The paper has now been accepted:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ppa.12738/full

This will be the most unscientific thing you will read all year. I SMELL A RAT. Are you getting kick backs by any chance Henry. I have been suspecting for a while now that there is something you're not saying.

By the way there is absolutely nothing in the back ground of Stormy Weather that would make it any more resistant than any other rose. Besides that is that someone is trying really hard to make a buck. The same thing goes for the last rose you posted about. It not very nice to practice deception. With all my heart I believe that is what is happening.

Henry, Thanks so much for this and all the other articles that you link to this site. I read every single one.

Patty I don't know how you can be upset with research that may increase the understanding of transmittance and resistance to a serious rose disease. It is through such research that we may find methods to control it.

It's not the scientific testing that is great and so needed.I do read all of the articles. Stormy Weather was not hybridized because of information gathered. in the studies

It also specifically says that all of the control plants became infected when mites were allowed to feed for 30 days in greenhouse conditions.

Patty: I concluded from the abstract of the article that 20 varieties of roses were used in the study. The twenty varieties were intentionally exposed to RRV both "by mite and cleft-grafting transmission experiments". Stormy Weather showed resistance to becoming infected with RRV. The conclusion of the study suggests by studying genes that gives Stormy Weather its resistance, maybe in the future, roses resistant to RRV may be bred.

As far as I could tell, nothing in the abstract indicated that Stormy Weather was bred to be resistant to RRV.

Patty: Once again, referring only to the abstract, it said that none of the varieties showed resistance to the mites. It said Stormy Weather showed resistance to become infected by RRV when infected with the mites. Maybe the difference in the understanding results from me only having access to the abstract.

I am curious to know what "resistance" means, what other varieties were used and if other varieties also showed some "resistance" to RRV

Plant Pathology is ranked: 15/83 (Agronomy); and 53/209 (Plant Sciences). It is published on behalf of the British Society for Plant Pathology.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-3059

The link below is to the Google scholar report of Professor Tzanetakis's reviewed scientific publications:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_vis=1&q=tzanetakis+ioannis&hl=en&as_sdt=1,36

Of course, scientific publications are subject to further scrutiny as additional research appears.

If one does not have access to a major university library, often one can obtain a copy of a manuscript by requesting one from the author. In this case the preprint (before reviewing) is available free from my original post. The cost to view the after reviewed accepted article is only $6 dollars.

------------------------------------------------------

Concerning what resistance means, the following is a quote from the original (before review) manuscript:

"Mechanical transmission of RRV is inefficient in rose [17] and for this reason mite and cleft-graft transmission were chosen to evaluate resistance to the virus. Given the recalcitrance of mite transmission, screening was done in two steps: Three to eight plants from each cultivar were inoculated with at least 25 mites and one or two plants were cleft-grafted with two RRV-infected Knock Out® scions. Grafts where kept in a mist chamber for two weeks. New scions were grafted on, when the originals ones did not survive on the rootstock for at least a 30 day period. A cultivar that developed symptoms and tested positive for RRV in either mite or graft transmission was not further evaluated as it was consider susceptible (Table 1). Three cultivars did not develop symptoms and tested negative for RRV in the original screening. For those genotypes additional screening of 35-40 plants was preformed; 25-30 roses of each cultivar were infested with mites and 10 or more plants were grafted with RRV-infected Knock Out® rose scions (Table 1). The presence of the virus was determined using RT-PCR monthly for up to a year post mite infestation or grafting."

Please see this thread started by Professor Tzanetakis:

http://forums.gardenweb.com/discussions/3575226/resistance-to-rose-rosette-virus?n=7

Patty,

You owe Dr. Kuska an apology. I was in shock reading what you accused him of. I have known Henry for quite along time. He has good moral character, probably knows more about research than most people on this Earth, and spends a lot of time researching and volunteering information for us. Honestly, your accusation is shameless and groundless. And, most of all, horticulture is about sharing beauty and health. Not whatever is happening here.

I know what it is like to be falsely accused, despite spending countless amount of time throughout many, many years volunteering my time to update plant records. Once, I accidentally ran into someone gossiping about me on one of these types of thread sites, while looking for something un-related. Because they did not agree with my identification assessment. I was actually trying to help this person. Their reaction was to gossip about me. That is not the picture of beauty and health.

