Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Plant Insect Interaction-1
Plant Insect Interaction-1
421–424, 2015
doi:10.1093/jxb/eru503
This paper is available online free of all access charges (see http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/open_access.html for further details)
Preface
© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Experimental Biology.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), which
permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
422 | Preface
Despite the disparity of responses between different studies, their work highlighted the significance of cell wall damage in the
perception of aphid attack, an unexpected finding given the paradigm that phloem-feeding insects have adopted a stealthy
mode of feeding that causes minimal damage to plant tissues. Another key finding of this review was the observation that
feeding by generalists, but not specialists, resulted in transcriptional inactivation of glucosinolate biosynthesis, supporting the
hypothesis that the generalist insect has the capacity to modify the plant immune system via effectors.
Beyond the fascination of the subject of plant–insect interactions, a key motivation for studies is the economic significance
of agricultural pests that are estimated to cause worldwide crop losses amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars annually
(Kerchev et al., 2012). The review by Marion Harris and colleagues (2015) illustrates both how curiosity-driven fundamental
research can provide novel insights to drive methods for crop protection and how breeding for insect-resistant crops can lead
to the development of a greater mechanistic understanding of the plant–insect interaction. This is illustrated by a historical
discussion of the development of resistance gene theory and how these developments assisted in the accumulation of our
present day knowledge concerning effector-triggered immunity. The final review by Furch et al. (2015) discusses the role of
salivary effectors in plant–aphid interactions. They focus on salivary proteases that have the capacity to degrade sieve ele-
ment proteins, facilitating feeding by preventing protein-mediated sieve element occlusion. Furthermore they discuss several
mechanisms by which the plant may protect its sieve element proteins from degradation, including protein glycosylation and
the presence of sieve element-located protease inhibitors.
feeding by aphids and caterpillars, and treatments with methyl jasmonate, SA or abscisic acid, but was reduced upon ethyl-
ene treatment. In artificial diets, concentrations as low 100µM, similar to the concentration found in maize leaves, inhibited
aphid reproduction thereby suggesting that the compound has anti-insect properties. The paper also identified two QTLs that
combined accounted for nearly 40% of the phenotypic variation, providing opportunities for rapid introgression of potential
resistance into commercial varieties.
Atle Bone’s laboratory has previously used a novel technique to produce oilseed rape plants that lack myrosinase-containing
myrosin cells, which are normally distributed throughout plant tissues (Ahuja et al., 2011). In this volume, the paper by Ahuja
et al. (2015) describes a series of experiments in which MINELESS plants were used to dissect the role of glucosinolate break-
down products in plant resistance to the cabbage moth Mamestra brassicae. MINELESS plants exhibited negligible levels of
myrosinase activity and had higher total glucosinolate concentrations in both the absence and the presence of M. brassicae
larvae with altered abundance of individual glucosinolates. Whereas glucosinolate hydrolysis products were less abundant in
MINELESS plants than in the wild type, two specific hydrolysis products, 1-methyl thiopentane and 1-methyl thiohexane,
were much more abundant in the MINELESS plants in both the absence and the presence of M. brassicae larvae. MINELESS
plants also exhibited altered gene expression patterns relative to wild-type plants and exhibited weaker induction of jasmonate
synthesis and signalling in response to M. brassicae feeding. Behavioural assays indicated that MINELESS plants were less
attractive to M. brassicae larvae and in no-choice experiments, larvae performed less well on the myrosinase-ablated lines.
References
Ahuja I, Borgen BH, Hansen M, Honne BI, Müller C, Rohloff J, Rossiter JT, Bones AM. 2011. Oilseed rape seeds with ablated defence cells of
the glucosinolate–myrosinase system. Production and characteristics of double haploid MINELESS plants of Brassica napus L. Journal of Experimental
Botany 62, 4975–4993.
Ahuja I, van Dam N, Winge P, Traelnes M, Heydarova A, Rohloff J, Langaas M, Bones AM. 2015. Plant defence responses in oilseed rape
MINELESS plants after attack by the cabbage moth Mamestra brassicae. Journal of Experimental Botany 66, 579–592.
Barah P, Bones AM. 2015. Multidimensional approaches for studying plant defence against insects: from ecology to omics and synthetic biology.
Journal of Experimental Botany 66, 479–493.
Betsiashvili M, Ahern KR, Jander G. 2015. Additive effects of two quantitative trait loci that confer Rhopalosiphum maidis (corn leaf aphid) resistance
in maize inbred line Mo17. Journal of Experimental Botany 66, 571–578.
Bruce TJA. 2015. Interplay between insects and plants: dynamic and complex interactions that have coevolved over millions of years but act in
milliseconds. Journal of Experimental Botany 66, 455–465.
Coleman AD, Wouters RHM, Mugford ST, Hogenhout SA. 2015. Persistence and transgenerational effect of plant-mediated RNAi in aphids. Journal
of Experimental Botany 66, 541–548.
Foyer CH, Verrall SR, Hancock RD. 2015. Systematic analysis of phloem-feeding insect-induced transcriptional reprogramming in Arabidopsis
highlights common features and reveals distinct responses to specialist and generalist insects. Journal of Experimental Botany 66, 495–512.
424 | Preface
Furch ACU, van Bel AJE, Will T. 2015. Aphid salivary proteases are capable of degrading sieve-tube proteins. Journal of Experimental Botany 66,
533–539.
Harris MO, Friesen TL, Xu SS, Chen MS, Giron D, Stuart J. 2015. Pivoting from Arabidopsis to wheat to understand how agricultural plants integrate
responses to biotic stress. Journal of Experimental Botany 66, 513–531.
Hiltpold I, Jaffuel G, Turlings TCJ. 2015. The dual effects of root-cap exudates on nematodes: from quiescence in plant-parasitic nematodes to frenzy
in entomopathogenic nematodes. Journal of Experimental Botany 66, 603–611.
Kerchev PI, Fenton B, Foyer CH, Hancock RD. 2012. Plant responses to insect herbivory: interactions between photosynthesis, reactive oxygen
species and hormonal signalling pathways. Plant, Cell and Environment 35, 441–453.
Louis J, Shah J. 2015. Plant defence against aphids: the PAD4 signalling nexus. Journal of Experimental Botany 66, 449–454.
Mescher MC, De Moraes CM. 2015. Role of plant sensory perception in plant–animal interactions. Journal of Experimental Botany 66, 425–433.
Pallipparambil GR, Sayler RJ, Shapiro JP, Thomas JMG, Kring TJ, Goggin FL. 2015. Mi-1.2, an R gene for aphid resistance in tomato, has direct
negative effects on a zoophytophagous biocontrol agent, Orius insidiosus. Journal of Experimental Botany 66, 549–557.
Rasmann S, Köllner TG, Degenhardt J, Hiltpold I, Toepfer S, Kuhlmann U, Gershenzon J, Turlings TCJ. 2005. Recruitment of
entomopathogenic nematodes by insect-damaged maize roots. Nature 434, 732–737.
Ryalls JMW, Moore BD, Riegler M, Gherlenda AN, Johnson SN. 2015. Amino acid-mediated impacts of elevated carbon dioxide and simulated root
herbivory on aphids are neutralized by increased air temperatures. Journal of Experimental Botany 66, 613–623.
Sugio A, Dubreuil G, Giron D, Simon J-C. 2015. Plant–insect interactions under bacterial influence: ecological implications and underlying
mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Botany 66, 467–478.
Robert D. Hancock
The James Hutton Institute, UK
Saskia Hogenhout
John Innes Centre, UK
Christine H. Foyer
University of Leeds, UK