of
Nicotiana benthamiana with green fluorescent protein (GFP) reporter gene, resulted in inhibition of post-transcriptional gene silencing (PTGS) and RNA silencing of the GFP reporter gene [
308].
Within another study, 500 wheat accessions were phenotyped for WDV resistance using artificial inoculation in gauze houses. The majority of accessions showed a strong impact of WDV infection with a wide range of reduction in plant height (3.6-100%), number of ears (0-100%) and yield (2.3-100%) [
278]. In contrast to Nygren et al. [1995], domesticated wheat varieties within the panel did not show a generally higher infection rate than wild wheat varieties and relatives [
278]. The authors concluded that the genetic bottleneck that arose during evolution and domestication did not necessarily lead to higher WDV susceptibility, but that these variations created by ancestral hybridization were compensated for. During the study, the partially resistant genotypes ’MV Dalma’ and ’MV Vekni’ were confirmed with an average infection rate of 34.5% and 21.5%, respectively, and weaker symptom expression compared to susceptible varieties. In addition, 19 other sources of WDV resistance with lower infection rates than ’MV Vekni’ were identified, including di-, tetra- and hexaploid genebank wheat accessions. Ten
T. aestivum, two
T. vavilovii, two
T. sp. (genebank accessions with unknown subspecies), one
T. boeoticum, one
T. macha, one
Ae. geniculata, one
Ae. bicornis and one
Ae. longissima accession had lower infection rates than ’MV Vekni’. The cultivar ’Fisht’ proved to be another resistant cultivar with a low average number of infected plants (5.7%) and less severe virus symptoms (average score 2.3) compared to the reference cultivars ‘Mv Dalma’ (34.5%, 5.9) and ‘Mv Vekni’ (21.5%, 4.6) and the susceptible ‘Mv Regiment’ (64.9%, 6.7) as well as ‘Mv Emese’ (68.1%, 6.9). Overall, the results indicated that there are natural sources of WDV resistance within the wheat gene pool. A subpanel was also used to identify QTL for WDV resistance in hexaploid wheat. The putative 35 QTL (FDR, α < 0.05) for partial WDV resistance for the traits relative plant height (relPH), relative yield (relYield), and relative thousand kernel weight (relTKW) are located on chromosomes 1B, 1D, 2B, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 5A, 6A, 7A, and 7B. Among them, the most significant QTL were detected on chromosome 1B, especially six QTL explaining more than 10% of the phenotypic variance (LOD 5.0-8.7), and two highly significant yield-related QTL explaining 18.3% of the phylogenetic variance (LOD 5.0-8.7), which can be used to develop molecular markers in resistance breeding. The QTL identified here could be associated with genes encoding DNA template regulation of transcription, splicing mRNA by spliceosome, gene silencing by RNA, and protein kinase activity [
278]. Genes responsible for regulation of DNA template transcription may serve as modulators of viral defense, particularly with respect to controlling the host-dependent DNA replication cycle of WDV [
48]. Earlier research on RNA-mediated gene silencing has also demonstrated the ability of geminiviruses to trigger post-transcriptional gene silencing (PTGS) [
309,
310], such that viral dsRNA is degraded during the RNA splicing mechanism to small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) that align and degrade silencing complexes to sequence-specific mRNA [
311]. Also involved in plant resistance to geminiviruses are protein kinase domains through phosphorylation of viral pathogenesis proteins. The viral protein ßC1 is phosphorylated by SNF1-related kinases, which has negative effects on RNA silencing suppressor function or labeling for degradation in the 26s proteosome. As a result, delayed/reduced viral infection may be observed [
312]. Overall, the results suggest that other resistance genes are involved in defense against WDV.
Previous studies have shown that resistance to various viruses is localized to the D chromosome. For example, resistance to
Soil-borne Wheat Mosaic Virus (SBWMV) is localized on chromosomes 4D and 5D, and the resistance gene encoding alleles on chromosome 5D is due to
Aegilops tauschii [
313,
314]. Additional highly significant marker trait associations (MTA) were found on chromosome 2D for resistance to
Wheat spindle streak mosaic virus (WSSMV) [
315]. Of 35 QTL identified, 25 QTL, explaining between 7.4 and 18.3% of the phenotypic variance, were verified within in four biparental populations with the cultivar ’Fisht’ as parent [
278]. Within the segregation analysis, two of the markers showed significant effects on relYield, 11 on relTKW and 10 on relative virus titers. The QTL on chromosome 1B consistently showed highly significant effects in all four populations [
316].
A recent QTL study revealed two additional highly significant QTL associated with WDV resistance [
317]. The primary QTL, Qwdv.ifa-6A, mapped to the long arm of chromosome 6A between markers Tdurum_contig75700_411 (at 601,412,152 bp) and AX-95197581 (at 605,868,853 bp). Qwdv.ifa-6A originated from the Dutch experimental line SVP-72017 and showed a strong effect in all populations, explaining a significant proportion (up to 73.9%) of the phenotypic variance. The second QTL, Qwdv.ifa-1B, was located on chromosome 1B and derived from the susceptible parental line P1314. The QTL is possibly linked to the 1RS.1BL translocation, which originated from the CIMMYT line CM-82036. Qwdv.ifa-1B was responsible for a substantial portion (up to 15.8%) of the phenotypic variance in WDV resistance [
317]. Efficacy of rye chromatin segment 1RS.1BL against Wheat Streak Mosaic Virus (WSMV) has been reported previously [
318], but there is no evidence to date that the same gene confers resistance to both WDV and WSMV. The QTL mapped on the short arm of chromosome 1B in the study by Pfrieme et al. [
278], overlap with the Qwdv.ifa-1B QTL identified within the study by Buerstmayr & Buerstmayr [
317]. Although Fisht has the preferable allele on chromosome 1B, the presence of the translocation 1RS.1BL remains unclear. Thus, it remains uncertain whether ‘Fisht’ and P1314 (the resistance donor for Qwdv.ifa-1B) have the same resistance gene. This study has shown that Qwdv.ifa-6A and Qwdv.ifa-1B are clearly additive, suggesting that pyramidization of resistance QTL could increase both the durability and extent of resistance [
317].
The utility of the discovered QTL for wheat breeding depends on their ability to predict quantitative WDV resistance in a range of genetic backgrounds. For breeding, QTL associated with resistance should explain at least 10% of the phenotypic variance. Their pyramiding is an interesting approach to increase resistance to WDV [
319,
320,
321,
278], as already shown for BYDV in barley [
322]. The use of the identified QTL in marker-assisted selection can be accomplished via the development of PCR-based markers from verified array-based markers. For example, the use of competitive allele-specific PCR marker (KASP) developed from flanking marker sequences offers an efficient approach in hexaploid wheat [
323,
324]. Introduction of WDV tolerance can be facilitated by the use of molecular markers, avoiding artificial inoculation with virus-bearing leafhoppers, which is difficult to integrate into applied breeding programs.