| Literature DB >> 27883009 |
Evan C Palmer-Young1, Ben M Sadd2, Philip C Stevenson3,4, Rebecca E Irwin5, Lynn S Adler1.
Abstract
Nectar and pollen contain diverse phytochemicals that can reduce disease in pollinators. However, prior studies showed variable effects of nectar chemicals on infection, which could reflect variable phytochemical resistance among parasite strains. Inter-strain variation in resistance could influence evolutionary interactions between plants, pollinators, and pollinator disease, but testing direct effects of phytochemicals on parasites requires elimination of variation between bees. Using cell cultures of the bumble bee parasite Crithidia bombi, we determined (1) growth-inhibiting effects of nine floral phytochemicals and (2) variation in phytochemical resistance among four parasite strains. C. bombi growth was unaffected by naturally occurring concentrations of the known antitrypanosomal phenolics gallic acid, caffeic acid, and chlorogenic acid. However, C. bombi growth was inhibited by anabasine, eugenol, and thymol. Strains varied >3-fold in phytochemical resistance, suggesting that selection for phytochemical resistance could drive parasite evolution. Inhibitory concentrations of thymol (4.53-22.2 ppm) were similar to concentrations in Thymus vulgaris nectar (mean 5.2 ppm). Exposure of C. bombi to naturally occurring levels of phytochemicals-either within bees or during parasite transmission via flowers-could influence infection in nature. Flowers that produce antiparasitic phytochemicals, including thymol, could potentially reduce infection in Bombus populations, thereby counteracting a possible contributor to pollinator decline.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27883009 PMCID: PMC5121629 DOI: 10.1038/srep37087
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Comparison of phytochemical resistance in Crithidia bombi, other trypanosomes and parasites, animal cells, and insects.
| Phytochemical | EC50 (ppm) | Species or cell type | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| >100 | |||
| >100 | |||
| >100 | CHO cells (hamster ovary) | ||
| 5–20 | |||
| 20 | |||
| 5 | |||
| >1000 | |||
| 2 | |||
| 2000 | |||
| >10,000 | |||
| >2000 | |||
| 30 | |||
| 2100 | |||
| 5.6 | |||
| 1.1 | |||
| >30 | |||
| 56 | |||
| 53.3 | L6 rat muscle cells | ||
| 109.1 | Human lymphocytes | ||
| >128 | |||
| >300 | |||
| >500 μg fly−1 | |||
| 7 | |||
| >17.7 | |||
| 18.9 | |||
| >10.6 | |||
| 61 | |||
| >90 | |||
| >50 | |||
| >3.5 | |||
| >90 | L6 rat muscle cells | ||
| 8149.13 | Rat hepatocytes | ||
| 111.5 | Human lymphocytes | ||
| >12760 | |||
| 93.7 | |||
| 80 | |||
| 37.2 | |||
| 246 | |||
| 93 | HL-60 (human leukemia) | ||
| 13 | |||
| 40 | |||
| (clove oil*) | 7800 | ||
| (clove oil*) | 240 | ||
| >30 | |||
| >25.0 | |||
| 4.4 | |||
| 8.0 | |||
| 5.1 | |||
| 1.6 | |||
| 67 | |||
| 14.4 | L6 rat muscle cells | ||
| 15.6 | Mouse macrophages | ||
| >300 | |||
| >500 μg fly−1 | |||
| 13.78 | |||
| 41.2 | |||
| >100 | |||
| 0.002–0.004 | |||
| 221 | |||
| 19.31 | HL-60 (human leukemia) | ||
| >300 | |||
| 32.5 | |||
| 22.9 | |||
| 62 | |||
| 53 | |||
| 64–128 | |||
| 40.7 | HL-60 (human leukemia) | ||
| >1000 | |||
| 30 | |||
| 53 μg fly−1 | |||
| (thyme oil)** | >10,000 |
Concentrations are from this study (bold) and the sources cited in the table. Values are in EC50 in ppm of pure compound unless otherwise noted. Within each compound, observations are arranged (if applicable) beginning with trypanosomes, then other pathogens, followed by animal cells and insects. Trypanosome EC50 values all refer to in vitro assays of cell cultures. See specific references for methodological details. #Refers to 3-O-caffeoylquinic acid. *Clove (Syzygium aromaticum) oil: 86.7% eugenol96. **Thyme (Thymus) oil: 65.3% thymol97.
Figure 1Inhibitory effects of (A) anabasine, (B) eugenol, and (C) thymol against 4 strains of C. bombi.
