Specificity of Induced Resistance in Tomato Against Specialist Lepidopteran and Coleopteran Species

被引:52
作者
Chung, Seung Ho [1 ,2 ]
Felton, Gary W. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Penn State Univ, Dept Entomol, University Pk, PA 16802 USA
[2] Penn State Univ, Ctr Chem Ecol, University Pk, PA 16802 USA
关键词
Oral secretions; Plant defense; Tomato; Colorado potato beetle; Tobacco hornworm; Protease inhibitors; Induced resistance; Specificity; MANDUCA-SEXTA LEPIDOPTERA; HOST NICOTIANA-ATTENUATA; MOLECULAR-INTERACTIONS; PROTEINASE-INHIBITOR; PLANT-RESPONSES; HERBIVORE; JASMONATE; LEAVES; GENERALIST; SPHINGIDAE;
D O I
10.1007/s10886-011-9937-0
中图分类号
Q5 [生物化学]; Q7 [分子生物学];
学科分类号
071010 ; 081704 ;
摘要
When challenged by herbivorous insects, plants produce a suite of antinutritive proteins that disrupt digestion and absorption of essential nutrients by the insects. We hypothesized that plants would induce distinct defense responses corresponding to the distinct midgut conditions of different herbivores. We investigated whether or not tomato responds specifically to two specialist herbivores: Colorado potato beetle (CPB; Leptinotarsa decemlineata; Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) and tobacco hornworm (THW; Manduca sexta; Lepidoptera: Sphingidae), and we evaluated whether the induced defenses triggered by either species affect CPB growth. Tomato did not induce different defense genes in response to CPB or THW but accumulated more transcripts for some defense genes after damage by THW feeding compared to damage by CPB feeding. In addition, trypsin protease inhibitor activity and polyphenol oxidase activity were higher in plants damaged by THW than in plants damaged by CPB. Application of oral secretions from THW to wounded tomato plants increased transcripts compared to controls, but oral secretions from CPB decreased defense transcripts. CPB growth was compromised on plants damaged by either species, suggesting a low specificity of effect. Together, these data suggest distinct quantitative responses of tomato to two different specialist herbivores. Herbivore oral secretions might be responsible for these species-specific responses.
引用
收藏
页码:378 / 386
页数:9
相关论文
共 45 条
[1]   Specificity of induced resistance in wild radish: causes and consequences for two specialist and two generalist caterpillars [J].
Agrawal, AA .
OIKOS, 2000, 89 (03) :493-500
[2]   Caterpillar herbivory and salivary enzymes decrease transcript levels of Medicago truncatula genes encoding early enzymes in terpenoid biosynthesis [J].
Bede, JC ;
Musser, RO ;
Felton, GW ;
Korth, KL .
PLANT MOLECULAR BIOLOGY, 2006, 60 (04) :519-531
[3]   METHYL JASMONATE INDUCES PAPAIN INHIBITOR(S) IN TOMATO LEAVES [J].
BOLTER, CJ .
PLANT PHYSIOLOGY, 1993, 103 (04) :1347-1353
[4]   Jasmonate-inducible plant enzymes degrade essential amino acids in the herbivore midgut [J].
Chen, H ;
Wilkerson, CG ;
Kuchar, JA ;
Phinney, BS ;
Howe, GA .
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2005, 102 (52) :19237-19242
[5]   Regulation of plant arginase by wounding, jasmonate, and the phytotoxin coronatine [J].
Chen, H ;
McCaig, BC ;
Melotto, M ;
He, SY ;
Howe, GA .
JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY, 2004, 279 (44) :45998-46007
[6]  
Chen H, 2007, PLANT PHYSIOL, V143, P1954, DOI [10.1104/pp.106.095588, 10.1104/pp.107.095588]
[7]   Different Lepidopteran Elicitors Account for Cross-Talk in Herbivory-Induced Phytohormone Signaling [J].
Diezel, Celia ;
von Dahl, Caroline C. ;
Gaquerel, Emmanuel ;
Baldwin, Ian T. .
PLANT PHYSIOLOGY, 2009, 150 (03) :1576-1586
[8]   Plant-insect dialogs: complex interactions at the plant-insect interface [J].
Felton, Gary W. ;
Tumlinson, James H. .
CURRENT OPINION IN PLANT BIOLOGY, 2008, 11 (04) :457-463
[9]   Indigestion is a plant's best defense [J].
Felton, GW .
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2005, 102 (52) :18771-18772
[10]   ACTIVATION OF PLANT FOLIAR OXIDASES BY INSECT FEEDING REDUCES NUTRITIVE QUALITY OF FOLIAGE FOR NOCTUID HERBIVORES [J].
FELTON, GW ;
DONATO, K ;
DELVECCHIO, RJ ;
DUFFEY, SS .
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ECOLOGY, 1989, 15 (12) :2667-2694