# Beet Chlorosis Virus Infection Mitigates Aphid-Induced Plant Defences and Improves Plant Acceptability to Aphid Vectors

Thomas Armand, Sylvaine Boissinot, Alessandra Maia-grondard, Philippe

Hugueney, Véronique Brault, Quentin Chesnais

► To cite this version:

Thomas Armand, Sylvaine Boissinot, Alessandra Maia-grondard, Philippe Hugueney, Véronique Brault, et al.. Beet Chlorosis Virus Infection Mitigates Aphid-Induced Plant Defences and Improves Plant Acceptability to Aphid Vectors. Molecular Ecology, 2025, 10.1111/mec.70092. hal-05231686

HAL Id: hal-05231686

https://hal.science/hal-05231686v1

Submitted on 31 Aug 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

OPEN ACCESS

# Beet Chlorosis Virus Infection Mitigates Aphid-Induced Plant Defences and Improves Plant Acceptability to Aphid Vectors

Thomas Armand ID | Sylvaine Boissinot ID | Alessandra Maia-Grondard ID | Philippe Hugueney ID | Véronique Brault ID |
Quentin Chesnais ID

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

INRAE, Université de Strasbourg, SVQV, Colmar, France

**Correspondence:** Véronique Brault (veronique.brault@inrae.fr) | Quentin Chesnais (quentin.chesnais@inrae.fr)

**Received:** 9 July 2024 | **Revised:** 12 August 2025 | **Accepted:** 18 August 2025

**Handling Editor:** Tatiana Giraud

**Funding:** This study was supported by Ministère de l'Agriculture et de l'Alimentation, CASDAR grant number C-2019-01.

**Keywords:** host parasite interactions | insects | invertebrates | species interactions

## ABSTRACT

Plant viruses often alter host traits in ways that affect interactions with herbivores, potentially facilitating their own acquisition and transmission by insect vectors. However, little is known about the molecular mechanisms underlying this phenomenon. This is particularly true for agronomically important pathosystems, such as the viruses responsible for sugar beet yellowing. Among them is the beet chlorosis virus (BChV), whose effects on aphid vector behaviour and plant defence mechanisms have not been fully characterised. In this study, we demonstrate that BChV infection suppresses sugar beet defences induced by aphid pre-infestation, enhancing plant acceptability for aphids. Specifically, gene expression analyses revealed a downregulation of the aphid-induced ethylene pathway in infected plants, along with alterations in the salicylic acid pathway that may benefit aphids. Metabolic profiling highlighted reduced levels of phenolic acids, including cinnamic and coumaric acids, in virus-infected plants which likely contribute to increased plant acceptability by aphids. By integrating gene expression, metabolic profiling, and behavioural assays, our findings illustrate how BChV manipulates host-plant defences to potentially increase its transmission by aphids, underscoring the broad ecological and evolutionary significance of virus-mediated plant-vector interactions.

## 1 | Introduction

Plants are frequently subjected to simultaneous biotic stresses, creating synergistic or antagonistic interactions that challenge plant defences (Basu et al. 2021; Fernández de Bobadilla et al. 2022). For example, co-occurrence of both herbivorous insects and pathogens on the same plant is, at least temporarily, required for successful acquisition and inoculation of insect-borne viruses.

Plant defences are regulated by a few key phytohormones, including salicylic acid (SA), jasmonic acid (JA), and ethylene (ET),

which mediate responses to different attackers. JA is primarily involved in plant defences against necrotrophic pathogens and chewing insects, while SA mediates responses to biotrophic pathogens and phloem-feeding insects (Lazebnik et al. 2014). Ethylene plays a complex role, indirectly modulating SA- and JA-dependent pathways (Broekgaarden et al. 2015), although recent studies highlight its direct involvement in plant defences against aphids (Louis et al. 2015) and viruses (Zhao et al. 2022).

When plants face simultaneous biotic stresses, they must prioritise their defence responses, often leading to ‘phytohormone cross-talk’. This cross-talk can result in resource reallocation

<footnote>This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.</footnote>

<footnote>© 2025 The Author(s). *Molecular Ecology* published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</footnote>
and/or the mobilisation of defences that may affect associated at-
tackers (Aerts et al. 2021). Beyond phytohormonal adjustments,
biotic aggressors can alter the nutritional quality of plants (e.g.,
amino acid accumulation in the plant (Mauck et al. 2014; Patton
et al. 2020)) with a downstream effect on pathogens and herbiv-
orous insect performances (e.g., Ángeles-López et al. 2016; Basu
et al. 2021).

A growing body of evidence indicates that insect vector-borne viruses can modify host plant phenotypes (primary and secondary metabolites, size, colour, volatile emissions and other traits) in ways that enhance interactions between the host plant and the insect vector, thereby facilitating viral transmission (Mauck et al. 2012). This phenomenon, known as ‘virus manipulation’, reflects the complex ecological interactions shaped by these pathogens. More specifically, virus indirect (plant-mediated) effects on vector behavioural and physiological responses tend to differ depending on the pathogen localisation in the plant (phloem restricted vs. non-phloem restricted viruses) and in the insect (stylet-borne vs. circulative viruses) which determines the transmission mechanism (Eigenbrode et al. 2018; Mauck et al. 2018). For example, aphids spent a longer time ingesting phloem sap on cucumber infected by the phloem-restricted and circulative cucurbit aphid-borne yellows virus (CABYV, *Polerovirus*) (Carmo-Sousa et al. 2016), but a shorter time on cucumber infected by the non-phloem restricted and stylet-borne cucumber mosaic virus (CMV, *Cucumovirus*) (Carmo-Sousa et al. 2014). Direct effects on the vector behaviour following virus acquisition also tended to enhance virus transmission probability (Chesnais et al. 2020; Mauck et al. 2019; Verdier et al. 2023). These virus-induced indirect or direct modifications on the vector behaviour may ultimately have epidemiological impacts on the dispersion of the virus-induced diseases (Cunniffe et al. 2021).

Although virus-induced changes in host plant phenotypes and vector behaviour have been studied for key viral families, relatively few studies have focused on the molecular and genetic mechanisms underlying the tripartite interactions between plants, viruses, and vectors. On the virus side, certain silencing suppressors have been shown to reduce plant defence pathways, thereby influencing vector preference or fitness (Mauck et al. 2019; Ziegler-Graff 2020). Other viral proteins or components act as drivers of plant modifications that alter vector behaviour and performance. For example, three non-structural proteins of the potato leafroll virus (PLRV, *Polerovirus*) have been shown to impact hormonal pathways at gene transcript and metabolic levels, significantly impacting aphid preferences and fecundity (Patton et al. 2020). Recently, large-scale transcriptomic analyses have further identified pathways, such as RNA gene silencing and phytohormone synthesis, as potential contributors to virus-mediated manipulation of plants infected with viruses and pre-infested by aphids (Chesnais et al. 2022; Nachappa et al. 2020). Notably, in plants infected with turnip yellows virus (TuYV, *Polerovirus*), many aphid-induced gene deregulations were alleviated, correlating with enhanced virus transmission (Krieger et al. 2023). These recent findings underscore the complexity of the tripartite interactions and the need to integrate molecular, genetic, metabolomic, and ecological approaches to unravel these mechanisms.

The phloem-limited poleroviruses (family *Solemoviridae*) and their aphid vectors may serve as valuable models for exploring plant-virus-vector intricate relationships. The beet chlorosis virus (BChV), a phloem-restricted *Polerovirus* transmitted by *Myzus persicae* in a circulative and non-propagative manner, represents an economically significant pathogen causing sugar beet yellowing and substantial yield reductions (Hossain et al. 2020). The re-emergence of sugar beet yellowing disease, exacerbated by recent European restrictions on neonicotinoid insecticides use to control aphid populations, emphasises the need to better understand BChV-mediated interactions between host plant and insect vector. In this study, we hypothesised that BChV infection may modulate plant metabolism and defence pathways in a way that could impact interactions with aphids and ultimately virus transmission. To address this, we combined targeted gene transcript analyses with metabolic profiling and aphid-feeding behaviour monitoring, providing new insights into the molecular and genetic basis of plant-virus-vector relationships for an agronomically important pathosystem.

2 | Materials and Methods

## 2.1 | Virus, Aphids, and Plants

The beet chlorosis virus strain BChV-2a was collected in England from sugar beet (Hauser et al. 2002). The virus was purified from infected spinach (*Spinacia oleracea*) following the procedure described in (van den Heuvel et al. 1991). The *Myzus persicae* (Sulzer) (Hemiptera: Aphididae) biotype WMp2 originated from the Netherlands (Reinink et al. 1989). Virus-free aphids were reared on Chinese cabbage (*Brassica rapa* L. *pekinensis* var. *Granaat*) in a growth chamber under 20°C ± 1°C and a 16 h photoperiod. The commercial variety of sugar beet named *Auckland* (SesVanderHave, Belgium) was kindly provided by the French Institute of Sugar Beet (Paris). Sugar beet plants were sown and grown in greenhouses until the first two true leaves developed (3 weeks after sowing). Subsequently, the plants were handled (e.g., for virus inoculation, aphid pre-infestation, EPG experiments...) and grown in laboratories or growth chambers under 21°C ± 1°C and a 14 h photoperiod under LED lights.

