Plant-insect interactions

Current Opinion in Plant Biology

Volumn 2, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 268-272

  Stotz, Henrik U ^a   Kroymann, Juergen ^a   Mitchell Olds, Thomas ^a  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR CHEMICAL ECOLOGY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMALIA; EMBRYOPHYTA; HEXAPODA; INSECTA; VESPIDAE;

EID: 0033179799     PISSN: 13695266     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1369-5266(99)80048-X     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Mitchell-Olds T: Genetics and evolution of insect resistance in Arabidopsis. In Insect-Plant Interactions and Induced Plant Defense, Novartis Foundation Symposium 223. Edited by Goode J, Chadwick D. London: Wiley; 1999: in press.
2. Hammond-Kosack K, Jones J: Plant disease resistance genes. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 1997, 48:575-607.
3. Lee EA, Byrne PF, McMullen MD, Snook ME, Wiseman BR, Widstrom NW, Coe EH: Genetic mechanisms underlying apimaysin and maysin synthesis and corn earworm antibiosis in maize (Zea mays L.). Genetics 1998, 149:1997-2006. Illustrates the combination of physiological understanding and QTL mapping that is needed to understand the genetic basis of insect resistance, as well as challenges arising from sparse genetic maps and limited knowledge of secondary metabolism.
4. Halkier BA, Du L: The biosynthesis of glucosinolates. Trends Plant Sci 1997, 2:425-431.
5. Siemens D, Mitchell-Olds T: Evolution of pest induced defenses in Brassica plants: Tests of theory. Ecology 1998, 79:632-646.
6. Mithen R, Clarke J, Lister C, Dean C: Genetics of aliphatic glucosinolates. III sidechain structure of aliphatic glucosinolates in Arabidopsis thaliana. Heredity 1995, 74:210-215.
7. Mitchell-Olds T, Pedersen D: The molecular basis of quantitative genetic variation in central and secondary metabolism in Arabidopsis. Genetics 1998, 149:739-747. An example of QTL mapping of physiological traits with known candidate genes in Arabidopsis.
8. Shapiro AM, Devay JE: Hypersensitivity reaction of Brassica nigra L Cruciferae kills eggs of Pieris butterflies (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). Oecologia 1987, 71:631-632.
9. Fernandes GW: Hypersensitivity as a phenotypic basis of plant induced resistance against a galling insect (Diptera, Cecidomyiidae). Environmental Entomology 1998, 27:260-267.
10. Milligan S, Bodeau J, Yaghoobi J, Kaloshian I, Zabel P, Williamson V: The root knot nematode resistance gene Mi from tomato is a member of the leucine zipper, nucleotide binding, leucine-rich repeat family of plant genes. Plant Cell 1998, 10:1307-1320.
11. Rossi M, Goggin F, Milligan S, Kaloshian I, Ullman D, Williamson V: The nematode resistance gene Mi of tomato confers resistance against the potato aphid. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1998, 95:9750-9754. Demonstrates that Meu-1, contributing to resistance against the aphid Macrosiphum euphorbiae in tomato, and Mi, conferring resistance to root knot nematodes, are the same gene. This is one of a few studies indicating 'crosstalk' between plant defenses against insects and other pests.
12. Girard C, Le Métayer M, Bonadé-Bottino M, Pham-Delegue MH, Jouanin L: High level of resistance to proteinase inhibitors may be conferred by proteolytic cleavage in beetle larvae. Insect Biochem Mol Biol 1998, 28:229-237.
13. Gruden K, Strukelj B, Popovic T, Lenarcic B, Bevec T, Brzin J, Kregar I, Herzog Velikonja J, Stiekema WJ, Bosch D, Jongsma MA: The cysteine protease activity of Colorado potato beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata Say) guts, which is insensitive to potato protease inhibitors, is inhibited by thyroglobulin type-1 domain inhibitors. Insect Biochem Mol Biol 1998, 28:549-560.
14. Giri AP, Harsulkar AM, Deshpande VV, Sainani MN, Gupta VS, Ranjekar PK: Chickpea defensive proteinase inhibitors can be inactivated by podborer gut proteinases. Plant Physiol 1998, 116:393-401.