Mike

Henry, Thank you for the link to thread started by Professor Tzanetakis, very interesting information. Anyone interested in RRV should read this. Also thanks for answering my questions and pointing out that your original link contains the complete document, not just the abstract.

Mike, I agree, Patty should apologize. I know of 2 people, one is a professor who studies rose virus, the other a rose nursery owner, who no longer participate in this forum because of the negative comments that they received.

The Rose Hybridizers web page has a parallel thread:

http://rosebreeders.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=55635

Here I am and I do apologize for my uncalled for attitude. Please accept and help me to understand how out of all the roses hybridized do 2 rose from the same place Weeks just happen to be resistant to rrd. How is it that every time rrd roses are shown on here you have called it herbicide damage. It is honestly getting to be to much to make sense of.

The question was asked:

"How is it that every time rrd roses are shown on here you have called it herbicide damage.

H.Kuska comment: My general rose rosette virus page is at:

https://sites.google.com/site/roserosettevirus/home

In it I state the following:

" I recommend always asking if a herbicide has been used in the area (even from the year before). Even when there is reason to suspect herbicide damage, I still recommend following the "cut off the cane" route (discussed further below) as a precaution in case it actually is RRV, but also try to eliminate the source of herbicide exposure."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Houzz.com has improved their search capabilities. After the search is completed, on the right side one can check the box for "Latest Activity"

If one does that after a search using the keywords: kuska and rosette, 111 hits appear. The most recent (before the present thread) is:

http://forums2.gardenweb.com/discussions/4648242/rrv-roundup-other?n=23

My initial comment in that thread is: "

henry_kuska

I would not rule out roundup when a large number of plants plus a large number of canes per plant exhibit symptoms (plus being near a road)."

Patty W's initial comment after my post is:

"Patty W. zone 5a Illinois

Henry may have a very valid point. In that these plants may well have been sprayed by road crews. I have to admit that much of the damage appears to be identical. RRV is not uniform in its damage and it seems to be lacking a certain amount of rapid growth. None of the growth shows hyper thorniness or thicker canes coming from thinner ones.

This would be really interesting to test for the disease."

H. Kuska further comment: Please read the entire thread to put the above quotes in complete context.

Interview with Professor Tzanetakis:

http://news.uark.edu/articles/38906/division-of-agriculture-research-pursues-resistance-to-rosette-virus-in-roses

Thanks for sharing this.

Hi, Patty,

Your apology to Henry means a lot to me.

These studies are in their infantile, alpha (if the cycle of information metabolism goes from alpha to delta), and so there is still a lot to understand, see, and think about. The value of the information involved surpasses any idea of monetary gain. It can be used for decades to come.

If I had to guess, I would assume that the plants were donated by those already on a committee. Also, access to Star and Weeks roses is the easiest in the US right now. Weeks doesn't have a lot to gain by volunteering Stormy Weather. Mostly recognition by name. At that point, its little different than donating roses to a well-known park. Its simple marketing. It isn't their intellectual property like, for example, Home Run is. For example, you will often see a unique rose offered by a wholesaler by a newcomer, and then a few years later they have their own version of it and the unique rose isn't at the forefront of sales any longer (an immediate example would be Honey Dijon:Pumpkin Patch. From their view, why pay royalties when product replacement can found in-house. That's a pretty typical business practice in marketing new things. The same could be said for the old AARS program. It was essentially a marketing tool and for name-dropping companies. Nothing new under the sun.

re: herbicide damage. They two things do appear alike, because they both cause witch's brooming. A common malady in many types of plants. Some conifer types have even been cloned from the effect. So while the exterior phenomenon is nearly identical, the internal going-on is a lot different.

I think if more roses were volunteered, and more money was volunteered, then more roses with resistances could be found. Again, this is still in its alpha stage. It would be wonderful if people could see this thread that are infected areas, differentiate if the malady in their garden was 100% RRD, and offer any information about which roses were unaffected.

Thanks,

Mike

This is a 2015 lecture/report that I am including for completion:

https://ashs.confex.com/ashs/2015/videogateway.cgi/id/1935?recordingid=1935