Molecular, biochemical, and organismal analyses of tomato plants simultaneously attacked by herbivores from two feeding guilds.
Previous work identified aphids and caterpillars as having distinct effects on plant responses to herbivory. We sought to decipher these interactions across different levels of biological organization, i.e., molecular, biochemical, and organismal, with tomato plants either damaged by one 3rd-instar beet armyworm caterpillar (Spodoptera exigua), damaged by 40 adult potato aphids (Macrosiphum euphorbiae), simultaneous damaged by both herbivores, or left undamaged (controls). After placing insects on plants, plants were transferred to a growth chamber for 5 d to induce a systemic response. Subsequently, individual leaflets from non-damaged parts of plants were excised and used for gene expression analysis (microarrays and quantitative real-time PCR), C/N analysis, total protein analysis, proteinase inhibitor (PI) analysis, and for performance assays. At the molecular level, caterpillars up-regulated 56 and down-regulated 29 genes systemically, while aphids up-regulated 93 and down-regulated 146 genes, compared to controls. Although aphids induced more genes than caterpillars, the magnitude of caterpillar-induced gene accumulation, particularly for those associated with plant defenses, was often greater. In dual-damaged plants, aphids suppressed 27% of the genes regulated by caterpillars, while caterpillars suppressed 66% of the genes regulated by aphids. At the biochemical level, caterpillars induced three-fold higher PI activity compared to controls, while aphids had no effects on PIs either alone or when paired with caterpillars. Aphid feeding alone reduced the foliar C/N ratio, but not when caterpillars also fed on the plants. Aphid and caterpillar feeding alone had no effect on the amount of protein in systemic leaves; however, both herbivores feeding on the plant reduced the amount of protein compared to aphid-damaged plants. At the organismal level, S. exigua neonate performance was negatively affected by prior caterpillar feeding, regardless of whether aphids were present or absent. This study highlights areas of concordance and disjunction between molecular, biochemical, and organismal measures of induced plant resistance when plants are attacked by multiple herbivores. In general, our data produced consistent results when considering each herbivore separately but not when considering them together.
Rodriguez-Saona
Cesar R
CR
Department of Entomology, Philip E. Marucci Center for Blueberry and Cranberry Research & Extension, Rutgers University, Chatsworth, NJ 08019, USA. crodriguez@aesop.rutgers.edu
Musser
Richard O
RO
Vogel
Heiko
H
Hum-Musser
Sue M
SM
Thaler
Jennifer S
JS
D000818:Animals; D001042:Aphids / Q000502:physiology*; D002244:Carbon / Q000378:metabolism; D003517:Cyclopentanes / Q000378:metabolism; D005247:Feeding Behavior / Q000502:physiology*; D018506:Gene Expression Regulation, Plant; D018551:Solanum lycopersicum / Q000235:genetics / Q000502:physiology*; D046228:Microarray Analysis; D009584:Nitrogen / Q000378:metabolism; D054883:Oxylipins / Q000378:metabolism; D018515:Plant Leaves / Q000235:genetics / Q000502:physiology; D011480:Protease Inhibitors / Q000378:metabolism; D020133:Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction; D020156:Salicylic Acid / Q000378:metabolism; D018411:Spodoptera / Q000502:physiology*
D003517:Cyclopentanes; D054883:Oxylipins; D011480:Protease Inhibitors; C011006:jasmonic acid; D002244:Carbon; D009584:Nitrogen; D020156:Salicylic Acid
Oecologia. 1997 Dec;113(1):74-81
28307296
Plant Physiol. 2001 Feb;125(2):1074-85
11161062
Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2007 Nov;20(11):1406-20
17977152
Plant Physiol. 2001 Feb;125(2):711-7
11161028
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Dec 15;106(50):21202-7
19965373
Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2003 Aug;16(8):699-708
12906114
Curr Biol. 1999 Mar 25;9(6):317-20
10209100
Plant Physiol. 1995 Aug;108(4):1741-1746
12228577
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Jul 22;105(29):9965-9
18621720
J Plant Growth Regul. 2000 Jun;19(2):195-216
11038228
Mol Ecol. 2004 Oct;13(10):3187-95
15367131
Oecologia. 2005 May;143(4):578-87
15909129
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Oct 10;97(21):11655-60
11027363
Plant Physiol. 2006 Jan;140(1):249-62
16377744
J Chem Ecol. 1989 Mar;15(3):979-92
24271900
Annu Rev Entomol. 2006;51:663-89
16332227
Nat Chem Biol. 2009 May;5(5):317-24
19377458
Plant Physiol. 2007 Feb;143(2):866-75
17189328
J Exp Bot. 2006;57(4):755-66
16495409
Plant Physiol. 2001 May;126(1):289-98
11351092
Plant Physiol. 2008 Mar;146(3):859-66
18316641
Plant Physiol. 2007 Feb;143(2):849-65
17189325
Plant Mol Biol. 2005 Mar;57(4):517-40
15821978
Planta. 1999 Jul;209(1):87-95
10467034
Plant Cell. 1992 Feb;4(2):129-134
12297644
Trends Plant Sci. 2000 May;5(5):220-5
10785668
Plant Cell. 2004 Jan;16(1):126-43
14688297
Plant Physiol. 2009 Jul;150(3):1576-86
19458114
Oecologia. 2005 May;143(4):566-77
15791425
Plant J. 2004 May;38(4):650-63
15125771
Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2005 Sep;18(9):923-37
16167763
J Chem Ecol. 2002 Jun;28(6):1131-59
12184393
Plant Physiol. 2004 Jan;134(1):420-31
14701914
J Chem Ecol. 2003 Nov;29(11):2539-50
14682532
Plant Cell Environ. 2009 Nov;32(11):1548-60
19558622