4.5 Article

Bacterial phylogeny predicts volatile organic compound composition and olfactory response of an aphid parasitoid

期刊

OIKOS
卷 129, 期 9, 页码 1415-1428

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/oik.07301

关键词

Aphidius colemani; Bacillus; phylogenetic signal; rpoB; semiochemical; VOCs

类别

资金

  1. Flemish Research Foundation (FWO) [1S15116316N]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is increasing evidence that microorganisms emit a wide range of volatile compounds (mVOCs, microbial volatile organic compounds) that act as insect semiochemicals, and therefore play an important role in insect behaviour. Although it is generally believed that phylogenetically closely related microbes tend to have similar phenotypic characteristics and therefore may elicit similar responses in insects, currently little is known about whether the evolutionary history and phylogenetic relationships among microorganisms have an impact on insect-microbe interactions. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that phylogenetic relationships among 40Bacillusstrains isolated from diverse environmental sources predicted mVOC composition and the olfactory response of the generalist aphid parasitoidAphidius colemani. Results revealed that phylogenetically closely relatedBacillusstrains emitted similar blends of mVOCs and elicited a comparable olfactory response ofA. colemaniin Y-tube olfactometer bioassays, varying between attraction and repellence. Analysis of the chemical composition of the mVOC blends showed that allBacillusstrains produced a highly similar set of volatiles, but often in different concentrations and ratios. Benzaldehyde was produced in relatively high concentrations by strains that repelA. colemani, while attractive mVOC blends contained relatively higher amounts of acetoin, 2,3-butanediol, 2,3-butanedione, eucalyptol and isoamylamine. Overall, these results indicate that bacterial phylogeny had a strong impact on mVOC compositions and as a result on the olfactory responses of insects.

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

4.5
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