## 2.2 | Virus Inoculation, Aphid Pre-Infestation, and Virus Detection

Virus-free *M. persicae* were fed with an artificial medium (Harrewijn 1983). To obtain viruliferous aphids, purified BChV virions were added in artificial medium at a concentration of 50 ng/µL which is expected to result in an average of 50% of plants infected using the following conditions. After a 24 h acquisition access period, 10 aphids, either virus-free or viruliferous, were transferred onto individual 3-week-old sugar beet plants (Day 21, Figure 1) for a 48-h inoculation access period (Day 23). Aphids were then manually eliminated and the plants were maintained for 3 weeks in growth chambers. After 19 days (Day 42), mock- and BChV-inoculated plants were either kept non-infested or exposed to a pre-infestation carried out with virus-free *M. persicae* (i.e., 30 insects/plant for 72 h). At this time (Day 45), plants were used
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 1** | (A) The timetable for the experiment: At Day 0, the plants were sown and placed in the greenhouse. On Day 21 (D<sub>21</sub>), plants were inoculated with 10 BChV-viruliferous aphids (or non-viruliferous for 'mock-inoculation') and placed in growth chambers. On Day 23 (D<sub>23</sub>), the aphids were manually removed. On Day 42 (D<sub>42</sub>), plants were pre-infested with 30 non-viruliferous aphids (or kept 'non-infested'). At Day 45 (D<sub>45</sub>), plants were used for EPG experiments or sampled for gene expression and metabolite analyses. EPG, Electrical Penetration Graph technique; IAP, Inoculation Access Period. (B) Four plant modalities used in experiments.</figcaption></figure>

for EPG experiments, gene expression and metabolite analy-
sis. The complete timetable and presentation of the four plant
modalities are presented in Figure 1.

To validate the infected/non-infected status of BChV- and
mock-inoculated plants respectively, the presence of BChV was
assessed by DAS-ELISA (Clark and Adams 1977). Because of
high sequence similarities between the structural proteins of
members in the *Polerovirus* genus (Hauser et al. 2002), a TuYV
(referred to previously as beet western yellow virus, BWYV)
polyclonal antiserum (LOEWE, Sauerlach; Germany) was used.
Absorbance values were measured at 405 nm with a spectro-
photometer Infinite F50 equipped with the software Magellan
reader (Tecan, Männedorf, Switzerland). Samples were consid-
ered infected when the OD<sub>405 nm</sub> is twice the mean value of the
non-infected control plant (i.e., 3 technical replicates) plus three
times the standard deviation (Classen et al. 1987). BChV detec-
tion was carried out after the experiments so as not to influence
the aphids' behavioural responses or molecular analyses carried
out on Day 45.

**2.3 | Myzus persicae Feeding Behaviour Analysis on Sugar Beet Plants**

The electrical penetration graph DC system (Tjallingii 1988) was
used as described in (Chesnais et al. 2019). In brief, eight aphids
were connected to the Giga-8 DC-EPG (electrical penetration
graph technique) amplifier and each one was placed on the leaf
of an individual sugar beet. The recordings were performed
continuously for 8 h. Each aphid-plant system was placed in-
side a Faraday cage at 21°C ± 1°C. Acquisition and analysis of
the EPG waveforms were carried out with PROBE 3.5 software

(EPG Systems). Relevant aphid behaviour EPG parameters were
calculated with EPG-Calc 6.1 software (Giordanengo 2014).
The following parameters were extracted from the EPG record-
ings based on their characteristic EPG waveforms described in
(Tjallingii and Hogen Esch 1993): (Pr) stylet insertion and activ-
ity within plant tissues; (C) stylet pathways in plant tissues ex-
cept for phloem and xylem; (E1) salivation in phloem elements;
(E2) passive phloem sap ingestion; (G) active xylem sap inges-
tion. For each condition, 25 to 27 individuals were analysed,
and aphids that had less than 5 h of activity (i.e., stylet insertion)
were excluded from the analysis.

**2.4 | Metabolomic Analyses and Data Processing**

Metabolite extraction was performed on ground freeze-dried
leaves (5 mg per sample) using 25 µL of methanol per mg of dry
weight. The extract was then incubated in an ultrasound bath
for 10 min before centrifugation at 13,000 g at 10°C for 10 min.
The supernatant was analysed using a Dionex Ultimate 3000
UHPLC (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, USA) system.
Chromatographic separations were performed on a Nucleodur
C18 HTec column (150 mm × 2 mm, 1.8 µm particle size;
Macherey-Nagel, Germany) maintained at 30°C. The mobile
phase consisted of acetonitrile/formic acid (0.1%, v/v, eluant A)
and water/formic acid (0.1%, v/v, eluant B) at a flow rate of 0.3
mL.min⁻¹. The gradient elution was programmed as follows: 0
to 1 min, 95% B; 1 to 2 min, 95% to 85% B; 2 to 7 min, 85% to 0%
B; 7 to 9 min, 100% A. The sample volume injected was 1 µL. The
UHPLC system was coupled to an Exactive Orbitrap (Thermo
Fisher Scientific, Waltham, USA) mass spectrometer equipped
with an electrospray ionisation (ESI) source operating in posi-
tive mode. Parameters were set at 300°C for ion transfer capillary
temperature and 2500 V for needle voltage. Nebulisation with nitrogen sheath gas and auxiliary gas was maintained at 60 and 15 arbitrary units, respectively. Spectra were acquired within the m/z (mass-to-charge ratio) mass ranging from 100 to 1000 amu (a.m.u.) using a resolution of 50,000 at m/z 200 a.m.u. The system was calibrated internally using dibutyl-phthalate as lock mass at m/z 279.1591, giving a mass accuracy lower than 1 ppm. The instruments were controlled using the Xcalibur software (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, USA). LC-MS-grade methanol and acetonitrile were purchased from Roth Sochiel (Lauterbourg, France); water was provided by a Millipore water purification system. Chloramphenicol (Sigma-Aldrich, Saint Quentin Fallavier, France) was used as an internal standard. Amino acids were identified by comparing their mass spectra and retention times to those of the corresponding commercial standards (Table S1). Flavonoids of beet leaves were identified based on Hegazi et al. (2020).

## 2.5 | Quantitative RT-PCR

Leaf samples (200 mg) were collected 24 days post-inoculation and total RNA extraction was performed with a Nucleospin RNA plant kit (Macherey-Nagel, Dueren, Germany) according to manufacturer instructions. Total RNA purity and concentration were measured with Nanodrop ND 1000 spectrophotometer. Complementary DNA (cDNA) was synthesised with M-MLV reverse transcriptase (Promega, Wisconsin, USA) starting with 2 µg of total RNA and oligoT (1 µL at 500 µg/mL). Forward and reverse primers (Table S2) were used to amplify the cDNA corresponding to the targeted genes (Table 1). Quantitative PCR reactions using iTaq Universal SYBR Green Supermix (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA) were conducted on a CFX cycler (Bio-rad, Hercules, CA, USA), initiated with a 3 min incubation at 95°C followed by 40 cycles of amplification (30 s at 95°C, 30 s at 60°C). Melting curve analysis was performed from 65°C to 95°C with 5 s of 0.5°C increments. Amplification specificity was assessed by sequencing PCR products and analysing the melting curves of PCR products. Among the eight candidate genes tested (Table S3), SAND, TIP41 and PP2A were selected with three commonly used software (geNorm (Vandesompele et al. 2002), BestKeeper (Pfaffl et al. 2004), and Normfinder (Andersen et al. 2004)) and further used as reference genes (Table S2). PCR efficiencies (E) were determined (Table S4) for each primer pair with a standard curve plotted from five tenfold serial dilutions. Moreover, correlation coefficients (R²) were calculated for each primer pair and turned out to be higher than 0.98, which fits the RT-qPCR requirements (Svec et al. 2015). Five biological replicates per modality and 3 technical replicates per sample were used to analyse the relative expression (RE) of the gene of interest. RE was determined from Ct values, PCR efficiencies, following Hellemans et al. (2007), and an internal control loaded on each plate, according to the

$$ \text{formula: } RE = \frac{E_{g}^{(c_{\text{control}} - c_{\text{g}})}}{\sqrt{\prod_{o}^{f} E_{refo}^{(c_{\text{control}} - c_{\text{refo}})}}} $$

## 2.6 | Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were carried out with R software (3.3.2 (http://www.r-project.org/)) and the significance level of each test was fixed below 0.05. The effect of the tested factor(s)

