4.8 Article

Identification of indole glucosinolate breakdown products with antifeedant effects on Myzus persicae (green peach aphid)

期刊

PLANT JOURNAL
卷 54, 期 6, 页码 1015-1026

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2008.03476.x

关键词

Arabidopsis; aphid; Myzus persicae; indole glucosinolate; diindolylmethylcysteine

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM53830] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The cleavage of glucosinolates by myrosinase to produce toxic breakdown products is a characteristic insect defense of cruciferous plants. Although green peach aphids (Myzus persicae) are able to avoid most contact with myrosinase when feeding from the phloem of Arabidopsis thaliana, indole glucosinolates are nevertheless degraded during passage through the insects. A defensive role for indole glucosinolates is suggested by the observation that atr1D mutant plants, which overproduce indole glucosinolates, are more resistant to M. persicae, whereas cyp79B2 cyp79B3 double mutants, which lack indole glucosinolates, succumb to M. persicae more rapidly. Indole glucosinolate breakdown products, including conjugates formed with ascorbate, glutathione and amino acids, are elevated in the honeydew of M. persicae feeding from atr1D mutant plants, but are absent when the aphids are feeding on cyp79B2 cyp79B3 double mutants. M. persicae feeding from wild-type plants and myrosinase-deficient tgg1 tgg2 double mutants excrete a similar profile of indole glucosinolate-derived metabolites, indicating that the breakdown is independent of these foliar myrosinases. Artificial diet experiments show that the reaction of indole-3-carbinol, a breakdown product of indol-3-ylmethylglucosinolate, with ascorbate, glutathione and cysteine produces diindolylmethylcysteines and other conjugates that have antifeedant effects on M. persicae. Therefore, the post-ingestive breakdown of indole glucosinolates provides a defense against herbivores such as aphids that can avoid glucosinolate activation by plant myrosinases.

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