4.8 Article

Differential Costs of Two Distinct Resistance Mechanisms Induced by Different Herbivore Species in Arabidopsis

期刊

PLANT PHYSIOLOGY
卷 170, 期 2, 页码 891-906

出版社

AMER SOC PLANT BIOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.1104/pp.15.01780

关键词

-

资金

  1. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Plants respond to herbivory with the induction of resistance, mediated by distinct phytohormonal signaling pathways and their interactions. Phloem feeders are known to induce plant resistance via the salicylic acid pathway, whereas biting-chewing herbivores induce plant resistance mainly via the jasmonate pathway. Here, we show that a specialist caterpillar (biting-chewing herbivore) and a specialist aphid (phloem feeder) differentially induce resistance against Pieris brassicae caterpillars in Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) plants. Caterpillar feeding induces resistance through the jasmonate signaling pathway that is associated with the induction of kaempferol 3,7-dirhamnoside, whereas aphid feeding induces resistance via a novel mechanism involving sinapoyl malate. The role of sinapoyl malate is confirmed through the use of a mutant compromised in the biosynthesis of this compound. Caterpillar-induced resistance is associated with a lower cost in terms of plant growth reduction than aphid-induced resistance. A strong constitutive resistance against P. brassicae caterpillars in combination with a strong growth attenuation in plants of a transfer DNA (T-DNA) insertion mutant of WRKY70 (wrky70) suggest that the WRKY70 transcription factor, a regulator of downstream responses mediated by jasmonate-salicylic acid signaling cross talk, is involved in the negative regulation of caterpillar resistance and in the tradeoff between growth and defense. In conclusion, different mechanisms of herbivore-induced resistance come with different costs, and a functional WRKY70 transcription factor is required for the induction of low-cost resistance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据