Literature DB >> 19597847

Experimental evolution of resistance against a competing fungus in Drosophila melanogaster.

Susanne Wölfle1, Monika Trienens, Marko Rohlfs.   

Abstract

Competition between microorganisms and arthropods has been shown to be an important ecological interaction determining animal development and spatial distribution patterns in saprophagous communities. In fruit-inhabiting Drosophila, variation in insect developmental success is not only determined by species-specific effects of various noxious filamentous fungi but, as suggested by an earlier study, also by additive genetic variation in the ability to successfully withstand the negative impact of the fungi. If this variation represents a direct adaptive response to the degree to which insect breeding substrates are infested with harmful fungi, genetic variation for successful development in the presence of fungi could be maintained by variation in infestation of resource patches with fungi. We selected for the ability to resist the negative influence of mould by maintaining replicated Drosophila melanogaster populations on substrates infested with Aspergillus nidulans. After five cycles of exposure to the fungus during the larval stage, the selected populations were compared with unselected control populations regarding adult survival and reproduction to reveal an evolved resistance against the fungal competitor. On fungus-infested larval feeding substrates, emerged adults from mould-selected populations had higher survival rates and higher early fecundity than the control populations. In the unselected populations, females had higher mortality rates than males, and a high proportion of both females and males appeared to be unable to lay eggs or fertilise eggs, respectively. When larvae developed on non-infested food we found indications of a loss of resistance to abiotic and starvation stress in the adult stage in flies from the selected populations. This suggests that there are costs associated with an increase in resistance against the microbial competitor. We discuss the underlying mechanisms that might have selected for increased resistance against harmful fungi.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19597847     DOI: 10.1007/s00442-009-1414-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oecologia        ISSN: 0029-8549            Impact factor:   3.225


  37 in total

1.  Resistance to xenobiotics and parasites: can we count the cost?

Authors: 
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 17.712

Review 2.  Costs of immune defense: an enigma wrapped in an environmental cloak?

Authors:  Gregory J Sandland; Dennis J Minchella
Journal:  Trends Parasitol       Date:  2003-12

3.  Antimicrobial strategies in burying beetles breeding on carrion.

Authors:  D E Rozen; D J P Engelmoer; P T Smiseth
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2008-11-10       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Trade-off associated with selection for increased ability to resist parasitoid attack in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  M D Fellowes; A R Kraaijeveld; H C Godfray
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  1998-08-22       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  Pleiotropic overdominance and the maintenance of genetic variation in polygenic characters.

Authors:  J H Gillespie
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1984-06       Impact factor: 4.562

6.  Mutagenic effects of aflatoxin B-1 and G-1 on the Egyptian cotton leaf-worm, Spodoptera littoralis (Boisd.).

Authors:  R F Abdou; S E Megalla; S G Azab
Journal:  Mycopathologia       Date:  1984-10-30       Impact factor: 2.574

7.  COMPLEX TRADE-OFFS AND THE EVOLUTION OF STARVATION RESISTANCE IN DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER.

Authors:  Adam K Chippindale; Terence J F Chu; Michael R Rose
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 3.694

8.  Genetic variation in Drosophila melanogaster pathogen susceptibility.

Authors:  M C Tinsley; S Blanford; F M Jiggins
Journal:  Parasitology       Date:  2006-02-24       Impact factor: 3.234

9.  In vitro studies on the metabolism of aflatoxin B1 and aldrin in testes of genetically different strains of Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  R E Foerster; F E Würgler
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  1984-11       Impact factor: 5.153

10.  Clash of kingdoms or why Drosophila larvae positively respond to fungal competitors.

Authors:  Marko Rohlfs
Journal:  Front Zool       Date:  2005-01-27       Impact factor: 3.172

View more
  5 in total

1.  Experimental evolution of defense against a competitive mold confers reduced sensitivity to fungal toxins but no increased resistance in Drosophila larvae.

Authors:  Monika Trienens; Marko Rohlfs
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2011-07-14       Impact factor: 3.260

2.  Induced fungal resistance to insect grazing: reciprocal fitness consequences and fungal gene expression in the Drosophila-Aspergillus model system.

Authors:  Silvia Caballero Ortiz; Monika Trienens; Marko Rohlfs
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-08-30       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Host adaptation is contingent upon the infection route taken by pathogens.

Authors:  Nelson E Martins; Vitor G Faria; Luis Teixeira; Sara Magalhães; Élio Sucena
Journal:  PLoS Pathog       Date:  2013-09-26       Impact factor: 6.823

4.  Hygienic grooming is induced by contact chemicals in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  Aya Yanagawa; Alexandra M A Guigue; Frédéric Marion-Poll
Journal:  Front Behav Neurosci       Date:  2014-07-23       Impact factor: 3.558

5.  Phenotypic responses to microbial volatiles render a mold fungus more susceptible to insect damage.

Authors:  Silvia Caballero Ortiz; Monika Trienens; Katharina Pfohl; Petr Karlovsky; Gerrit Holighaus; Marko Rohlfs
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2018-04-02       Impact factor: 2.912

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.