15. Girard C, Bonadé-Bottino M, Pham-Delegue MH, Jouanin L: Two strains of cabbage seed weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) exhibit differential susceptibility to a transgenic oilseed rape expressing oryzacystatin I. J Insect Physiol 1998, 44:569-577.
16. Constabel CP, Yip L, Ryan CA: Prosystemin from potato, black nightshade, and bell pepper: Primary structure and biological activity of predicted systemin polypeptides. Plant Mol Biol 1998, 36:55-62.
17. Bergey DR, Howe GA, Ryan CA: Polypeptide signaling for plant defensive genes exhibits analogies to defense signaling in animals. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1996, 93:12053-12058.
18. Moyen C, Hammond-Kosack KE, Jones J: Systemin triggers an increase of cytoplasmic calcium in tomato mesophyll. Plant, Cell and Environment 1998, 21:1101-1111.
19. Stratmann JW, Ryan CA: Myelin basic protein kinase activity in tomato leaves is induced systemically by wounding and increases in response to systemin and oligosaccharide elicitors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1997, 94:11085-11089.
20. Seo S, Sano H, Ohashi Y: Jasmonate-based wound signal transduction requires activation of WIPK, a tobacco mitogen-activated protein kinase. Plant Cell 1999, 11:289-298. Recent progress in a controversial area. Provides evidence for the functional importance of WIPK in wound-related signaling.
21. 2+/calmodulin in Arabidopsis thaliana. Mol Gen Genet 1998, 258:412-419.
22. Rojo E, Titarenko E, León J, Berger S, Vancanneyt G, Sánchez-Serrano JJ: Reversible protein phosphorylation regulates jasmonic acid-dependent and -independent wound signal transduction pathways in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant J 1998, 13:153-165.
23. Peña-Cortes H, Albrecht T, Prat S, Weiler EW, Wilimitzer L: Aspirin prevents wound-induced gene expression in tomato leaves by blocking jasmonic acid biosynthesis. Planta 1993, 191:123-128.
24. Pieterse CMJ, van Loon LC: Salicylic acid-independent plant defence pathways. Trends Plant Sci 1999, 4:52-58.
25. O'Donnell PJ, CAlvert C, Atzorn R, WasternaCk C, Leyser HMO, Bowles DJ: Ethylene as a signal mediating the wound response of tomato plants. Science 1996, 274:1914-1917.
26. Hirt H: Multiple roles of MAP kinases in plant signal transduction. Trends Plant Sci 1997, 2:11-15.
27. Howe GA, Lightner J, Browse J, Ryan CA: An octadecanoid pathway mutant (JL5) of tomato is compromised in signaling for defense against insect attack. Plant Cell 1996, 8:2067-2077.
28. McConn M, Creelman RA, Bell E, Mullet E, Browse J: Jasmonate is essential for insect defense in Arabidopsis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1997, 94:5473-5477.
29. Vijayan P, Shockey J, Levesque CA, Cook RJ, Browse J: A role for jasmonate in pathogen defense of Arabidopsis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1998, 95:7209-7214. Arabidopsis mutants deficient in jasmonate signaling are susceptible both to insects and to some pathogens.
30. Wasternack C, Parthier B: Jasmonate-signalled plant gene expression. Trends Plant Sci 1997, 2:302-307.
31. Alborn HT, Turlings TCJ, Jones TH, Stenhagen G, Loughrin JH, Tumlinson JH: An elicitor of plant volatiles from beet armyworm oral secretions. Science 1997, 276:945-949.
32. Paré PW, Tumlinson JH: De novo biosynthesis of volatiles induced by insect herbivory in cotton plants. Plant Physiol 1997, 114:1161-1167.
33. De Moraes CM, Lewis WJ, Paré PW, Alborn HT, Tumlinson JH: Herbivore-infested plants selectively attract parasitoids. Nature 1998, 393:570-573. Chemical and behavioral assays show that plants release herbivore-specific volatiles, and that parasitic wasps can distinguish between these emission patterns.
34. Korth KL, Dixon RA: Evidence for chewing insect-specific molecular events distinct from a general wound response in leaves. Plant Physiol 1997, 115:1299-1305.