Points indicate EC50 values in ppm phytochemical. Error bars show 95% credible intervals derived from Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo model fit (see Materials and Methods). For each strain (x axis) and phytochemical (vertically arranged panels), model fit was derived from growth on a 96-well plate at 6 phytochemical concentrations (n = 8 (anabasine), 6 (eugenol), or 7 (thymol) replicate samples per concentration). See Supplementary Figures S1–S3 for complete dose-response curves and confidence bands from the fitted models, and Supplementary Figure S4 for representative growth curves of OD over time.
Phytochemical concentrations in floral tissues, pollen, nectar, and honey.
| Compound | Sample type | Plant species | Concentration (ppm)* | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| flowers | 2351 | |||
| flowers | 1482 | |||
| nectar | 5 | |||
| nectar | 32 | 0–1.52 | ||
| nectar | 0–1.0 | |||
| nectar | 32 | 0–5.38 | ||
| nectar | 4 | |||
| nectar | 0.5 | |||
| pollen | 1889 | |||
| nectar | 4–10 | |||
| honey | 26.8 | |||
| honey | 8.8 | |||
| honey | 7.07 | |||
| honey | 6.6 | |||
| honey | 6.18 | |||
| honey | 5.14 | |||
| honey | 4.83 | |||
| 5-O-caffeoylquinic acid | pollen | 1525 ± 486 SD (n = 30) | ||
| 5-O-caffeoylquinic acid | pollen | 475 ± 862 SD (n = 30) | ||
| 5-O-caffeoylquinic acid | pollen | 430 ± 404 SD (n = 53) | ||
| 5-O-caffeoylquinic acid | pollen | 192 ± 204 SD (n = 30) | ||
| 3-O-caffeoylquinic acid | nectar | 25.0 ± 14.9 SD (n = 15) | ||
| 5-O-caffeoylquinic acid | nectar | 15.6 ± 15.2 SD (n = 30) | ||
| 5-O-caffeoylquinic acid | nectar | 14.6 ± 28.2 SD (n = 52) | ||
| 5-O-caffeoylquinic acid | nectar | 7.52 ± 4.23 SD (n = 29) | ||
| 4-O-caffeoylquinic acid | nectar | 6.66 ± 5.11 SD (n = 30) | ||
| 4-O-caffeoylquinic acid | nectar | 3.77 ± 7.62 SD (n = 55) | ||
| 3-O-caffeoylquinic acid | honey | 8.2 | ||
| 3-O-caffeoylquinic acid | honey | 0.21 | ||
| 3-O-caffeoylquinic acid | honey | 0.17 | ||
| bud essential oil | 86.70% | |||
| floral essential oil | 66.20% | |||
| (methyl eugenol) | floral essential oil | 6.88% | ||
| floral volatiles | 27.20% | |||
| pollen volatiles | >2% | |||
| (eugenol + methyl eugenol) | stamens | 49.9 | ||
| petals (male) | 1.2 | |||
| petals (female) | 0.99 | |||
| anther | 0.57 | |||
| Nectar (male and female) | trace | |||
| stigma | ND | |||
| honey | 0.02–0.03 | |||
| honey | 0.016 | |||
| honey | 82.5 | |||
| honey | 70.5 | |||
| honey | 12.3 | |||
| honey | 9.1 | |||
| honey | 3.26 | |||
| honey | 1.27 | |||
| honey | 0.91 | |||
| honey | 0.61 | |||
| floral volatiles | 40% | |||
| floral volatiles | 35% | |||
| floral volatiles | 23% | |||
| floral volatiles | 9.50% | |||
| pollen volatiles | 14.50% | |||
| pollen volatiles | >5% | |||
| pollen volatiles | >5% | |||
| pollen volatiles | 3.40% | |||
| stamen volatiles | 15.40% | |||
| flower bud volatiles | 11.90% | |||
| petal volatiles | 2.50% | |||
| nectar | 8.2 (n = 1) | |||
| nectar | 5.2 ± 2.98 SD (n = 11) | |||
| honey | Apigard™-treated hives | 0.5–2.65 | ||
| honey | 0.346 | |||
| honey | 0.27 | |||
| honey | 0.16 | |||
| honey | 0.142 | |||
| honey | 0.12 | |||
Concentration measurements for chlorogenic acid and thymol (bold) are from this study’s field sampling of nectar and pollen. Sample sizes are in parentheses. Concentrations of other phytochemicals were compiled through literature searches. Data are arranged in order of decreasing maximum concentration, first for sample types within compounds, and then by observations within a given sample type. SD: Standard Deviation. *Units are mean concentration by mass in ppm, except for values followed by a “%” sign, which indicates % of total volatiles (for compounds where ppm concentrations were unavailable).