<table><caption>TABLE 1 | List of genes involved in biosynthesis and signalling of hormonal defence pathways.</caption><thead><tr><th>Metabolic pathway</th><th>Gene names</th><th>Abbreviations</th><th>ID A. thaliana<sup>a</sup></th><th>ID B. vulgaris<sup>b</sup></th><th>Function</th><th>References</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Jasmonic acid</td><td>Allene oxide synthase</td><td>AOS</td><td>At5g42650</td><td>104,906,974</td><td>Biosynthesis<sup>c</sup></td><td>(Bera et al. 2020)</td></tr><tr><td>Jasmonoyl-L-amino acid synthetase</td><td>JARI</td><td>At2g46370</td><td>104,886,569</td><td>Signalling pathway<sup>c</sup></td><td>(Arena et al. 2016)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Salicylic acid</td><td>Coronatine insensitive 1</td><td>COI1</td><td>At2g39940</td><td>104,903,682</td><td>Signalling pathway</td><td>(Bera et al. 2020)</td></tr><tr><td>Isochorismate synthase</td><td>ICS</td><td>At1g18870</td><td>104,905,177</td><td>Biosynthesis<sup>d</sup></td><td>(Patton et al. 2020)</td></tr><tr><td>Phenylalanine ammonia-Lyase</td><td>PAL</td><td>At2g37040</td><td>104,898,673</td><td>Biosynthesis</td><td>(Morkunas et al. 2011)</td></tr><tr><td>Non-expressor of Pathogenesis-related protein 1</td><td>NPR1</td><td>At1g04280</td><td>104,909,044</td><td>Signalling pathway<sup>d</sup></td><td>(Morkunas et al. 2011)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Ethylene</td><td>ACC synthase</td><td>ACS</td><td>At3g61510</td><td>104,886,974</td><td>Biosynthesis<sup>e</sup></td><td>(Bak et al. 2019)</td></tr><tr><td>Ethylene response sensor 1</td><td>ERS1</td><td>At2g40940</td><td>104,908,984</td><td>Signalling pathway<sup>e</sup></td><td>(Patton et al. 2020)</td></tr><tr><td>Ethylene insensitive 2</td><td>EIN2</td><td>At5g03280</td><td>104,884,677</td><td>Signalling pathway</td><td>(Casteel et al. 2015)</td></tr><tr><td>Phytoalexin deficient 1,2</td><td>PDF1.2</td><td>At5g44420</td><td>104,897,590</td><td>Defense<sup>e</sup></td><td>(Casteel et al. 2015)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote><sup>a</sup>GenBank ID of gene of interest in *Arabidopsis thaliana*.</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup>GenBank ID of orthologous genes in *Beta vulgaris* (from KEGG).</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup>From (Ruan et al. 2019).</footnote>

<footnote><sup>d</sup>From (Zhang and Li 2019) and (Klessig et al. 2018).</footnote>

<footnote><sup>e</sup>From (Binder 2020).</footnote>
(here infection status, pre-infestation status and their interac-
tion) on measured variables (i.e., EPG parameters and RE of
selected genes) was analysed using generalised linear models
(GLM; package lme4; Bates et al. 2015) using a generic for-
mula (formula = variable ~ infection status*pre-infestation
status). The fit of GLM was controlled by inspecting residu-
als and QQ plots. Relative gene expressions were normalised
using Log2 transformation. Then, these data were used in
Gaussian GLM (link = 'log'). Data on EPG 'occurrence' pa-
rameters (i.e., number of stylet insertions, number of xylem
phases...) and 'duration' parameters (i.e., total duration of sali-
vation in the phloem, total duration of phloem sap ingestion).
Therefore, GLM adapted to the distribution of the data were
used ('occurrence' parameters: GLM using a Poisson distribu-
tion (link = 'log'); 'duration' parameters: GLM using a Gamma
distribution (link = 'inverse')). Following GLM analysis, esti-
mated marginal mean post hoc test (EMM; package emmeans;
p-value adjustment with Tukey method) was used to assess
the significance of the difference between the studied groups.
When no significant effect of 'interactions' was obtained in
GLM analysis, post hoc test was carried out on the main fac-
tors (i.e., pre-infestation and/or BChV infection) showing sig-
nificant effect. Conversely, when 'interaction' was significant
in GLM, post hoc test was performed on it.

For differential metabolomic analyses, Log2 fold changes were
calculated using the means of peak areas in the samples of
both experiments. Statistical analyses were performed using
Tukey's honest significant difference method followed by a
false discovery rate (FDR) correction using the Benjamini-
Hochberg procedure. Metabolites of interest were consid-
ered differentially accumulated when the FDR was below 5%
(FDR < 0.05).

3 | Results

## 3.1 | The Combination of BChV Infection and Aphid Pre-Infestation Alters Aphid Feeding Behaviour and Enhances Plant Acceptability

Using the EPG technique, we first looked at how BChV virus
infection, aphid pre-infestation, and the combined stresses af-
fected the behavioural responses of the aphid vector, *Myzus
persicae*. The four modalities tested here are summarised in
Figure 1B. According to the ‘viral manipulation’ hypothe-
sis, we hypothesised that viral infection may promote feeding
behaviour responses in aphid vectors favourable to phloem-
restricted virus acquisition (i.e., prolonged stylet insertion and
phloem sap ingestion), even in the context of plant infestation by
aphids, which tends to reduce plant palatability for secondary
aphid infestation (Escudero-Martinez et al. 2021).

In our experimental setup, aphids performed the same number
of stylet insertions regardless of the infection and pre-infestation
status of sugar beets (Figure 2A, see Table S5 for complete sta-
tistical analysis). However, for mock-inoculated plants, the
total duration of the stylet insertion phase (probing time) in the
plant was shorter for pre-infested sugar beets compared to non-
pre-infested ones (Figure 2B) as expected (Escudero-Martinez
et al. 2021). No such difference was observed when the sugar

beets were infected with BChV (Figure 2B). The total duration
of insertion of the stylets being associated with the plants' pal-
atability for the aphid, this observation suggests that the BChV
infection is counteracting the plant deterrence induced by an
aphid pre-infestation.

Poor plant palatability for aphids is often associated with be-
havioural phases in xylem and salivation in phloem (Spiller
et al. 1990). Focusing on BChV-infected plants, pre-infestation
reduced the number of xylem phases performed by aphids
(Figure 2C). However, the total duration of the xylem inges-
tion phase was not altered by BChV infection nor aphid pre-
infestation (Figure 2D). The total duration of salivation in
phloem tissues was reduced on pre-infested plants, regardless
of the infection status (Figure 2F). Similarly, aphids feeding
on BChV-infected plants performed fewer salivation phases in
phloem when the sugar beets were pre-infested (Figure 2E).
Such a trend was not observed on mock-inoculated sugar beets
(Figure 2E). In agreement with data on stylet insertion, BChV-
infected sugar beets enhance plants' palatability for *M. persicae*.
Surprisingly, for behavioural phases in xylem and salivation in
phloem, the effect of BChV infection seems to be dependent on
the plant's pre-infestation by aphids.

For phloem-restricted viruses, such as BChV, the ingestion
of phloem sap by the vector is decisive for virus acquisition.
Therefore, according to the ‘viral manipulation’ hypothesis,
we expected that viral infection would maintain, or even fa-
vour, such behaviour. Pre-infestation reduced the number
of phloem sap ingestion phases by aphids on BChV-infected
plants but not on mock-inoculated sugar beets (Figure 2G).
BChV infection increased the total duration of phloem sap in-
gestions by aphids on pre-infested plants compared to mock-
inoculated and infested sugar beets (Figure 2H). As expected
by the viral manipulation hypothesis, such behaviour may
promote the acquisition of BChV. Similarly, to behavioural
phases in xylem and salivation in phloem, the effect of BChV
infection seems to depend on the pre-infestation status of the
plants.

## 3.2 | Aphid-Induced Changes in Gene Expression Within the Ethylene Pathway Are Attenuated in BChV-Infected Sugar Beets

The ethylene, jasmonate, and salicylate pathways are part of a
conserved defence network in plants, making them key targets
for investigating the hypothesis of viral manipulation (Mauck
et al. 2019). Consequently, our study focused on these pathways
to elucidate the molecular mechanisms underlying the observed
changes in aphid feeding behaviour. More precisely, we moni-
tored the relative expression (RE) of genes involved in the bio-
synthesis, the signalling and/or defence responses associated
with these phytohormones.

To assess the impact of BChV infection and/or *M. persicae*
pre-infestation on ethylene defence-related pathway, the RE
of four genes (*ACS*, *ERS1*, *EIN2*, and *PDF1,2*; Figure 4A) was
monitored. These genes are involved in the ethylene pathway
either in biosynthesis (*ACS*; Adams and Yang 1981), signalling
(*ERS1* and *EIN2*; Alonso et al. 1999; Hall et al. 2000), or defence
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 2** | *Myzus persicae* feeding behaviour by EPG on sugar beet mock-inoculated, BChV-infected, pre-infested, or not with aphids (N = 25-27). Asterisks indicate significant differences between conditions as tested by GLM (*p* < 0.05, Poisson (link = 'log') distribution for 'occurrence' parameters and Gamma (link = 'inverse') distribution for 'duration' parameters) (complete statistical analysis in Table S5). (A–H): Number (No.) or duration time of different phases of the aphid feeding behaviour.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 3** | Simplified representation of the ethylene pathway adapted from (Binder 2020; Pattyn et al. 2021) (A); Relative gene expression (Log2) in mock-inoculated, BChV-infected sugar beets, pre-infested or not with *Myzus persicae* (B). Each red dot corresponds to a plant sample (5 biological replicates for each condition). Box plots show median (black line), 25%–75% percentiles (box), and 10%–90% percentiles (whiskers). Different letters indicate significant differences between conditions as tested by GLM followed by pairwise comparisons using ‘emmeans’ (*p* < 0.05; method = ‘Tukey’) (complete statistical analysis in Table S6). ACC, 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid; ACO, ACC oxidase; ACS, ACC synthase; EBF1/2, Ethylene binding factor 1 or 2; EIN2, Ethylene insensitive 2; EIN3, Ethylene insensitive 3; ERFs, Ethylene response factors; ERS1, Ethylene response sensor 1; PDF1,2, Phytoalexin deficient 1,2; SAM, S-adenosyl methionine.</figcaption></figure>

induction mediated by ethylene (PDF1,2; Penninckx et al. 1996) (Figure 3A). In our experimental conditions, we observed that the expression of the *PDF1,2* gene remained consistent across all modalities (Figure 3B). However, in mock-inoculated sugar beets, the RE of *ACS* decreased following aphid pre-infestation. In contrast, the RE levels of *ERS1* and *EIN2* were increased by pre-infestation of mock-inoculated plants. Interestingly, for ACS, ERS1, and EIN2, changes in RE associated with pre-infestation in mock-inoculated plants were not observed when the sugar beets were infected with BChV (Figure 3B).

