Thanks, Henry.

Jackie

Pictures of sick roses:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/mpp.12202/asset/supinfo/mpp12202-sup-0008-FigureS7.jpg?v=1&s=8fa9893e52b6ab2af6299616164f0524856267f4

Here is a link that might be useful: link to pictures of sick roses

Please note that PNRSV was one of the viruses that was found infecting the wild roses. Shouldn't this be considered as evidence that PNRSV can infect roses by mechanisms other than grafting?

There's not enough information provided in the abstract to draw that conclusion.

:-)

~Christopher

Christopher, I have the full paper. They identified PNRSV by a RT-PCR test. They collected 20 wild rose samples from different Wuhan regions in the autumn and spring of two subsequent years. 12 samples were positive for RLRaV (provisional name - rose leaf rosette associated virus), Three samples were positive for BCRV, PNRSV, or AGSV. .

From the abstract, they claim to have reassembled the PNRSV virus from siRNAs. It's possible that the symptoms observed resulted from a virus formed from recombination of several viruses which accumulated via repeated infection. Additionally, while the abstract states infection was found in a wild species, I didn't see anything to exclude the possibility that the 'R. multiflora' wasn't feral rootstock from an original intended planting of a grafted rose. Perhaps if I read the entire paper I'd be able to see more information, but based on what was shared, I am unable to draw your conclusion.

:-)

~Christopher

Ah, Henry. I see your in the full holiday spirit, spreading more dreadful news about why we shouldn't grow roses. Your such a joy.

The Chinese paper cited above reported: "More than 24 viruses belonging to 10 genera of eight families have been reported to infect roses or wild roses,"

This post was edited by henry_kuska on Tue, Dec 23, 14 at 15:02

The Chinese paper cited above reported:

If the quality of their rose virus science is anything like the quality of their vacuum cleaners, I don't think I'm going to worry.

The thing is, "wild roses" can mean "species roses", as opposed to "hybrid roses", and without specifying that samples were collected from roses NOT planted by people, I will continue to be skeptical about RMV spreading via insects.

:-)

~Christopher

Christopher, you have switched the discussion from evidence to proof. My original statement was: "Shouldn't this be considered as evidence that PNRSV can infect roses by mechanisms other than grafting?"

A scientific definition of Proof: "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof
----------------------------------------------------------------
A discussion of proof in science:

"Concept of "scientific proof"[edit]

While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media,[13] many scientists have argued that there is really no such thing. For example, Karl Popper once wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory,"[14] and Satoshi Kanazawa has argued that "Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science."[15]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

Christopher stated: " So while one paper on Mathematics can often be regarded as "proof", the same can't be said for one study describing an effect in Psychology, or even Biology."

H.Kuska comment: I have no problem with the above statement. I have presented some papers that have reported a low natural spread of PNRSV in roses. I considered these as evidence of spread. I also presented some studies that found no spread. I consider these as evidence of no spread. Since the 2 groups of evidence are contradictory I looked for another up to now not recognized factor. I propose that this factor is the temperature behavior of the immune system. A controlled study taking into account what is now known about the temperature behavior of the immune system with a statistically significant number of samples is required as "proof" (in my mind) as to whether this is the correct explanation or not..

Here is a link that might be useful: my discussion of natural PNRSV rose infection reports

Okay, guys. Henry spends a lot of time scanning for info on roses, esp their diseases, which the rest of us don't bother to do. We just panic and post questions when something shows up. Snide remarks inform no one. Unless one has read the full article (and understands it) one is in no position to be skeptical. One does not base an evaluation of 'proof' on an abstract. With all due respect, Christopher, Henry's science background is a great deal more in depth than yours.

I for one am glad Henry does this, and helps us by posting.

Forewarned is forearmed. It may be difficult to find a cure for these viruses, but with more eyes and thoughts on the problem someday that might happen. There are a lot of smart people here, a lot of experienced rose growers. That is fertile ground for a rose virus epiphany.

Catsrose -- Henry's science background is in Chemistry. Mine was originally Animal Science for Pre-Vet, then a recent "second time around" at college for Psychology and Physical Anthropology, with special interests in genetics, ethology, and a dash of neural and hormonal influences on behavior. So neither of us is really the one to ask about plant viruses. That person would be Dr. Malcolm Manners.

Henry -- yes, my use of "proof" in my last sentence should have been replaced with "evidence." But the point is still the same -- conclusions you draw must be supported by the papers you cite. And I have seen before how make leaps when citing papers to support your already-held hypothesis, so this makes me even more skeptical. In this case, I have pointed out that "wild roses" can simply mean "non-hybrid roses", and could very well have been either 1) intentionally planted, or 2) rootstock which lost its original budded/grafted top-growth. Either case could potentially NOT exclude steps which would allow for already accepted modes of RMV transmission, and therefore can't be used as evidence that RMV spread WITHOUT budding/grafting. It's like building a case with circumstantial evidence -- even having a lot of it really won't hold water in court.

