1
|
Grover S, Puri H, Xin Z, Sattler SE, Louis J. Dichotomous Role of Jasmonic Acid in Modulating Sorghum Defense Against Aphids. MOLECULAR PLANT-MICROBE INTERACTIONS : MPMI 2022; 35:755-767. [PMID: 35394339 DOI: 10.1094/mpmi-01-22-0005-r] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
The precursors and derivatives of jasmonic acid (JA) contribute to plant protective immunity to insect attack. However, the role of JA in sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) defense against sugarcane aphid (SCA) (Melanaphis sacchari), which is considered a major threat to sorghum production, remains elusive. Sorghum SC265, previously identified as a SCA-resistant genotype among the sorghum nested association mapping founder lines, transiently increased JA at early stages of aphid feeding and deterred aphid settling. Monitoring of aphid feeding behavior using electropenetrography, a technique to unveil feeding process of piercing-sucking insects, revealed that SC265 plants restricted SCA feeding from the phloem sap. However, exogenous application of JA attenuated the resistant phenotype and promoted improved aphid feeding and colonization on SC265 plants. This was further confirmed with sorghum JA-deficient plants, in which JA deficiency promoted aphid settling, however, it also reduced aphid feeding from the phloem sap and curtailed SCA population. Exogenous application of JA caused enhanced feeding and aphid proliferation on JA-deficient plants, suggesting that JA promotes aphid growth and development. SCA feeding on JA-deficient plants altered the sugar metabolism and enhanced the levels of fructose and trehalose compared with wild-type plants. Furthermore, aphid artificial diet containing fructose and trehalose curtailed aphid growth and reproduction. Our findings underscore a previously unknown dichotomous role of JA, which may have opposing effects by deterring aphid settling during the early stage and enhancing aphid proliferative capacity during later stages of aphid colonization on sorghum plants. [Formula: see text] Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sajjan Grover
- Department of Entomology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583, U.S.A
| | - Heena Puri
- Department of Entomology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583, U.S.A
| | - Zhanguo Xin
- Plant Stress and Germplasm Development Unit, Cropping Systems Research Laboratory, U.S. Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service, Lubbock, TX 79415, U.S.A
| | - Scott E Sattler
- Wheat, Sorghum, and Forage Research Unit, U.S. Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service, Lincoln, NE 68583, U.S.A
| | - Joe Louis
- Department of Entomology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583, U.S.A
- Department of Biochemistry, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583, U.S.A
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Ataide LMS, Pappas ML, Schimmel BCJ, Lopez-Orenes A, Alba JM, Duarte MVA, Pallini A, Schuurink RC, Kant MR. Induced plant-defenses suppress herbivore reproduction but also constrain predation of their offspring. PLANT SCIENCE : AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PLANT BIOLOGY 2016; 252:300-310. [PMID: 27717467 DOI: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2016.08.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/17/2015] [Revised: 07/22/2016] [Accepted: 08/08/2016] [Indexed: 05/20/2023]
Abstract
Inducible anti-herbivore defenses in plants are predominantly regulated by jasmonic acid (JA). On tomato plants, most genotypes of the herbivorous generalist spider mite Tetranychus urticae induce JA defenses and perform poorly on it, whereas the Solanaceae specialist Tetranychus evansi, who suppresses JA defenses, performs well on it. We asked to which extent these spider mites and the predatory mite Phytoseiulus longipes preying on these spider mites eggs are affected by induced JA-defenses. By artificially inducing the JA-response of the tomato JA-biosynthesis mutant def-1 using exogenous JA and isoleucine (Ile), we first established the relationship between endogenous JA-Ile-levels and the reproductive performance of spider mites. For both mite species we observed that they produced more eggs when levels of JA-Ile were low. Subsequently, we allowed predatory mites to prey on spider mite-eggs derived from wild-type tomato plants, def-1 and JA-Ile-treated def-1 and observed that they preferred, and consumed more, eggs produced on tomato plants with weak JA defenses. However, predatory mite oviposition was similar across treatments. Our results show that induced JA-responses negatively affect spider mite performance, but positively affect the survival of their offspring by constraining egg-predation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Livia M S Ataide
- Department of Population Biology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Entomology, Federal University of Viçosa, Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil
| | - Maria L Pappas
- Department of Agricultural Development, Laboratory of Agricultural Entomology and Zoology, Democritus University of Thrace, Pantazidou 193, 68 200, Orestiada, Greece
| | - Bernardus C J Schimmel
- Department of Population Biology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Antonio Lopez-Orenes
- Department of Population Biology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Juan M Alba
- Department of Population Biology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marcus V A Duarte
- Department of Entomology, Federal University of Viçosa, Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil
| | - Angelo Pallini
- Department of Entomology, Federal University of Viçosa, Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil
| | - Robert C Schuurink
- Department of Plant Physiology, Swammerdam Institute for Life Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Merijn R Kant
- Department of Population Biology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Kant MR, Jonckheere W, Knegt B, Lemos F, Liu J, Schimmel BCJ, Villarroel CA, Ataide LMS, Dermauw W, Glas JJ, Egas M, Janssen A, Van Leeuwen T, Schuurink RC, Sabelis MW, Alba JM. Mechanisms and ecological consequences of plant defence induction and suppression in herbivore communities. ANNALS OF BOTANY 2015; 115:1015-51. [PMID: 26019168 PMCID: PMC4648464 DOI: 10.1093/aob/mcv054] [Citation(s) in RCA: 145] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2015] [Revised: 02/12/2015] [Accepted: 04/24/2015] [Indexed: 05/03/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Plants are hotbeds for parasites such as arthropod herbivores, which acquire nutrients and energy from their hosts in order to grow and reproduce. Hence plants are selected to evolve resistance, which in turn selects for herbivores that can cope with this resistance. To preserve their fitness when attacked by herbivores, plants can employ complex strategies that include reallocation of resources and the production of defensive metabolites and structures. Plant defences can be either prefabricated or be produced only upon attack. Those that are ready-made are referred to as constitutive defences. Some constitutive defences are operational at any time while others require activation. Defences produced only when herbivores are present are referred to as induced defences. These can be established via de novo biosynthesis of defensive substances or via