## 3.3 | BChV Infection Combined With Aphid Pre-Infestation Increases the Expression of AOS in the JA Pathway

The RE of *AOS*, *JAR1*, and *COI1* genes involved in the jasmonic acid (JA) pathway (Gfeller et al. 2010; Katsir et al. 2008; Staswick et al. 2002) were monitored to evaluate the role of this pathway in *B. vulgaris*-BChV-*M. persicae* interactions. *AOS* is involved in JA biosynthesis, while *JAR1* and *COI1* regulate JA signalling (Figure 4A). The combination of both BChV infection and pre-infestation increased the *AOS* RE compared to the other tested

modalities (Figure 4B). The RE of *JAR1* was elevated by aphid pre-infestation in mock-inoculated plants (Figure 4B). Such a pattern was not observed for BChV-infected sugar beets. Lastly, *COI1* RE increased after aphid pre-infestation, regardless of the infection status of the plants (Figure 4B).

## 3.4 | Over-Expression of PAL Gene Involved in SA Biosynthesis in BChV-Infected Plants Is Alleviated by Aphid Infestation

The RE of *ICS1*, *PAL*, and *NPR1* were analysed to investigate the role of the salicylic acid (SA) pathway in *B. vulgaris*-BChV-*M. persicae* interactions. *ICS1* and *PAL* are involved in SA biosynthesis (Lefevere et al. 2020), while *NPR1* plays a key role in SA signalling (Wu et al. 2012) (Figure 5A). The RE of *ICS1* in sugar beets increased following BChV infection but was unaffected by aphid pre-infestation (Figure 5B). The RE of *PAL* increased in sugar beets only infected with BChV. However, when BChV-infected plants were pre-infested by aphids, this increase of RE was mitigated (Figure 5B). Finally, *NPR1* expression was not influenced by either BChV infection or pre-infestation by aphids (Figure 5B).
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 4** | Simplified representation of the jasmonic acid pathway (Ruan et al. 2019) (A); Relative gene expression (Log2) in mock-inoculated, BChV-infected sugar beets, pre-infested or not with *Myzus persicae* (B). Each red dot corresponds to a plant sample (5 biological replicates for each condition). Box plots show median (black line), 25%-75% percentiles (box) and 10%-90% percentiles (whiskers). Different letters indicate significant differences between conditions as tested by GLM followed by pairwise comparisons using 'emmeans' (*p* < 0.05; method = 'Tukey') (complete statistical analysis in Table S7). 16:3, Hexadecatrienoic acid; 18:3, α-linolenic acid; AOC, Allene oxide cyclase; AOS, Allene oxide synthase; COI1, Coronatine insensitive 1; dnOPDA, Dinor OPDA; ERFs, Ethylene response factors; JA-ile, Jasmonoyl-L-isoleucine; JAR1, Jasmonoyl-L-amino acid synthase; JAZs, Jasmonate ZIM domain proteins; LOXs, Lipoxygenases; MYBs, MYB transcription factors; MYCs, MYC transcription factors; OPDA, 12-oxo-phytodienoic acid; PDF1,2, Phytoalexin deficient 1,2; SCF, Skp1, Culline and F-Box proteins; VSPs, Vegetative storage proteins; WRKYs, WRKY transcription factors.</figcaption></figure>

**3.5 | Metabolic Profiles Differentiated Pre-Infested and Pre-Infested/Infected Plants From Mock-Inoculated Plants**

In addition to monitoring changes in the expression of defence-
related phytohormone genes, metabolic analysis was carried out
to deepen the exploration of the molecular pathway(s) involved
in the observed changes in aphid feeding behaviour. These
analyses were carried out on sugar beets exposed to conditions
similar to EPG experiments (Figure 1B). Under such conditions,
sugar beet plants infected with BChV and maintained in growth
chambers exhibited mild symptoms 3 weeks post-infection (Day
45), such as a slight reduction in above-ground biomass com-
bined with occasional mild yellowing on old leaves.

Metabolic analysis focused on metabolites known, or suspected,
to influence plant-aphid interactions (Mauck et al. 2016), in-
cluding amino acids, hormones, organic acids, and flavonoids.
Principal component analysis (PCA) was carried out to identify
clusters of experimental modalities. The first two dimensions,
representing 53% of the explained variance (Dim.1 = 40.9% and
Dim.2 = 12.1%; Figure 6A), showed that the metabolic profile of
control plants (C) formed a distinct cluster from stressed plants
(i.e., BChV-infected non-infested plants (V), Mock-inoculated
aphid-infested plants (a) or BChV-infected aphid-infested plants
(aV)). Given that the second and third dimensions of this PCA
explained comparable variability in the dataset (Dim.2 = 12.1%
and Dim.3 = 10.3%; Figure 6A,B), a second PCA was conducted

using the first and third dimensions (Figure 6B). This represen-
tation allowed for a distinct clustering of the metabolic profiles
of the four modalities. Particularly, modality ‘a’ was differen-
tiated from modality ‘aV’, indicating that the virus infection
significantly influenced the metabolite composition of plants
pre-infested by aphids. Discrimination of different groups on the
third axis was mainly driven by four metabolites: Salicylic acid
glucoside (SA_Glc), Coumaric acid, Cinnamic acid, and Serine;
and three additional contributors: Methylated Apigenin (Me_
Apigenin), Acetylglycitin-C-hexoside (Acetyl_Glycitin_C_hexo)
and Tyrosine (Figure 6C).

In addition to PCA, heat map analysis was performed to
evaluate how BChV infection and/or aphid pre-infestation
affect the accumulation of metabolites in sugar beet leaves.
To this aim, metabolite accumulation in stressed plants (i.e.,
modalities ‘a’, ‘V’ and ‘aV’) was compared to that of control
mock-inoculated plants (Modality ‘C’). This revealed a pre-
dominant decrease in metabolite accumulation compared to
mock-inoculated plants. This reduced accumulation was par-
ticularly pronounced for several amino acids such as proline
and tryptophan in plants only pre-infested by aphids, and pro-
line, tryptophan and tyrosine in plants only infected by BChV
(Figure 6D). These reduced accumulations were maintained
when both stresses were combined (Figure 6D). For three
other metabolites (Malonyl_O_deoxhexo_C_hexo_Apigenin,
Vitexin_Acetyl_Glc and OPDA) changes in accumulation as-
sociated with infection and/or pre-infestation were conserved
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 5** | Simplified representation of the acid salicylic (SA) pathway (Klessig et al. 2018) (A); Relative gene expression (Log2) in mock-inoculated, BChV-infected sugar beets, pre-infested or not with *Myzus persicae* (B). Each red dot corresponds to a plant sample (5 biological replicates for each condition). Box plots show median (black line), 25%–75% percentiles (box), and 10%–90% percentiles (whiskers). Different letters indicate significant differences between infection and infestation conditions as tested by GLM followed by pairwise comparisons using 'emmeans' (*p* < 0.05; method = 'Tukey') (complete statistical analysis in Table S8). For ICS1, the asterisk indicates a significant difference between Mock and BChV-infected plants (GLM, *p* < 0.05; no significant interaction, infestation effect, or pairwise differences were detected). CH: Chorismate; CM: Chorismate mutase; IC: Isochorismate; ICS1: Isochorismate synthase; Phe: Phenylalanine; PAL: Phenylalanine ammonia-Lyase; t-CA: Transcinnamic acid; NPR1: Non-expressor of Pathogenesis-related protein 1; PreA: Prephenic acid; TGAs: TGA transcription factors; PRs: Pathogenesis-related proteins.</figcaption></figure>

when plants were exposed to both treatments (Figure 6D). However, this was not the case for two flavonoids (Me_ Apigenin and Acetyl_Glycitin_C_hexo; Figure 6D), for which the combination of both pre-infestation and BChV infection alleviated the decreased accumulation observed in plants of the modality 'a'. Conversely, significant over-accumulation of SA_Glc and decreased accumulation of two phenolic acids (i.e., cinnamic and coumaric acids) were only observed when plants were both pre-infested by aphids and infected by BChV (Figure 6D). Altogether, these results showed that the combination of BChV infection and pre-infestation by aphids induces specific changes in the metabolite profiles of sugar beets. Compared to plants only pre-infested by aphids ('a'), these changes include (i) lower accumulation of cinnamic acids, coumaric acids and tyrosine, (ii) accumulation of SA glycoside and (iii) basal accumulation of Methylated Apigenin and Acetyl Glycitin-C-hexoside.

4 | Discussion

For most plant viruses, transmission is strongly influenced by in-
sect behaviours, particularly the initial selection and acceptance

of a host in a complex environment. This selection is mediated
by plant-emitted cues (Powell et al. 2006), the nature and quan-
tity of which are altered in response to biotic and/or abiotic
stresses (Fernando Gil et al. 2020; van Munster 2020; Verdier
et al. 2025). Virus-induced changes in plant cues can indirectly
modify the behaviour and/or performance of insect vectors in
ways that optimise plant virus transmission ('virus manipula-
tion'; Mauck et al. 2018). Despite an extensive literature on this
subject, most of the data do not elucidate the molecular mech-
anisms underlying 'virus manipulation'. Yet, deciphering such
mechanisms is crucial for modelling virus spread in the field
and for developing novel control strategies against plant virus
diseases (Jeger 2020). In this context, our study focused on an
agronomically relevant crop species (i.e., sugar beet) to inves-
tigate how BChV infection and aphid pre-infestation affect the
feeding behaviour of the vector, M. persicae (Figure 7). We also
explored the potential involvement of phytohorme-related de-
fences as a molecular mechanism hijacked by BChV to facilitate
its acquisition by aphids (Figure 7).

