| Literature DB >> 29331089 |
Hao Hu1,2, Jinjin Li1, Thierry Delatte3, Jacques Vervoort4, Liping Gao1,2, Francel Verstappen3, Wei Xiong1, Jianping Gan5, Maarten A Jongsma2, Caiyun Wang1.
Abstract
Aphids are pests of chrysanthemum that employ plant volatiles to select host plants and ingest cell contents to probe host quality before engaging in prolonged feeding and reproduction. Changes in volatile and nonvolatile metabolite profiles can disrupt aphid-plant interactions and provide new methods of pest control. Chrysanthemol synthase (CHS) from Tanacetum cinerariifolium represents the first committed step in the biosynthesis of pyrethrin ester insecticides, but no biological role for the chrysanthemol product alone has yet been documented. In this study, the TcCHS gene was over-expressed in Chrysanthemum morifolium and resulted in both the emission of volatile chrysanthemol (ca. 47 pmol/h/gFW) and accumulation of a chrysanthemol glycoside derivative, identified by NMR as chrysanthemyl-6-O-malonyl-β-D-glucopyranoside (ca. 1.1 mM), with no detrimental phenotypic effects. Dual-choice assays separately assaying these compounds in pure form and as part of the headspace and extract demonstrated independent bioactivity of both components against the cotton aphid (Aphis gossypii). Performance assays showed that the TcCHS plants significantly reduced aphid reproduction, consistent with disturbance of aphid probing activities on these plants as revealed by electropenetrogram (EPG) studies. In open-field trials, aphid population development was very strongly impaired demonstrating the robustness and high impact of the trait. The results suggest that expression of the TcCHS gene induces a dual defence system, with both repellence by chrysanthemol odour and deterrence by its nonvolatile glycoside, introducing a promising new option for engineering aphid control into plants.Entities:
Keywords: aphid resistance; chrysanthemol synthase; chrysanthemum; double bioactivity; glycoside; terpene volatile
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29331089 PMCID: PMC6041446 DOI: 10.1111/pbi.12885
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plant Biotechnol J ISSN: 1467-7644 Impact factor: 9.803
Figure 1Expression analysis of chrysanthemum plant lines transformed with Tc. (a) Schematic diagram of the RbcS promoter::Tc gene expression cassettes in the pBINPLUS plasmid. (b) qRT‐PCR analysis of Tc expression levels in leaves and ovaries of wild type and transgenic chrysanthemum lines relative to Actin. The expression was normalized to the Actin gene, and gene expression values were averaged across three independent biological replicates, with each sample amplified in triplicate. Error bars represent standard errors (±SE). Expression in wild type was set at 1.
Plant mean leaf area, chlorophyll and carotenoid contents and dry weight of transgenic and wild type plants
| Lines | Leaf area (cm2) | Chlorophyll (mg/g FW) | Carotenoids (mg/g FW) | Dry weight (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wild type | 11.23 ± 0.07a | 1.05 ± 0.05a | 0.22 ± 0.01a | 0.42 ± 0.02a |
| CHS3 | 10.33 ± 0.90a | 0.81 ± 0.08a | 0.19 ± 0.01a | 0.34 ± 0.04a |
| CHS11 | 9.56 ± 1.33a | 1.01 ± 0.06a | 0.22 ± 0.01a | 0.39 ± 0.03a |
Values are the mean (±SE) of three biological replicates, and different letters within a column indicate significant differences (ANOVA followed by Duncan's multiple range test. P < 0.05).
Figure 2Analysis by GC‐MS of volatile compounds of chrysanthemum plants. (a) Typical GC‐MS chromatograms showing the volatiles by dynamic headspace trapping of intact wild type chrysanthemum plant, transgenic Tc chrysanthemum plant and an authentic standard of chrysanthemol at RT 14.5–17 min. (b) Chrysanthemol emission of intact wild type and transgenic chrysanthemum lines. Error bars indicate SE from three biological replicates. (c) The pathway of chrysanthemol and chrysanthemyl acetate biosynthesis.
