4.7 Article

Gut microbiota of the pine weevil degrades conifer diterpenes and increases insect fitness

期刊

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY
卷 26, 期 15, 页码 4099-4110

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/mec.14186

关键词

microbiota; pine weevil; plant secondary metabolites; symbiosis; terpene degradation

资金

  1. Max Planck Society
  2. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The pine weevil (Hylobius abietis), a major pest of conifer forests throughout Europe, feeds on the bark and cambium, tissues rich in terpenoid resins that are toxic to many insect herbivores. Here, we report the ability of the pine weevil gut microbiota to degrade the diterpene acids of Norway spruce. The diterpene acid levels present in ingested bark were substantially reduced on passage through the pine weevil gut. This reduction was significantly less upon antibiotic treatment, and supplementing the diet with gut suspensions from untreated insects restored the ability to degrade diterpenes. In addition, cultured bacteria isolated from pine weevil guts were shown to degrade a Norway spruce diterpene acid. In a metagenomic survey of the insect's bacterial community, we were able to annotate several genes of a previously described diterpene degradation (dit) gene cluster. Antibiotic treatment disrupted the core bacterial community of H. abietis guts and eliminated nearly all dit genes concordant with its reduction in diterpene degradation. Pine weevils reared on an artificial diet spiked with diterpenes, but without antibiotics, were found to lay more eggs with a higher hatching rate than weevils raised on diets with antibiotics or without diterpenes. These results suggest that gut symbionts contribute towards host fitness, but not by detoxification of diterpenes, as these compounds do not show toxic effects with or without antibiotics. Rather the ability to thrive in a terpene-rich environment appears to allow gut microbes to benefit the weevil in other ways, such as increasing the nutritional properties of their diet.

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

4.7
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