Modelling studies have shown that the prevalence of insect-borne
viruses in plant populations depends on the number of plants
visited by viruliferous vectors (i.e., transmission frequency)
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 6** | Legend on next page.</figcaption></figure>
**FIGURE 6** | Principal component analysis (PCA) of metabolites in sugar beet following different treatments using the first two dimensions (A) or the first and the third dimensions (B). Contributions of the different metabolites in the three dimensions of the principal components (C). The contribution of each metabolite is relative to the circle size and the colour intensity, the largest and darkest ones contribute more. Heatmap of metabolite fold changes in sugar beet plants following the different treatments (D). Red and blue colours indicate respectively significant up- and down-regulation in Log2 fold changes. Metabolites were grouped according to their chemical family as amino acids (AA), organic acids (OA), phenolic acids (PA), flavonoids (F), and hormones (H). Pairwise comparisons were performed using Tukey's Honest Significant Difference method followed by a false discovery rate (FDR) correction, with FDR < 0.05. For FDR ≥ 0.05, Log2 fold changes were set to 0. Non-infected non-infested control plants (C); BChV-infected non-infested plants (V); Mock-inoculated aphid-infested plants (a); BChV-infected aphid pre-infested plants (aV); Dim: Principal component. (N = 5).

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

**FIGURE 7** | Summary of the effects of pre-infestation and BChV-infection, on aphid behavioural responses (EPG; orange), the expression of phytohormone-related genes (RT-qPCR; green) and accumulation of metabolites (UHPLC-MS; blue).

and on the efficiency of each acquisition/inoculation event (i.e., transmission efficiency) (Cunniffe et al. 2021; Jones et al. 2010). These intrinsically linked parameters of transmission are influenced, in part, by various behavioural and biological traits of the vectors. Feeding behaviour analysis is therefore particularly well-suited for investigating the ‘virus manipulation’ hypothesis as it encompasses distinct behavioural phases that are directly associated with (i) plant acceptability for aphids, and (ii) conditions required for efficient virus acquisition/inoculation.

According to the ‘virus manipulation’ hypothesis, circulative and phloem-limited viruses, such as poleroviruses, are expected to increase plant acceptability for aphids, and facilitate phloem ingestion thereby increasing the efficiency of their own acquisition/inoculation (Mauck et al. 2018). Most available data on poleroviruses support this hypothesis (Chesnais et al. 2019; Mauck et al. 2018; Verdier et al. 2025). Our results are consistent with these findings but further suggest that such effects may depend on specific conditions, particularly on the simultaneous presence of both the virus and the vector on the plant. Indeed, on healthy plants, pre-infestation with *M. persicae* altered several phases of aphid feeding behaviour in a way indicative of reduced plant palatability with frequent xylem feeding and reduced time in phloem phases (Spiller et al. 1990) (Figure 7). These observations align with previous studies conducted on *M. persicae* and other aphid species, on different host

plants (Brunissen et al. 2009; Cardoza et al. 2005). However, this negative effect of pre-infestation on plant palatability was alleviated on BChV-infected plants, rendering BChV-infected plants more comparable to uninfested healthy ones. Notably, the co-occurrence of both virus and aphids on the same plant was associated with increased phloem ingestion time, an outcome favourable for virus acquisition (Brault et al. 2010) (Figure 7). In the same line, potato leafroll virus has been shown to accumulate at aphid feeding sites on infected leaves (Mowry 1995), suggesting that the virus might be able to ‘sense’ the presence of its vector and activate mechanisms to enhance its own transmission (a process referred to as ‘transmission activation’; (Drucker and Then 2015)). While this phenomenon is documented for several non-circulative viruses (Berthelot et al. 2019; Martinière et al. 2013), evidence for such a mechanism for circulative viruses is limited. Our findings raise the possibility that a similar transmission activation process may occur in the sugar beet-BChV-*M. persicae* interaction.

Exploring the molecular mechanisms underlying the ‘virus manipulation’ hypothesis, remains a long-term objective that has been partially elucidated for a few pathosystems through the identification of key signalling pathways (Ziegler-Graff 2020). Among these, phytohormone-related defences (mostly JA, SA and ET-pathways) have been extensively studied, as they are conserved across many plant species.
The JA-pathway is primarily associated with plant defences against necrotrophic pathogens and herbivorous insects, including aphids (Moran and Thompson 2001). In our study, aphid pre-infestation of healthy plants induced activation of the JA-pathway (Figure 7), although no increased accumulation of JA-derivative was observed under our experimental conditions. This pattern initially positioned the JA-pathway as a potential mechanism through which BChV could counteract the negative impact of pre-infestation. However, our results unexpectedly showed no suppression of JA-mediated defences against aphids in BChV-infected plants. These findings contrast with previous studies on other poleroviruses, in which virus infection mitigated the aphid-induced activation of the JA-pathway (Krieger et al. 2023; Patton et al. 2020; Pimenta et al. 2025). These discrepancies suggest that polerovirus effects on JA-related defences may be host-specific and time-dependent, noting that our study examined only one time point.

SA is a key signalling molecule involved in plant defence responses against both biotic and abiotic stresses (Vlot et al. 2009). In our study, both *ICS1* and *PAL* transcripts, two genes associated with SA biosynthesis, were upregulated following BChV infection, but not after aphid pre-infestation. This observation is consistent with previous studies showing that viruses can activate SA-related pathways, sometimes to their own benefit (Murphy et al. 2020). Interestingly, in pre-infested plants, BChV infection reduced *PAL* overexpression to basal levels. However, this transcriptional regulation did not translate into a reduction in SA or its derivative, SA-glucoside. On the contrary, SA-glucoside levels increased in plants subjected to both BChV infection and aphid pre-infestation. Such SA-glucoside is commonly observed during pathogen attacks, as SA glycosylation serves to store and detoxify free SA (Murphy et al. 2020). While this mechanism is generally protective for the plant (Dean et al. 2005), it can also be exploited by pathogens or herbivores to their advantage by lowering the concentration of free SA, an active component of plant defence. Thus, the observed accumulation of SA-glucoside in BChV-infected and aphid-infested plants may reflect a synergistic interaction that enhances aphid feeding behaviour by reducing the toxic effects of free SA.

In addition to its involvement in the SA-pathway, PAL is a key enzyme in the biosynthesis of phenylpropanoids, including flavonoids and phenolic acids (Vogt 2010). In our study, the relatively reduced expression of *PAL* in plants co-exposed to BChV infection and aphid infestation was accompanied by a decrease in phenolic acids, specifically cinnamic and coumaric acids (Figure 7). This is noteworthy as derivatives of cinnamic and coumaric acids have been implicated in resistance or susceptibility to aphids in apple trees (Alonso-Salces et al. 2022), and in response to aphid and beetle attacks in winter triticale (Czerniewicz et al. 2017). A coordinated effect of aphids and the virus was also observed on flavonoids accumulation, particularly for two compounds, Methylated Apigenin and Acetyl glycitin-C-hexoside. While levels of these flavonoids were reduced under individual stresses, their accumulation returned to basal levels in double-treated plants, suggesting a compensatory response. Flavonoids are generally associated with anti-insect properties (Kariyat et al. 2019; Lattanzio et al. 2000), although their effects can vary depending on the concentration (Simmonds 2003). For instance, while apigenin glycoside in alfalfa was shown to

impair phloem sap ingestion and the performance of *A. pisum*, high concentrations of apigenin glycosides in artificial diets were shown to extend the phloem ingestion phase (Goławska et al. 2010). Thus, the observed changes could facilitate aphid feeding, potentially by extending the phloem sap ingestion phase and enhancing virus acquisition. These coordinated regulations in the phenylpropanoid metabolism suggest a possible joint manipulation strategy by the virus and the vector to suppress plant defences and optimise conditions for transmission.

Similarly to the JA-pathway, the ET-pathway has been shown to respond to aphid infestation (Mantelin et al. 2009; Wu et al. 2015), a pattern also observed in our study (Figure 7). Notably, in aphid-pre-infested plants, BChV-infection appeared to mitigate changes in *EIN2* relative expression, a central regulator of the ET pathway (Figure 7). A similar modulation of *EIN2* expression has been reported in *N. benthamiana* and potato (*Solanum tuberosum*) plants exposed to either PLRV (*Polerovirus*), *M. persicae* or both (Bak et al. 2019). More recently, large-scale transcriptomic analyses conducted in *A. thaliana* infected with TuYV (*Polerovirus*) showed that viral infection alleviated most of the plant defence against aphids, including ET-related responses (Krieger et al. 2023). Beyond poleroviruses, similar strategies have been reported for non-circulative viruses from the *Potyvirus* genus, which rely on the ET-pathway to enhance attraction and/or fecundity of *M. persicae* on model (*A. thaliana* and *N. benthamiana*) or crop (*Solanum tuberosum*) species. Collectively, these findings suggest that the ET pathway represents a conserved regulatory node that aphid-transmitted viruses may exploit to modulate vector behaviour and/or performance. Importantly, experimental evidence supports the practical relevance of this regulation. A single application of an ethylene biosynthesis inhibitor led to a 4-fold reduction of PVY prevalence in multi-host arenas (Bak et al. 2019). While further work is needed to validate this approach, targeting the ET pathway may represent a promising strategy for limiting the spread of aphid-borne viruses in sugar beet.