35. Boland W, Hopke J, Piel J: Induction of plant volatile biosynthesis by jasmonates. In Natural Product Analysis, Chromatography, Spectroscopy, Biological Testing. Edited by Schreier P, Herderich M, Humpf H-U, Schwab W. Braunschweig/Wiesbaden: Viehweg Verlag; 1998:255-269.
36. Paré PW, Alborn HT, Tumlinson JH: Concerted biosynthesis of an insect elicitor of plant volatiles. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1998, 95:13971-13975. Documents biosynthesis of volicitin, the first low molecular weight insect-specific elicitor. A nice example of chemical analysis clarifying the functional basis of ecological interactions.
37. Rausher M: Genetic analysis of coevolution between plants and their natural enemies. Trends Genet 1996, 12:212-217.
38. Baldwin IT: Jasmonate-induced responses are costly but benefit plants under attack in native populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1998, 95:8113-8118. As plant defense mechanisms become better understood, ecologists are examining the ecological causes and consequences of variation in resistance to insects. This field study of wild tobacco shows that jasmonate- induced responses are costly, but are favored by high herbivory.
39. Mauricio R: Costs of resistance to natural enemies in field populations of the annual plant Arabidopsis thaliana. Am Nat 1998, 151:20-28.
40. Mitchell-Olds T, Bradley D: Genetics of Brassica rapa. 3. Costs of disease resistance to three fungal pathogens. Evolution 1996, 50:1859-1865.
41. Creelman R, Mullet J: Biosynthesis and action of jasmonates in plants. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 1997, 48:355-381.
42. Purrington C, Bergelson J: Fitness consequences of genetically engineered herbicide and antibiotic resistance in Arabidopsis thaliana. Genetics 1997, 145:807-814.
43. Michaud D: Avoiding protease-mediated resistance in herbivorous pests. Trends Biotechnol 1997, 15:4-6.
44. Tabashnik BE, Liu YB, Malvar T, Heckel DG, Masson L, Ballester V, Granero F, Mensua JL, Ferre J: Global variation in the genetic and biochemical basis of diamondback moth resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1997, 94:12780-12785.
45. Fedorowicz GM, Fry JD, Anholt RRH, Mackay TFC: Epistatic interactions between smell-impaired loci in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 1998, 148:1885-1891. Twelve smell-impaired mutants were tagged with transposons (P-elements). Most of these loci showed epistatic interactions influencing behavioral response to odorants. Such genetic studies in Drosophila can identify the genes responsible for insect response to plant chemistry.
46. Jones CD: The genetic basis of Drosophila sechellia's resistance to a host plant toxin. Genetics 1998, 149:1899-1908. Drosophila sechellia is resistant to high concentrations of octanoic acid in its host plant, whereas related Drosophila species are susceptible. Interspecific crosses identified at least five loci responsible for this difference in toxin sensitivity. Such studies can elucidate the genetic basis of variation in host use in genetically tractable insect species.
47. Kim MS, Repp A, Smith DP: LUSH odorant-binding protein mediates chemosensory responses to alcohols in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 1998, 150:711-721.
48. Clyne PJ, Certel SJ, de Bruyne M, Zaslavsky L, Johnson WA, Carlson JR: The odor specificities of a subset of olfactory receptor neurons are governed by Acj6, a POU-domain transcription factor. Neuron 1999, 22:339-347.
49. Clyne PJ, Warr CG, Freeman MR, Lessing D, Kim JH, Carlson JR: A novel family of divergent seven-transmembrane proteins: Candidate odorant receptors in Drosophila. Neuron 1999, 22:327-338. Two papers by Clyne et al. [48,49•] show that a transcription factor mutation alters Drosophila olfactory behavior and expression of candidate odorant receptor genes.
50. Vosshall LB, Amrein H, Morozov PS, Rzhetsky A, Axel R: A spatial map of olfactory receptor expression in the Drosophila antenna. Cell 1999, 96:725-736. Candidate odorant receptor genes in Drosophila are encoded by a large gene family of seven transmembrane domain proteins. References 45-50 open the way for molecular and genetic studies of insect genes controlling chemoreception, responses to plant volatiles, and understanding the genetic basis of coevolution between plants and insects.