The differential response of cold-experienced Arabidopsis thaliana to larval herbivory benefits an insect generalist, but not a specialist.
Defense
Herbivore
Larval feeding
Mamestra brassicae
Pieris brassicae
Plant stress response
Journal
BMC plant biology
ISSN: 1471-2229
Titre abrégé: BMC Plant Biol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967807
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Aug 2019
02 Aug 2019
Historique:
received:
16
04
2019
accepted:
23
07
2019
entrez:
4
8
2019
pubmed:
4
8
2019
medline:
31
8
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In native environments plants frequently experience simultaneous or sequential unfavourable abiotic and biotic stresses. The plant's response to combined stresses is usually not the sum of the individual responses. Here we investigated the impact of cold on plant defense against subsequent herbivory by a generalist and specialist insect. We determined transcriptional responses of Arabidopsis thaliana to low temperature stress (4 °C) and subsequent larval feeding damage by the lepidopteran herbivores Mamestra brassicae (generalist), Pieris brassicae (specialist) or artificial wounding. Furthermore, we compared the performance of larvae feeding upon cold-experienced or untreated plants. Prior experience of cold strongly affected the plant's transcriptional anti-herbivore and wounding response. Feeding by P. brassicae, M. brassicae and artificial wounding induced transcriptional changes of 1975, 1695, and 2239 genes, respectively. Of these, 125, 360, and 681 genes were differentially regulated when cold preceded the tissue damage. Overall, prior experience of cold mostly reduced the transcriptional response of genes to damage. The percentage of damage-responsive genes, which showed attenuated transcriptional regulation when cold preceded the tissue damage, was highest in M. brassicae damaged plants (98%), intermediate in artificially damaged plants (89%), and lowest in P. brassicae damaged plants (69%). Consistently, the generalist M. brassicae performed better on cold-treated than on untreated plants, whereas the performance of the specialist P. brassicae did not differ. The transcriptional defense response of Arabidopsis leaves to feeding by herbivorous insects and artificial wounding is attenuated by a prior exposure of the plant to cold. This attenuation correlates with improved performance of the generalist herbivore M. brassicae, but not the specialist P. brassicae, a herbivore of the same feeding guild.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In native environments plants frequently experience simultaneous or sequential unfavourable abiotic and biotic stresses. The plant's response to combined stresses is usually not the sum of the individual responses. Here we investigated the impact of cold on plant defense against subsequent herbivory by a generalist and specialist insect.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We determined transcriptional responses of Arabidopsis thaliana to low temperature stress (4 °C) and subsequent larval feeding damage by the lepidopteran herbivores Mamestra brassicae (generalist), Pieris brassicae (specialist) or artificial wounding. Furthermore, we compared the performance of larvae feeding upon cold-experienced or untreated plants. Prior experience of cold strongly affected the plant's transcriptional anti-herbivore and wounding response. Feeding by P. brassicae, M. brassicae and artificial wounding induced transcriptional changes of 1975, 1695, and 2239 genes, respectively. Of these, 125, 360, and 681 genes were differentially regulated when cold preceded the tissue damage. Overall, prior experience of cold mostly reduced the transcriptional response of genes to damage. The percentage of damage-responsive genes, which showed attenuated transcriptional regulation when cold preceded the tissue damage, was highest in M. brassicae damaged plants (98%), intermediate in artificially damaged plants (89%), and lowest in P. brassicae damaged plants (69%). Consistently, the generalist M. brassicae performed better on cold-treated than on untreated plants, whereas the performance of the specialist P. brassicae did not differ.