## 5 | Conclusion

Using sugar beet as an agronomically relevant model, we demonstrated that BChV infection can attenuate the plant defences against *M. persicae*, thereby enhancing plant acceptability for its aphid vector and potentially facilitating the virus's own acquisition. Indeed, BChV infection was associated with increased phloem sap ingestion, a critical step for the acquisition and transmission of this phloem-limited virus. These behavioural changes in the feeding behaviour of the vector coincided with (i) increased accumulation of SA-glycoside, (ii) altered levels of several phenylpropanoids and (iii) suppression of aphid-induced responses in the ET-pathway. Together, these findings point to a complex molecular framework through which BChV creates favourable conditions for its transmission by *M. persicae*. Although the specific defence pathways targeted by BChV differ in part from those affected by other viruses such as TuMV or PVY, our results support a broader and convergent evolutionary strategy among aphid-transmitted viruses: manipulating plant defences and metabolism to adapt the aphid feeding behaviour to virus acquisition and, consequently, to virus spread. Finally, the use of sugar beet as a model crop offers valuable insights to identify
molecular targets that could be leveraged through breeding or biotechnological strategies to reduce aphid-mediated transmission of viruses in agricultural systems.

## Author Contributions

T.A., S.B., A.M.-G., V.B., and Q.C. conceived the study; T.A. performed the feeding behavior analysis; T.A. and S.B. performed the molecular laboratory work; A.M.-G. and P.H. performed the metabolomic analyses. T.A., S.B., A.M.-G., P.H., V.B., and Q.C. analysed the data. T.A., S.B., A.M.-G., V.B., and Q.C. wrote the initial draft. All authors revised and approved the manuscript.

## Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Claire Villeroy (INRAE Colmar) for the aphids rearing. Members of the experimental unit (UEAV) of INRAE, Colmar are acknowledged for the plant production. This work was supported by the French Ministry of Agriculture CASDAR under grant number C-2019-01.

## Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

## Data Availability Statement

The authors confirm that all relevant data underlying the findings are fully available without restriction within the paper and its Supporting Information. Datasets on Quantitative RT-PCR, metabolomic analyses and aphid feeding behaviour (EPG) have been made available in Recherche Data Gouv repository doi: https://doi.org/10.57745/L48YG6.

## References

Adams, D. O., and S. F. Yang. 1981. "Ethylene the Gaseous Plant Hormone: Mechanism and Regulation of Biosynthesis." *Trends in Biochemical Sciences* 6: 161-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/0968-0004(81) 90059-1.

Aerts, N., M. Pereira Mendes, and S. C. M. Van Wees. 2021. "Multiple Levels of Crosstalk in Hormone Networks Regulating Plant Defense." *Plant Journal* 105, no. 2: 489-504. https://doi.org/10.1111/tpj.15124.

Alonso, J. M., T. Hirayama, G. Roman, S. Nourizadeh, and J. R. Ecker. 1999. "EIN2, a Bifunctional Transducer of Ethylene and Stress Responses in Arabidopsis." *Science* 284, no. 5423: 2148-2152. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.284.5423.2148.

Alonso-Salces, R. M., L. A. Berrueta, B. Abad-García, et al. 2022. "Untargeted Metabolomic Liquid Chromatography High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry Fingerprinting of Apple Cultivars for the Identification of Biomarkers Related to Resistance to Rosy Apple Aphid." *Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry* 70, no. 41: 13071-13081. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.2c00738.

Andersen, C. L., J. L. Jensen, and T. F. Ørntoft. 2004. "Normalization of Real-Time Quantitative Reverse Transcription-PCR Data: A Model-Based Variance Estimation Approach to Identify Genes Suited for Normalization, Applied to Bladder and Colon Cancer Data Sets." *Cancer Research* 64, no. 15: 5245-5250. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-0496.

Ángeles-López, Y. I., R. F. Rivera-Bustamante, and M. Heil. 2016. "Colonization by Phloem-Feeding Herbivore Overrides Effects of Plant Virus on Amino Acid Composition in Phloem of Chili Plants." *Journal of Chemical Ecology* 42, no. 10: 985-988. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1088 6-016-0747-2.

Arena, G. D., P. L. Ramos-González, M. A. Nunes, et al. 2016. "Citrus Leprosis Virus C Infection Results in Hypersensitive-Like Response,

Suppression of the JA/ET Plant Defense Pathway and Promotion of the Colonization of Its Mite Vector." *Frontiers in Plant Science* 7: 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01757.

Bak, A., M. F. Patton, L. M. Perilla-Henao, B. J. Aegerter, and C. L. Casteel. 2019. "Ethylene Signaling Mediates Potyvirus Spread by Aphid Vectors." *Oecologia* 190, no. 1: 139-148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s0044 2-019-04405-0.

Basu, S., R. E. Clark, S. Bera, C. L. Casteel, and D. W. Crowder. 2021. "Responses of Pea Plants to Multiple Antagonists Are Mediated by Order of Attack and Phytohormone Crosstalk." *Molecular Ecology* 30, no. 19: 4939-4948. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.16103.

Bates, D., M. Mächler, B. Bolker, and S. Walker. 2015. "Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4." *Journal of Statistical Software* 67: 1-48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.

Bera, S., R. Blundell, D. Liang, D. W. Crowder, and C. L. Casteel. 2020. "The Oxylipin Signaling Pathway Is Required for Increased Aphid Attraction and Retention on Virus-Infected Plants." *Journal of Chemical Ecology* 46, no. 8: 771-781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-020-01157-7.

Berthelot, E., M. Ducoussou, J.-L. Macia, et al. 2019. "Turnip Mosaic Virus Is a Second Example of a Virus Using Transmission Activation for Plant-To-Plant Propagation by Aphids." *Journal of Virology* 93, no. 9: 18. https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.01822-18.

Binder, B. M. 2020. "Ethylene Signaling in Plants." *Journal of Biological Chemistry* 295, no. 22: 7710-7725. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.REV120. 010854.

Brault, V., M. Uzest, B. Monsion, E. Jacquot, and S. Blanc. 2010. "Aphids as Transport Devices for Plant Viruses." *Comptes Rendus Biologies* 333, no. 6-7: 524-538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crvi.2010.04.001.

Broekgaarden, C., L. Caarls, I. A. Vos, C. M. J. Pieterse, and S. C. M. Van Wees. 2015. "Ethylene: Traffic Controller on Hormonal Crossroads to Defense." *Plant Physiology* 169, no. 4: 2371-2379. https://doi.org/10. 1104/pp.15.01020.

Brunissen, L., A. Cherqui, Y. Pelletier, C. Vincent, and P. Giordanengo. 2009. "Host-Plant Mediated Interactions Between Two Aphid Species." *Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata* 132, no. 1: 30-38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.2009.00862.x.

Cardoza, Y. J., J. Reidy-Crofts, and O. R. Edwards. 2005. "Differential Inter- and Intra-Specific Defense Induction in Lupinus by *Myzus persicae* Feeding." *Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata* 117, no. 2: 155-163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.2005.00344.x.

Carmo-Sousa, M., A. Moreno, E. Garzo, and A. Fereres. 2014. "A Non-Persistently Transmitted-Virus Induces a Pull-Push Strategy in Its Aphid Vector to Optimize Transmission and Spread." *Virus Research* 186: 38-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2013.12.012.

Carmo-Sousa, M., A. Moreno, M. Plaza, E. Garzo, and A. Fereres. 2016. "Cucurbit Aphid-Borne Yellows Virus (CABYV) Modifies the Alighting, Settling and Probing Behaviour of Its Vector *Aphis gossypii* Favouring Its Own Spread." *Annals of Applied Biology* 169, no. 2: 284-297. https://doi.org/10.1111/aab.12300.

Casteel, C. L., M. De Alwis, A. Bak, H. Dong, S. A. Whitham, and G. Jander. 2015. "Disruption of Ethylene Responses by Turnip Mosaic Virus Mediates Suppression of Plant Defense Against the Green Peach Aphid Vector." *Plant Physiology* 169, no. 1: 209-218. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.15.00332.

Chesnais, Q., G. Caballero Vidal, R. Coquelle, et al. 2020. "Post-Acquisition Effects of Viruses on Vector Behavior Are Important Components of Manipulation Strategies." *Oecologia* 194, no. 3: 429-440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-020-04763-0.

Chesnais, Q., A. Couty, M. Uzest, V. Brault, and A. Ameline. 2019. "Plant Infection by Two Different Viruses Induce Contrasting Changes of Vectors Fitness and Behavior." *Insect Science* 26, no. 1: 86-96. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7917.12508.
Chesnais, Q., V. Golyaev, A. Velt, et al. 2022. "Comparative Plant Transcriptome Profiling of *Arabidopsis thaliana* Col-0 and *Camelina sativa* Var. Celine Infested With *Myzus persicae* Aphids Acquiring Circulative and Noncirculative Viruses Reveals Virus- and Plant-Specific Alterations Relevant to Aphid Fe." *Microbiology Spectrum* 10, no. 4: 136. https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.00136-22.

Clark, M. F., and A. N. Adams. 1977. "Characteristics of the Microplate Method of Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay for the Detection of Plant Viruses." *Journal of General Virology* 34, no. 3: 475-483. https://doi.org/10.1099/0022-1317-34-3-475.