:-)

~Christopher

I've come to conclusion that removing the virused roses from my garden isn't going to accomplish much in the big picture--I'm sure that there are a ton of virused roses nearby that I can do nothing about. And, who knows, maybe in my lifetime there will be method of curing virused roses--perhaps a special grow/propagation kit you use in your basement during the winter when you have nothing else to do in the garden?

The following was stated: But the point is still the same -- conclusions you draw must be supported by the papers you cite."

H.Kuska comment: Conclusions? What conclusions? I had made the following statement: "Please note that PNRSV was one of the viruses that was found infecting the wild roses. Shouldn't this be considered as evidence that PNRSV can infect roses by mechanisms other than grafting?"

Please notice that this is in the form of a question. This is a forum. My understanding that discussing possibilities is part of a forum.

On my web page that I reference, I state the following: "This page gives the information that I have collected from my own literature searches and from others posting on the internet. Please let me know if you feel anything is not clear or is not addressed at all as I am continually updating/modifying it as I get feedback."

In this case, the following "feedback" was presented:
"Additionally, while the abstract states infection was found in a wild species, I didn't see anything to exclude the possibility that the 'R. multiflora' wasn't feral rootstock from an original intended planting of a grafted rose."

Personally I would not have considered the above possibility, and I am not aware of rose scientists using "wild" with this interpretation. But, of course it is a possibility and would have to be checked with the authors.
----------------------------------------------------
Also the following was stated: "And I have seen before how make leaps when citing papers to support your already-held hypothesis, so this makes me even more skeptical."

H.Kuska comment. No quotation backing up this statement is given. In statements concerning others, I expect that actual quotations be given. If you have a quotation of mine that you feel leads to that conclusion, please present it. This is a forum.

OK, so to answer the question "Shouldn't this be considered as evidence that PNRSV can infect roses by mechanisms other than grafting?", I say "No, because other methods of infection were not excluded, and thus this fails to disprove your null hypothesis."

:-)

~Christopher

Christopher, could you give a reference for your use of "Null hypothesis"?

-------------------------------------
The following was stated: "Henry's science background is in Chemistry. Mine was originally Animal Science for Pre-Vet, then a recent "second time around" at college for Psychology and Physical Anthropology, with special interests in genetics, ethology, and a dash of neural and hormonal influences on behavior. So neither of us is really the one to ask about plant viruses. That person would be Dr. Malcolm Manners."
------------------------------------------------------------
H.Kuska comment. A Ph.D degree in Physical Chemistry is expected to prepare a scientist to investigate the physics, and chemistry involved in understanding nature. It is a very broad theoretical based major in nature understanding.

Some examples can be found in the following links:

http://degreedirectory.org/articles/Colleges_with_Physical_Chemistry_Degree_Programs_FAQs.html

"Physical chemistry seeks to understand the physical and scientific basis of molecular properties and chemical phenomena. It can be used to understand how proteins fold, how nanostructures form and why holes in the ozone layer originated"

http://degreedirectory.org/directory/category/Physical_Science/Chemistry_Sciences/Theoretical_and_Physical_Chemistry.html
-----------------------------------------------------
Regarding Dr. Manners knowledge and my knowledge of rose viruses. In almost any field there are more than one Ph.D. scientist that can contribute to the field.

This is illustrated in this particular situation by the citations in one of the most recent rose viruses reviewed published scientific papers.

Dr. Manners is cited for his: " Manners MM (1997) Effects of rose mosaic disease on performance of hybrid tea roses in Florida. Proc Fla State Hortic Soc 110:118��"121"

This is the context for the use of his presented paper: "Previous reports have shown that symptom expression, virus distribution and virus detection can be influenced by several factors including cultivar, changing seasons/weather and growing conditions (Manners 1997; Sala-Rejczak and Paduch-Cichal 2005; Sertkaya 2010; Wong et al. 1988)."

--------------------------------------------------------
I am cited for the following paper: "Kuska H (2003) Can North American rose hybridizers use pollen from virus infected roses? Rose Hybridizers Assoc Newsl 34:7��"10"

This is the context for the use of my paper: "PNRSV is known to be transmitted mechanically, by root grafting and by seed (Abdel-Salam et al. 2008; Golino et al. 2011). The virus may be transmitted by pollen in rose although this hasn’t been fully ascertained (Kuska 2003)."

AND

"Reports of pollen transmission of ApMVin rose are inconclusive (Kuska 2003), but in view of the characteristics of other ilarviruses, it is possible that ApMV could be dispersed by pollen."

I feel that the appearance of any reference (unless being attacked) in a reviewed scientific journal means that the authors, reviewers, and editor feel that it has scientific merit for being included.

Here is a link that might be useful: link to recent rose research virus paper

This post was edited by henry_kuska on Fri, Dec 26, 14 at 10:53