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The transcriptional defense response of Arabidopsis leaves to feeding by herbivorous insects and artificial wounding is attenuated by a prior exposure of the plant to cold. This attenuation correlates with improved performance of the generalist herbivore M. brassicae, but not the specialist P. brassicae, a herbivore of the same feeding guild.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31375063
doi: 10.1186/s12870-019-1943-3
pii: 10.1186/s12870-019-1943-3
pmc: PMC6679549
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
338Subventions
Organisme : Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
ID : CRC 973 - B4
Organisme : Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
ID : CRC 973 - B4
Organisme : Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
ID : CRC 973 - B4
Organisme : Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
ID : CRC 973 - B4
Références
J Plant Growth Regul. 2000 Jun;19(2):195-216
pubmed: 11038228
Plant Physiol. 2000 Nov;124(3):1007-18
pubmed: 11080278
J Exp Bot. 2001 Jan;52(354):11-23
pubmed: 11181709
Plant Mol Biol. 2002 Jun-Jul;49(3-4):387-400
pubmed: 12036262
J Biol Chem. 2003 May 16;278(20):17895-900
pubmed: 12637544
J Insect Physiol. 1999 Jun;45(6):587-598
pubmed: 12770344
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Apr 6;101(14):4859-64
pubmed: 15051878
Plant J. 2004 May;38(4):650-63
pubmed: 15125771
Plant Cell. 2004 Nov;16(11):3132-47
pubmed: 15494554
PLoS Genet. 2005 Aug;1(2):e26
pubmed: 16121258
Trends Plant Sci. 2006 Jan;11(1):15-9
pubmed: 16359910
Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol. 2004;3:Article3
pubmed: 16646809
Plant Physiol. 2006 Aug;141(4):1666-75
pubmed: 16778014
Plant J. 2006 Oct;48(2):286-95
pubmed: 16995900
FEBS Lett. 2006 Dec 11;580(28-29):6537-42
pubmed: 17112521
Plant J. 2007 Jan;49(1):16-26
pubmed: 17144894
Plant J. 2007 Jun;50(5):886-901
pubmed: 17461791
J Chem Ecol. 2007 Oct;33(10):1831-44
pubmed: 17828429
Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2008;59:41-66
pubmed: 18031220
Plant Physiol. 2008 Mar;146(3):825-31
pubmed: 18316636
Plant Mol Biol. 2008 Jul;67(4):429-40
pubmed: 18425591
PLoS One. 2008 Apr 30;3(4):e2068
pubmed: 18446225
Plant Physiol. 2008 Jul;147(3):1347-57
pubmed: 18467450
Trends Plant Sci. 2008 Jun;13(6):264-72
pubmed: 18487073
Ann Bot. 2009 Feb;103(4):655-63
pubmed: 18660492
J Chem Ecol. 2008 Oct;34(10):1311-21
pubmed: 18787901
Annu Rev Entomol. 2009;54:57-83
pubmed: 18811249
BMC Res Notes. 2008 Oct 20;1:93
pubmed: 18937828
Plant Physiol. 2009 Jan;149(1):561-74
pubmed: 18987211
Science. 2009 Jan 2;323(5910):101-6
pubmed: 19095900
Plant Cell. 2009 Mar;21(3):985-99
pubmed: 19293369
Nat Chem Biol. 2009 May;5(5):308-16
pubmed: 19377457
Plant Physiol. 2009 Jul;150(3):1576-86
pubmed: 19458114
J Plant Res. 2009 Nov;122(6):633-43
pubmed: 19618250
Phytochemistry. 2009 Sep;70(13-14):1571-80
pubmed: 19695649
Plant J. 2010 Mar;61(6):1041-52
pubmed: 20409277
Plant Cell. 2010 Apr;22(4):1143-60
pubmed: 20435902
Plant Physiol. 2010 Jul;153(3):1293-310
pubmed: 20463089
J Chem Ecol. 2010 Aug;36(8):905-13
pubmed: 20617455
Plant Physiol. 2010 Oct;154(2):536-40
pubmed: 20921180
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Dec 28;107(52):22728-33
pubmed: 21149736
Plant Cell. 2011 Feb;23(2):716-29
pubmed: 21317374
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 May 31;108(22):9298-303
pubmed: 21576464
Plant Cell Physiol. 2011 Oct;52(10):1757-65
pubmed: 21849397
J Exp Bot. 2012 Jan;63(2):727-37
pubmed: 21994175
Plant Biol (Stuttg). 2012 Mar;14 Suppl 1:39-45
pubmed: 22188168
Mol Plant. 2012 Jul;5(4):914-28
pubmed: 22199234