Classen, D. C., J. M. Morningstar, and J. D. Shanley. 1987. "Detection of Antibody to Murine Cytomegalovirus by Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent and Indirect Immunofluorescence Assays." *Journal of Clinical Microbiology* 25, no. 4: 600-604. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.25.4.600-604.1987.

Cunniffe, N. J., N. P. Taylor, F. M. Hamelin, and M. J. Jeger. 2021. "Epidemiological and Ecological Consequences of Virus Manipulation of Host and Vector in Plant Virus Transmission." *PLoS Computational Biology* 17, no. 12: e1009759. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009759.

Czerniewicz, P., H. Sytykiewicz, R. Durak, B. Borowiak-Sobkowiak, and G. Chrzanowski. 2017. "Role of Phenolic Compounds During Antioxidative Responses of Winter Triticale to Aphid and Beetle Attack." *Plant Physiology and Biochemistry* 118: 529-540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2017.07.024.

Dean, J. V., L. A. Mohammed, and T. Fitzpatrick. 2005. "The Formation, Vacuolar Localization, and Tonoplast Transport of Salicylic Acid Glucose Conjugates in Tobacco Cell Suspension Cultures." *Planta* 221, no. 2: 287-296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-004-1430-3.

Drucker, M., and C. Then. 2015. "Transmission Activation in Non-Circulative Virus Transmission: A General Concept?" *Current Opinion in Virology* 15: 63-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coviro.2015.08.006.

Eigenbrode, S. D., N. A. Bosque-Pérez, and T. S. Davis. 2018. "Insect-Borne Plant Pathogens and Their Vectors: Ecology, Evolution, and Complex Interactions." *Annual Review of Entomology* 63, no. 1: 169-191. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-020117-043119.

Escudero-Martinez, C., D. J. Leybourne, and J. I. B. Bos. 2021. "Plant Resistance in Different Cell Layers Affects Aphid Probing and Feeding Behaviour During Non-Host and Poor-Host Interactions." *Bulletin of Entomological Research* 111: 31-38. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007485320000231.

Fernández de Bobadilla, M., A. Vitiello, M. Erb, and E. H. Poelman. 2022. "Plant Defense Strategies Against Attack by Multiple Herbivores." *Trends in Plant Science* 27, no. 6: 528-535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplan ts.2021.12.010.

Fernando Gil, J., D. Wibberg, O. Eini, E. I. Savenkov, M. Varrelmann, and S. Liebe. 2020. "Comparative Transcriptome Analysis Provides Molecular Insights Into the Interaction of Beet Necrotic Yellow Vein Virus and Beet Soil-Borne Mosaic Virus With Their Host Sugar Beet." *Viruses* 12, no. 1: 76. https://doi.org/10.3390/v12010076.

Gfeller, A., L. Dubugnon, R. Liechti, and E. E. Farmer. 2010. "Jasmonate Biochemical Pathway." *Science Signaling* 3, no. 109: 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1126/scisignal.3109.

Giordanengo, P. 2014. "EPG-Calc: A PHP-Based Script to Calculate Electrical Penetration Graph (EPG) Parameters." *Arthropod-Plant Interactions* 8, no. 2: 163-169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11829-014-9298-z.

Goławska, S., I. Łukasik, A. Goławski, I. Kapusta, and B. Janda. 2010. "Alfalfa (*Medicago sativa* L.) Apigenin Glycosides and Their Effect on the Pea Aphid *Acyrthosiphon pisum*." *Polish Journal of Environmental Studies* 19, no. 5: 913-919.

Hall, A. E., J. L. Findell, G. E. Schaller, E. C. Sisler, and A. B. Bleecker. 2000. "Ethylene Perception by the ERS1 Protein in Arabidopsis." *Plant Physiology* 123, no. 4: 1449-1457. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.123.4.1449.

Harrewijn, P. 1983. "The Effect of Cultural Measures on Behaviour and Population Development of Potato Aphids and Transmission of Viruses." *Mededelingen Van de Fakulteit Landbouwwetenschappen Rijksuniversiteit Gent* 48: 791-799.

Hauser, S., M. Stevens, M. Beuve, and O. Lemaire. 2002. "Biological Properties and Molecular Characterization of Beet Chlorosis Virus (BChV)." *Archives of Virology* 147, no. 4: 745-762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s007050200023.

Hegazi, N. M., R. A. Radwan, S. M. Bakry, and H. H. Saad. 2020. "Molecular Networking Aided Metabolomic Profiling of Beet Leaves Using Three Extraction Solvents and in Relation to Its Anti-Obesity Effects." *Journal of Advanced Research* 24: 545-555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jare.2020.06.001.

Hellemans, J., G. Mortier, A. De Paepe, F. Speleman, and J. Vandesompele. 2007. "qBase Relative Quantification Framework and Software for Management and Automated Analysis of Real-Time Quantitative PCR Data." *Genome Biology* 8, no. 2: R19. https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2007-8-2-r19.

Hossain, R., W. Menzel, C. Lachmann, and M. Varrelmann. 2020. "New Insights Into Virus Yellows Distribution in Europe and Effects of Beet Yellows Virus, Beet Mild Yellowing Virus, and Beet Chlorosis Virus on Sugar Beet Yield Following Field Inoculation." *Plant Pathology* 70, no. 3: 584-593. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppa.13306.

Jeger, M. J. 2020. "The Epidemiology of Plant Virus Disease: Towards a New Synthesis." *Plants* 9, no. 12: 1768. https://doi.org/10.3390/plant s9121768.

Jones, R. A. C., M. U. Salam, T. J. Maling, A. J. Diggle, and D. J. Thackray. 2010. "Principles of Predicting Plant Virus Disease Epidemics." *Annual Review of Phytopathology* 48, no. 1: 179-203. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-phyto-073009-114,444.

Kariyat, R. R., I. Gaffoor, S. Sattar, et al. 2019. "Sorghum 3-Deoxyanthocyanidin Flavonoids Confer Resistance Against Corn Leaf Aphid." *Journal of Chemical Ecology* 45: 502-514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-019-01062-8.

Katsir, L., A. L. Schilmiller, P. E. Staswick, Y. H. Sheng, and G. A. Howe. 2008. "COI1 Is a Critical Component of a Receptor for Jasmonate and the Bacterial Virulence Factor Coronatine." *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America* 105, no. 19: 7100-7105. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0802332105.

Klessig, D. F., H. W. Choi, and D. A. D. A. Dempsey. 2018. "Systemic Acquired Resistance and Salicylic Acid: Past, Present, and Future." *Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions* 31, no. 9: 871-888. https://doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-03-18-0067-CR.

Krieger, C., D. Halter, R. Saltenweck, et al. 2023. "An Aphid-Transmitted Virus Reduces the Host Plant Response to Its Vector to Promote Its Transmission." *Phytopathology* 113, no. 9: 1745-1760. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-12-22-0454-FI.

Lattanzio, V., S. Arpaia, A. Cardinali, D. Di Venere, and V. Linsalata. 2000. "Endogenous Flavonoids in Resistance Mechanism of Vigna Role of to Aphids." *Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry* 48, no. 11: 5316-5320. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf000229y.

Lazebnik, J., E. Frago, M. Dicke, and J. J. A. van Loon. 2014. "Phytohormone Mediation of Interactions Between Herbivores and Plant Pathogens." *Journal of Chemical Ecology* 40, no. 7: 730-741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-014-0480-7.

Lefevere, H., L. Bauters, and G. Gheysen. 2020. "Salicylic Acid Biosynthesis in Plants." *Frontiers in Plant Science* 11: 1-7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.00338.

Louis, J., S. Basu, S. Varsani, et al. 2015. "Ethylene Contributes to Maize Insect Resistance1-Mediated Maize Defense Against the Phloem Suckling Corn Leaf Aphid." *Plant Physiology* 169, no. 1: 313-324. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.15.00958.
Mantelin, S., K. K. Bhattarai, and I. Kaloshian. 2009. "Ethylene
Contributes to Potato Aphid Susceptibility in a Compatible Tomato
Host." *New Phytologist* 183, no. 2: 444–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1469-8137.2009.02870.x.

Martinière, A., A. Bak, J. L. Macia, et al. 2013. "A Virus Responds Instantly to the Presence of the Vector on the Host and Forms Transmission Morphs." *eLife* 2013: 1–26. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.00183.

Mauck, K. E., N. A. Bosque-Pérez, S. D. Eigenbrode, C. M. De Moraes, and M. C. Mescher. 2012. "Transmission Mechanisms Shape Pathogen Effects on Host-Vector Interactions: Evidence From Plant Viruses." *Functional Ecology* 26, no. 5: 1162–1175. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2012.02026.x.

Mauck, K. E., Q. Chesnais, and L. R. Shapiro. 2018. "Evolutionary Determinants of Host and Vector Manipulation by Plant Viruses." In *Advances in Viral Research*, vol. 101, 1st ed., 189–250. Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aivir.2018.02.007.

Mauck, K. E., C. M. De Moraes, and M. C. Mescher. 2014. “Biochemical and Physiological Mechanisms Underlying Effects of Cucumber Mosaic Virus on Host-Plant Traits That Mediate Transmission by Aphid Vectors.” *Plant, Cell & Environment* 37, no. 6: 1427–1439. https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12249.

