Priming of Arabidopsis resistance to herbivory by insect egg deposition depends on the plant's developmental stage

Contrasting plant transcriptome responses between a pierce-sucking and a chewing herbivore go beyond the infestation site

BACKGROUND

Plants have acquired a repertoire of mechanisms to combat biotic stressors, which may vary depending on the feeding strategies of herbivores and the plant species. Hormonal regulation crucially modulates this malleable defense response. Jasmonic acid (JA) and salicylic acid (SA) stand out as pivotal regulators of defense, while other hormones like abscisic acid (ABA), ethylene (ET), gibberellic acid (GA) or auxin also play a role in modulating plant-pest interactions. The plant defense response has been described to elicit effects in distal tissues, whereby aboveground herbivory can influence belowground response, and vice versa. This impact on distal tissues may be contingent upon the feeding guild, even affecting both the recovery of infested tissues and those that have not suffered active infestation.

RESULTS

To study how phytophagous with distinct feeding strategies may differently trigger the plant defense response during and after infestation in both infested and distal tissues, Arabidopsis thaliana L. rosettes were infested separately with the chewing herbivore Pieris brassicae L. and the piercing-sucker Tetranychus urticae Koch. Moderate infestation conditions were selected for both pests, though no quantitative control of damage levels was carried out. Feeding mode did distinctly influence the transcriptomic response of the plant under these conditions. Though overall affected processes were similar under either infestation, their magnitude differed significantly. Plants infested with P. brassicae exhibited a short-term response, involving stress-related genes, JA and ABA regulation and suppressing growth-related genes. In contrast, T. urticae elicited a longer transcriptomic response in plants, albeit with a lower degree of differential expression, in particular influencing SA regulation. These distinct defense responses transcended beyond infestation and through the roots, where hormonal response, flavonoid regulation or cell wall reorganization were differentially affected.

CONCLUSION

These outcomes confirm that the existent divergent transcriptomic responses elicited by herbivores employing distinct feeding strategies possess the capacity to extend beyond infestation and even affect tissues that have not been directly infested. This remarks the importance of considering the entire plant's response to localized biotic stresses.

The impact of insect egg deposition on Pinus sylvestris transcriptomic and phytohormonal responses to larval herbivory

Plants can improve their resistance to feeding damage by insects if they have perceived insect egg deposition prior to larval feeding. Molecular analyses of these egg-mediated defence mechanisms have until now focused on angiosperm species. It is unknown how the transcriptome of a gymnosperm species responds to insect eggs and subsequent larval feeding. Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) is known to improve its defences against larvae of the herbivorous sawfly Diprion pini L. if it has previously received sawfly eggs. Here, we analysed the transcriptomic and phytohormonal responses of Scots pine needles to D. pini eggs (E-pine), larval feeding (F-pine) and to both eggs and larval feeding (EF-pine). Pine showed strong transcriptomic responses to sawfly eggs and-as expected-to larval feeding. Many egg-responsive genes were also differentially expressed in response to feeding damage, and these genes play an important role in biological processes related to cell wall modification, cell death and jasmonic acid signalling. EF-pine showed fewer transcriptomic changes than F-pine, whereas EF-treated angiosperm species studied so far showed more transcriptional changes to the initial phase of larval feeding than only feeding-damaged F-angiosperms. However, as with responses of EF-angiosperms, EF-pine showed higher salicylic acid concentrations than F-pine. Based on the considerable overlap of the transcriptomes of E- and F-pine, we suggest that the weaker transcriptomic response of EF-pine than F-pine to larval feeding damage is compensated by the strong, egg-induced response, which might result in maintained pine defences against larval feeding.

Plant defensive responses to insect eggs are inducible by general egg-associated elicitors

Egg deposition by herbivorous insects is well known to elicit defensive plant responses. Our study aimed to elucidate the insect and plant species specificity of these responses. To study the insect species specificity, we treated Arabidopsis thaliana with egg extracts and egg-associated secretions of a sawfly (Diprion pini), a beetle (Xanthogaleruca luteola) and a butterfly (Pieris brassicae). All egg extracts elicited salicylic acid (SA) accumulation in the plant, and all secretions induced expression of plant genes known to be responsive to the butterfly eggs, among them Pathogenesis-Related (PR) genes. All secretions contained phosphatidylcholine derivatives, known elicitors of SA accumulation and PR gene expression in Arabidopsis. The sawfly egg extract did not induce plant camalexin levels, while the other extracts did. Our studies on the plant species specificity revealed that Solanum dulcamara and Ulmus minor responded with SA accumulation and cell death to P. brassicae eggs, i.e. responses also known for A. thaliana. However, the butterfly eggs induced neoplasms only in S. dulcamara. Our results provide evidence for general, phosphatidylcholine-based, egg-associated elicitors of plant responses and for conserved plant core responses to eggs, but also point to plant and insect species-specific traits in plant-insect egg interactions.