J Biol Chem. 2012 Feb 24;287(9):6296-306
pubmed: 22215670
Trends Plant Sci. 2012 May;17(5):250-9
pubmed: 22305233
Trends Plant Sci. 2012 May;17(5):293-302
pubmed: 22425020
Plant Cell Physiol. 2012 May;53(5):901-11
pubmed: 22433460
J Exp Bot. 2012 Jun;63(10):3523-43
pubmed: 22467407
Trends Plant Sci. 2012 May;17(5):260-70
pubmed: 22498450
PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e35545
pubmed: 22536404
Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2012;28:489-521
pubmed: 22559264
BMC Genomics. 2012 Jun 15;13:242
pubmed: 22702658
Nat Prod Rep. 2012 Nov;29(11):1288-303
pubmed: 22918379
Nat Methods. 2012 Jul;9(7):671-5
pubmed: 22930834
Plant Physiol. 2013 Apr;161(4):1783-94
pubmed: 23447525
Plant Signal Behav. 2013 Jun;8(6):e24264
pubmed: 23518582
Ann Bot. 2013 Jun;111(6):1021-58
pubmed: 23558912
Plant Physiol. 2013 Aug;162(4):1849-66
pubmed: 23753177
Plant Physiol. 2013 Sep;163(1):331-53
pubmed: 23893169
Plant Cell. 2013 Aug;25(8):2907-24
pubmed: 23933884
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Sep 24;110(39):15728-33
pubmed: 24019469
J Biol Chem. 2013 Nov 1;288(44):31701-14
pubmed: 24052260
Plant Cell. 2013 Oct;25(10):3976-87
pubmed: 24143805
PLoS One. 2013 Oct 14;8(10):e77465
pubmed: 24155960
Ecol Lett. 2014 Jan;17(1):44-52
pubmed: 24165497
J Exp Bot. 2014 Mar;65(5):1229-40
pubmed: 24253197
Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2014;65:689-713
pubmed: 24313843
New Phytol. 2014 May;202(3):823-37
pubmed: 24483326
Physiol Plant. 2014 Oct;152(2):256-74
pubmed: 24494996
New Phytol. 2014 Jul;203(1):32-43
pubmed: 24720847
Nature. 2014 Jun 12;510(7504):221-2
pubmed: 24919917
J Chem Ecol. 2014 Jul;40(7):657-75
pubmed: 24973116
Annu Rev Entomol. 2015 Jan 7;60:493-515
pubmed: 25341089
Oecologia. 2015 Mar;177(3):701-713
pubmed: 25370387
J Exp Bot. 2015 Feb;66(2):435-48
pubmed: 25429000
J Plant Physiol. 2015 Mar 15;176:47-54
pubmed: 25546584
Nucleic Acids Res. 2015 Apr 20;43(7):e47
pubmed: 25605792
Trends Plant Sci. 2015 Apr;20(4):219-29
pubmed: 25731753
Front Physiol. 2015 Mar 31;6:95
pubmed: 25873901
PLoS One. 2015 May 01;10(5):e0125666
pubmed: 25933420
Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2015;53:97-119
pubmed: 26070330
Sci Rep. 2015 Jul 15;5:12199
pubmed: 26174584
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2016 Nov;91(4):1118-1133
pubmed: 26289992
Plant Physiol. 2016 Mar;170(3):1772-82
pubmed: 26768601
New Phytol. 2016 Jun;210(4):1344-56
pubmed: 26847575
Plant J. 2016 May;86(3):249-67
pubmed: 26991768
Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2016 Aug;32:9-16
pubmed: 27267276
Sci Rep. 2016 Jun 22;6:28544
pubmed: 27329974
Trends Plant Sci. 2016 Oct;21(10):818-822
pubmed: 27507609
Sci Rep. 2016 Sep 01;6:32537
pubmed: 27581373
Plant J. 2017 Jan;89(2):204-220
pubmed: 27612205
Plant Physiol. 2016 Dec;172(4):2190-2203
pubmed: 27810943
Front Plant Sci. 2016 Dec 01;7:1821
pubmed: 27990154
J Exp Bot. 2017 Mar 1;68(6):1371-1385
pubmed: 28069779
Oecologia. 1988 Jan;74(4):515-523
pubmed: 28311757
Sci Rep. 2017 Apr 12;7:46433
pubmed: 28401908
Plant Cell Environ. 2017 Sep;40(9):1704-1710
pubmed: 28447364
Mol Ecol Resour. 2017 Nov;17(6):e196-e211
pubmed: 28449359
Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2017 Jun;85:21-31
pubmed: 28455184
Plant Cell Environ. 2017 Nov;40(11):2663-2677
pubmed: 28667817
BMC Plant Biol. 2017 Jul 17;17(1):127
pubmed: 28716054
Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2018 Jan;31(1):13-21
pubmed: 28840787
BMC Genomics. 2017 Sep 16;18(1):731
pubmed: 28915789
Front Plant Sci. 2017 Nov 21;8:1995
pubmed: 29209354
Plant Cell. 2018 May;30(5):1132-1146
pubmed: 29716993
Plant Cell Environ. 2019 Mar;42(3):1078-1086
pubmed: 30151965
Plant Cell Environ. 2019 Mar;42(3):1019-1032
pubmed: 30252928
Mol Ecol. 2018 Dec;27(23):4901-4915
pubmed: 30329187
J Chem Ecol. 2019 Jul;45(7):598-609
pubmed: 31218595
Plant Cell. 1997 Apr;9(4):509-20
pubmed: 9144959
Plant Cell. 1998 Dec;10(12):2103-13
pubmed: 9836748