Mauck, K. E., C. M. De Moraes, and M. C. Mescher. 2016. “Effects of Pathogens on Sensory-Mediated Interactions Between Plants and Insect Vectors.” *Current Opinion in Plant Biology* 32: 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2016.06.012.

Mauck, K. E., J. Kenney, and Q. Chesnais. 2019. “Progress and Challenges in Identifying Molecular Mechanisms Underlying Host and Vector Manipulation by Plant Viruses.” *Current Opinion in Insect Science* 33: 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2019.01.001.

Moran, P. J., and G. A. Thompson. 2001. "Molecular Responses to Aphid Feeding in Arabidopsis in Relation to Plant Defense Pathways." *Plant Physiology* 125, no. 2: 1074–1085. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.125.2.1074.

Morkunas, I., V. C. Mai, and B. Gabryś. 2011. "Phytohormonal Signaling in Plant Responses to Aphid Feeding." *Acta Physiologiae Plantarum* 33, no. 6: 2057–2073. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11738-011-0751-7.

Mowry, T. M. 1995. "Within-Plant Accumulation of Potato Leafroll Virus by Aggregated Green Peach Aphid Feeding." *Phytopathology* 85, no. 8: 859. https://doi.org/10.1094/Phyto-85-859.

Murphy, A. M., T. Zhou, and J. P. Carr. 2020. "An Update on Salicylic Acid Biosynthesis, Its Induction and Potential Exploitation by Plant Viruses." *Current Opinion in Virology* 42: 8–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coviro.2020.02.008.

Nachappa, P., J. Challacombe, D. C. Margolies, J. R. Nechols, A. E. Whitfield, and D. Rotenberg. 2020. "Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus Benefits Its Thrips Vector by Modulating Metabolic and Plant Defense Pathways in Tomato." *Frontiers in Plant Science* 11: 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.575564.

Patton, M. F., A. Bak, J. M. Sayre, M. L. Heck, and C. L. Casteel. 2020. "A Polerovirus, Potato Leafroll Virus, Alters Plant-Vector Interactions Using Three Viral Proteins." *Plant, Cell & Environment* 43, no. 2: 387–399. https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.13684.

Pattyn, J., J. Vaughan-Hirsch, and B. Van de Poel. 2021. "The Regulation of Ethylene Biosynthesis: A Complex Multilevel Control Circuitry." *New Phytologist* 229, no. 2: 770–782. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.16873.

Penninckx, I. A. M. A., K. Eggermont, F. R. G. Terras, et al. 1996. "Pathogen-Induced Systemic Activation of a Plant Defensin Gene in Arabidopsis Follows a Salicylic Acid-Independent Pathway." *Plant Cell* 8, no. 12: 2309–2323. https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.8.12.2309.

Pfaffl, M. W., A. Tichopad, C. Prgomet, and T. P. Neuvians. 2004. "Determination of Stable Housekeeping Genes, Differentially Regulated Target Genes and Sample Integrity: BestKeeper—Excel-Based Tool

Using Pair-Wise Correlations.” *Biotechnology Letters* 26, no. 6: 509–515.
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BILE.0000019559.84305.47.

Pimenta, R. J. G., A. H. Aono, D. A. Sforça, et al. 2025. "Sugarcane Yellow Leaf Virus Impairs the Transcriptomic Defense Response of Sugarcane to Its New Aphid Vector Melanaphis Sorghi." *BMC Plant Biology* 25, no. 1: 951. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-025-06895-y.

Powell, G., C. R. Tosh, and J. Hardie. 2006. "Host Plant Selection by Aphids: Behavioral, Evolutionary, and Applied Perspectives." *Annual Review of Entomology* 51, no. 22: 309–330. https://doi.org/10.1146/annur ev.ento.51.110104.151107.

Reinink, K., F. L. Dieleman, J. Jansen, and A. M. Montenarie. 1989. "Interactions Between Plant and Aphid Genotypes in Resistance of Lettuce to *Myzus persicae* and *Macrosiphum euphorbiae*." *Euphytica* 43, no. 3: 215–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00023056.

Ruan, J., Y. Zhou, M. Zhou, et al. 2019. "Jasmonic Acid Signaling Pathway in Plants." *International Journal of Molecular Sciences* 20, no. 10: 2479. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20102479.

Simmonds, M. S. J. 2003. "Flavonoid-Insect Interactions: Recent Advances in Our Knowledge." *Phytochemistry* 64, no. 1: 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9422(03)00293-0.

Spiller, N. J., L. Koenders, and W. F. Tjallingii. 1990. "Xylem Ingestion by Aphids—A Strategy for Maintaining Water Balance." *Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata* 55, no. 2: 101–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1570-7458.1990.tb01352.x.

Staswick, P. E., I. Tiryaki, and M. L. Rowe. 2002. "Jasmonate Response Locus JAR1 and Several Related Arabidopsis Genes Encode Enzymes of the Firefly Luciferase Superfamily That Show Activity on Jasmonic, Salicylic, and Indole-3-Acetic Acids in an Assay for Adenylation." *Plant Cell* 14, no. 6: 1405–1415. https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.000885.

Svec, D., A. Tichopad, V. Novosadova, M. W. Pfaffl, and M. Kubista. 2015. "How Good Is a PCR Efficiency Estimate: Recommendations for Precise and Robust qPCR Efficiency Assessments." *Biomolecular Detection and Quantification* 3: 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bdq. 2015.01.005.

Tjallingii, W. F. 1988. "Electrical Recording of Stylet Penetration Activities." In *Aphids: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests*, 95-108. Elsevier.

Tjallingii, W. F., and T. Hogen Esch. 1993. "Fine Structure of Aphid Stylet Routes in Plant Tissues in Correlation With EPG Signals." *Physiological Entomology* 18, no. 3: 317–328. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1365-3032.1993.tb00604.x.

van den Heuvel, J. F. J. M., T. M. Boerma, and D. Peters. 1991. "Transmission of Potato Leafroll Virus From Plants and Artificial Diets by *Myzus persicae*." *Phytopathology* 81, no. 2: 150. https://doi.org/10.1094/Phyto-81-150.

van Munster, M. 2020. "Impact of Abiotic Stresses on Plant Virus Transmission by Aphids." *Viruses* 12, no. 2: 216. https://doi.org/10.3390/v12020216.

Vandesompele, J., K. De Preter, F. Pattyn, et al. 2002. "Accurate Normalization of Real-Time Quantitative RT-PCR Data by Geometric Averaging of Multiple Internal Control Genes." *Genome Biology* 3, no. 7: 34.

Verdier, M., S. Boissinot, R. Baltenweck, et al. 2025. "The Turnip Yellows Virus Capsid Protein Promotes Access of Its Main Aphid Vector *Myzus persicae* to Phloem Tissues." *Plant, Cell and Environment* 48, no. 3: 2434–2444. https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.15303.

Verdier, M., Q. Chesnais, E. Pirolles, S. Blanc, and M. Drucker. 2023. "The Cauliflower Mosaic Virus Transmission Helper Protein P2 Modifies Directly the Probing Behavior of the Aphid Vector *Myzus persicae* to Facilitate Transmission." *PLoS Pathogens* 19, no. 2: e1011161. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1011161.
Vlot, A. C., D. A. Dempsey, and D. F. Klessig. 2009. "Salicylic Acid, a Multifaceted Hormone to Combat Disease." *Annual Review of Phytopathology* 47: 177–206. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.phyto.050908.135202.

Vogt, T. 2010. "Phenylpropanoid Biosynthesis." *Molecular Plant* 3, no. 1: 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/mp/ssp106.

Wu, C., C. A. Avila, and F. L. Goggin. 2015. "The Ethylene Response Factor Pti5 Contributes to Potato Aphid Resistance in Tomato Independent of Ethylene Signalling." *Journal of Experimental Botany* 66, no. 2: 559–570. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/eru472.

Wu, Y., D. Zhang, J. Y. Chu, et al. 2012. "The Arabidopsis NPR1 Protein Is a Receptor for the Plant Defense Hormone Salicylic Acid." *Cell Reports* 1, no. 6: 639–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2012.05.008.

Zhang, Y., and X. Li. 2019. "Salicylic Acid: Biosynthesis, Perception, and Contributions to Plant Immunity." *Current Opinion in Plant Biology* 50: 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2019.02.004.

Zhao, Y., X. Cao, W. Zhong, et al. 2022. "A Viral Protein Orchestrates Rice Ethylene Signaling to Coordinate Viral Infection and Insect Vector-Mediated Transmission." *Molecular Plant* 15, no. 4: 689–705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molp.2022.01.006.

Ziegler-Graff, V. 2020. "Molecular Insights Into Host and Vector Manipulation by Plant Viruses." *Viruses* 12, no. 3: 263. https://doi.org/10.3390/v12030263.

## Supporting Information

Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section. **Table S1:** List of the 33 metabolites detected in sugar beet leaves with ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS), using a targeted metabolomic approach. **Table S2:** Primers used in RT-qPCR experiments for amplification of target and reference genes. **Table S3:** Candidate genes for reference genes. **Table S4:** Amplification efficacy (%) of genes of interest and reference genes, and the associated correlation coefficient (R²). **Table S5:** Detailed statistical analysis of *Myzus persicae* feeding behaviour by EPG on sugar beet mock-inoculated, BChV-infected, pre-infested, or not with aphids. **Table S6:** Detailed statistical analysis of the relative gene expression in the ethylene pathway. **Table S7:** Detailed statistical analysis of the relative gene expression in the JA pathway. **Table S8:** Detailed statistical analysis of the relative gene expression in the SA pathway.