4.6 Article

Incidence of male-killing Rickettsia spp. (alpha-proteobacteria) in the ten-spot ladybird beetle Adalia decempunctata L. (Coleoptera : Coccinellidae)

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 67, 期 1, 页码 270-277

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.67.1.270-277.2001

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The diversity of endosymbiotic bacteria that kill male host offspring during embryogenesis and their frequencies in certain groups of host taxa suggest that the evolution of male killing and the subsequent spread of male-killing symbionts are primarily determined by host life history characteristics. We studied the Ill-spot ladybird beetle, Adalia decempunctata L. (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), in which male killing has not been recorded previously, to test this hypothesis, and we also assessed the evolution of the male killer identified by DNA sequence analysis. Our results show that A. decempunctata harbors male-killing Rickettsia (a-proteobacteria). Male-killing bacteria belonging to the genus Rickettsia have previously been reported only for the congeneric two-spot ladybird beetle, Adalia bipunctata L. Phylogenetic analysis of Rickettsia DNA sequences isolated from different populations of the two host species revealed a single origin of male killing in the genus Rickettsia. The data also indicated possible horizontal transfer of symbionts between host species. In addition, A. bipunctata is known to bear at least four different male-killing symbionts in its geographic range two of which coexist in the two locations from which A. decempunctata specimens were obtained for the present study. Since only a single male-killing taxon was found in A. decempunctata, we assume that the two closely related ladybird beetle species must differ in the number and/or geographic distribution of male killers. We discuss the importance of these findings to our understanding of the evolution and dynamics of symbiotic associations between male-killing bacteria and their insect hosts.

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

4.6
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