modifications of prefabricated substances and consequently these are active only when needed. Inducibility of defence may serve to save energy and to prevent self-intoxication but also implies that there is a delay in these defences becoming operational. Induced defences can be characterized by alterations in plant morphology and molecular chemistry and are associated with a decrease in herbivore performance. These alterations are set in motion by signals generated by herbivores. Finally, a subset of induced metabolites are released into the air as volatiles and function as a beacon for foraging natural enemies searching for prey, and this is referred to as induced indirect defence. SCOPE The objective of this review is to evaluate (1) which strategies plants have evolved to cope with herbivores and (2) which traits herbivores have evolved that enable them to counter these defences. The primary focus is on the induction and suppression of plant defences and the review outlines how the palette of traits that determine induction/suppression of, and resistance/susceptibility of herbivores to, plant defences can give rise to exploitative competition and facilitation within ecological communities "inhabiting" a plant. CONCLUSIONS Herbivores have evolved diverse strategies, which are not mutually exclusive, to decrease the negative effects of plant defences in order to maximize the conversion of plant material into offspring. Numerous adaptations have been found in herbivores, enabling them to dismantle or bypass defensive barriers, to avoid tissues with relatively high levels of defensive chemicals or to metabolize these chemicals once ingested. In addition, some herbivores interfere with the onset or completion of induced plant defences, resulting in the plant's resistance being partly or fully suppressed. The ability to suppress induced plant defences appears to occur across plant parasites from different kingdoms, including herbivorous arthropods, and there is remarkable diversity in suppression mechanisms. Suppression may strongly affect the structure of the food web, because the ability to suppress the activation of defences of a communal host may facilitate competitors, whereas the ability of a herbivore to cope with activated plant defences will not. Further characterization of the mechanisms and traits that give rise to suppression of plant defences will enable us to determine their role in shaping direct and indirect interactions in food webs and the extent to which these determine the coexistence and persistence of species.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M R Kant
- Department of Population Biology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Department of Crop Protection, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium and Department of Plant Physiology, Swammerdam Institute for Life Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - W Jonckheere
- Department of Population Biology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Department of Crop Protection, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium and Department of Plant Physiology, Swammerdam Institute for Life Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - B Knegt
- Department of Population Biology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Department of Crop Protection, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium and Department of Plant Physiology, Swammerdam Institute for Life Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - F Lemos
- Department of Population Biology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Department of Crop Protection, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium and Department of Plant Physiology, Swammerdam Institute for Life Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - J Liu
- Department of Population Biology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Department of Crop Protection, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium and Department of Plant Physiology, Swammerdam Institute for Life Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - B C J Schimmel
- Department of Population Biology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Department of Crop Protection, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium and Department of Plant Physiology, Swammerdam Institute for Life Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - C A Villarroel
- Department of Population Biology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Department of Crop Protection, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium and Department of Plant Physiology, Swammerdam Institute for Life Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - L M S Ataide
- Department of Population Biology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Department of Crop Protection, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium and Department of Plant Physiology, Swammerdam Institute for Life Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - W Dermauw
- Department of Population Biology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Department of Crop Protection, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium and Department of Plant Physiology, Swammerdam Institute for Life Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - J J Glas
- Department of Population Biology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Department of Crop Protection, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium and Department of Plant Physiology, Swammerdam Institute for Life Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - M Egas
- Department of Population Biology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Department of Crop Protection, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium and Department of Plant Physiology, Swammerdam Institute for Life Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - A Janssen
- Department of Population Biology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Department of Crop Protection, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium and Department of Plant Physiology, Swammerdam Institute for Life Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - T Van Leeuwen
- Department of Population Biology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Department of Crop Protection, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium and Department of Plant Physiology, Swammerdam Institute for Life Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - R C Schuurink
- Department of Population Biology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Department of Crop Protection, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium and Department of Plant Physiology, Swammerdam Institute for Life Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - M W Sabelis
- Department of Population Biology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Department of Crop Protection, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium and Department of Plant Physiology, Swammerdam Institute for Life Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - J M Alba
- Department of Population Biology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Department of Crop Protection, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium and Department of Plant Physiology, Swammerdam Institute for Life Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|