7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Plant defenses interact with insect enteric bacteria by initiating a leaky gut syndrome

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Significance

          Many plant defenses that deter insect herbivory target the attacker’s digestive system. We found that plant defenses against the fall armyworm created opportunities for resident gut microbes to penetrate protective gut barriers, invading the body cavity and exacerbating the negative impacts of plant defenses on the insect. These interactions triggered insect immune responses and collectively overwhelmed the insect’s ability to cope with multiple stressors. However, the effects varied between bacterial taxa, indicating that variation in the caterpillar microbiome can alter their phenotype. Our results reveal a previously unrecognized, and likely widespread, mechanism allowing the plant to use the insect’s gut microbiota against it in collaboration with the plant’s own defenses.

          Abstract

          Plants produce suites of defenses that can collectively deter and reduce herbivory. Many defenses target the insect digestive system, with some altering the protective peritrophic matrix (PM) and causing increased permeability. The PM is responsible for multiple digestive functions, including reducing infections from potential pathogenic microbes. In our study, we developed axenic and gnotobiotic methods for fall armyworm ( Spodoptera frugiperda) and tested how particular members present in the gut community influence interactions with plant defenses that can alter PM permeability. We observed interactions between gut bacteria with plant resistance. Axenic insects grew more but displayed lower immune-based responses compared with those possessing Enterococcus, Klebsiella, and Enterobacter isolates from field-collected larvae. While gut bacteria reduced performance of larvae fed on plants, none of the isolates produced mortality when injected directly into the hemocoel. Our results strongly suggest that plant physical and chemical defenses not only act directly upon the insect, but also have some interplay with the herbivore’s microbiome. Combined direct and indirect, microbe-mediated assaults by maize defenses on the fall armyworm on the insect digestive and immune system reduced growth and elevated mortality in these insects. These results imply that plant–insect interactions should be considered in the context of potential mediation by the insect gut microbiome.

          Related collections

          Most cited references54

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Mechanisms of plant defense against insect herbivores.

          Plants respond to herbivory through various morphological, biochemicals, and molecular mechanisms to counter/offset the effects of herbivore attack. The biochemical mechanisms of defense against the herbivores are wide-ranging, highly dynamic, and are mediated both by direct and indirect defenses. The defensive compounds are either produced constitutively or in response to plant damage, and affect feeding, growth, and survival of herbivores. In addition, plants also release volatile organic compounds that attract the natural enemies of the herbivores. These strategies either act independently or in conjunction with each other. However, our understanding of these defensive mechanisms is still limited. Induced resistance could be exploited as an important tool for the pest management to minimize the amounts of insecticides used for pest control. Host plant resistance to insects, particularly, induced resistance, can also be manipulated with the use of chemical elicitors of secondary metabolites, which confer resistance to insects. By understanding the mechanisms of induced resistance, we can predict the herbivores that are likely to be affected by induced responses. The elicitors of induced responses can be sprayed on crop plants to build up the natural defense system against damage caused by herbivores. The induced responses can also be engineered genetically, so that the defensive compounds are constitutively produced in plants against are challenged by the herbivory. Induced resistance can be exploited for developing crop cultivars, which readily produce the inducible response upon mild infestation, and can act as one of components of integrated pest management for sustainable crop production.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Plant defense against herbivores: chemical aspects.

            Plants have evolved a plethora of different chemical defenses covering nearly all classes of (secondary) metabolites that represent a major barrier to herbivory: Some are constitutive; others are induced after attack. Many compounds act directly on the herbivore, whereas others act indirectly via the attraction of organisms from other trophic levels that, in turn, protect the plant. An enormous diversity of plant (bio)chemicals are toxic, repellent, or antinutritive for herbivores of all types. Examples include cyanogenic glycosides, glucosinolates, alkaloids, and terpenoids; others are macromolecules and comprise latex or proteinase inhibitors. Their modes of action include membrane disruption, inhibition of nutrient and ion transport, inhibition of signal transduction processes, inhibition of metabolism, or disruption of the hormonal control of physiological processes. Recognizing the herbivore challenge and precise timing of plant activities as well as the adaptive modulation of the plants' metabolism is important so that metabolites and energy may be efficiently allocated to defensive activities.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Drosophila microbiome modulates host developmental and metabolic homeostasis via insulin signaling.

              The symbiotic microbiota profoundly affect many aspects of host physiology; however, the molecular mechanisms underlying host-microbe cross-talk are largely unknown. Here, we show that the pyrroloquinoline quinone-dependent alcohol dehydrogenase (PQQ-ADH) activity of a commensal bacterium, Acetobacter pomorum, modulates insulin/insulin-like growth factor signaling (IIS) in Drosophila to regulate host homeostatic programs controlling developmental rate, body size, energy metabolism, and intestinal stem cell activity. Germ-free animals monoassociated with PQQ-ADH mutant bacteria displayed severe deregulation of developmental and metabolic homeostasis. Importantly, these defects were reversed by enhancing host IIS or by supplementing the diet with acetic acid, the metabolic product of PQQ-ADH.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
                Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A
                pnas
                pnas
                PNAS
                Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
                National Academy of Sciences
                0027-8424
                1091-6490
                6 August 2019
                22 July 2019
                22 July 2019
                : 116
                : 32
                : 15991-15996
                Affiliations
                [1] aDepartment of Entomology, The Pennsylvania State University , University Park, PA 16802;
                [2] bDepartment of Plant Science, The Pennsylvania State University , University Park, PA 16802
                Author notes
                1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: cjm360@ 123456psu.edu .

                Edited by Fred Gould, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, and approved June 25, 2019 (received for review May 22, 2019)

                Author contributions: C.J.M., D.S.L., K.H., and G.W.F. designed research; C.J.M., S.R., I.S., M.P., and A.G.J. performed research; C.J.M., S.R., M.P., K.H., and G.W.F. contributed new reagents/analytic tools; C.J.M. analyzed data; and C.J.M., K.H., and G.W.F. wrote the paper with editorial feedback from all authors.

                Article
                201908748
                10.1073/pnas.1908748116
                6689943
                31332013
                e40d382a-30d5-48d8-b732-f104da2ffe33
                Copyright © 2019 the Author(s). Published by PNAS.

                This open access article is distributed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND).

                History
                Page count
                Pages: 6
                Funding
                Funded by: USDA | National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) 100005825
                Award ID: 2018-67012-27979
                Award Recipient : Charles Mason Award Recipient : Kelli Hoover Award Recipient : Gary W. Felton
                Funded by: NSF | BIO | Division of Integrative Organismal Systems (IOS) 100000154
                Award ID: IOS-1645548
                Award Recipient : Ikkei Shikano Award Recipient : Kelli Hoover Award Recipient : Gary W. Felton
                Funded by: USDA | National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) 100005825
                Award ID: AFRI 2017-67013-26596
                Award Recipient : Charles Mason Award Recipient : Kelli Hoover Award Recipient : Gary W. Felton
                Categories
                Biological Sciences
                Ecology

                maize,microbiome,lepidoptera,chitinase,trichome
                maize, microbiome, lepidoptera, chitinase, trichome

                Comments

                Comment on this article