Figure 3Analysis of nonvolatile compounds of chrysanthemum plants. (a) Negative mode LC‐Q‐TOF‐MS chromatograms of aqueous–methanol extract of leaves of wild type chrysanthemum plant and transgenic Tc chrysanthemum plant. The compound eluting at 46.84 min uniquely found in the Tc overexpressing chrysanthemum plants. (b) The MS spectrum of the 46.84 min compound. (c) The spectrum of collision‐induced fragmentation of mass 401.179 eluting at 46.84 min, which was identified by NMR as chrysanthemyl‐6‐O‐malonyl‐β‐D‐glucopyranoside. (d) 600 MHz 1 HNMR spectrum of chrysanthemyl‐6‐O‐malonyl‐β‐D‐glucopyranoside.
Figure 4No‐choice whole plant bioassay on transgenic chrysanthemum and wild type plants. Ten neonate larvae were introduced in each clip cage on each plant, and aphids number were measured after 12 days. Wild type plants served as control. Error bars indicate mean ± SE (n = 6). (ANOVA followed by Duncan's multiple range test based on difference of the aphids number. ***: P < 0.001). WT, wild type.
Figure 5Dual‐choice and alarm behaviour assay of aphids. (a) Olfactory preference of aphids in dual‐choice assay for wild type and transgenic chrysanthemum leaves and 10 μL 10% (v/v) COH standard dissolved in paraffin oil vs 10 μL paraffin oil as positive control. Each bar represents the percentage of aphids that made a choice within 10 min after release (n = 10). The number on the bar represent number of aphids in total. The percentage of aphids did not make a choice (% no choice) indicated on the right. (b) Alarm response of settled aphids to synthetic chrysanthemol in paraffin oil and a paraffin oil control. The percentage of aphids moving after 5 min and 10 min was recorded. Values are the mean ± SE (n = 20). (ANOVA followed by Duncan's multiple range test based on difference of the aphids number.). Columns with different letters indicate responses that are significantly different (P < 0.01). PO, paraffin oil; COH, chrysanthemol. (c) Dual‐choice assay of aphids choosing between wild type and transgenic chrysanthemum plants connected by a paper bridge. The number of aphids on either plant was recorded at 0.25, 1, 3, 6 and 16 h after release. Wild type plants were used as control. Error bars indicate mean ± SE (n = 6). (two‐tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test based on difference of the choices. *: P < 0.05; **: P < 0.01). WT, wild type.
Figure 6Dual‐choice assay of aphids with nonvolatile contents from plants and pure chrysanthemol glycoside. (a) Aphid preference over time in dual‐choice assay with nonvolatile contents from wild type versus transgenic chrysanthemum leaves and wild type versus wild type. The aphid behaviour was recorded every 15 min for a 12‐h period. The average number of aphids observed underneath either droplets with plant nonvolatile contents was recorded every 15 min. Averages of five replications of two dual‐choice plates with ten aphids in each plate are given per 3‐h time interval. WT, wild type. (b) The ratio of feeding time to total trial duration in dual‐choice assay with a series of dilutions of pure chrysanthemol glycoside and solvent control. Error bars indicate mean ± SE. n = 56. (two‐tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test based on difference of the choices. *: P < 0.05; **: P < 0.01; ***: P < 0.001).
EPG parameters of Aphis gossypii during an 8‐h recording on transgenic and wild type plants
| EPG parameters | CHS3 ( | CHS11 ( | Wild type ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duration of np (h) | 2.01 ± 0.67** | 1.13 ± 0.17* | 0.55 ± 0.16 |
| Duration of C (h) | 3.25 ± 0.41 | 4.40 ± 0.51 | 2.98 ± 0.60 |
| Mean duration of C (min) | 9.57 ± 2.03 | 11.09 ± 2.90 | 12.36 ± 2.07 |
| Duration to 1st C (min) | 2.65 ± 0.58 | 4.63 ± 1.43** | 2.01 ± 0.63 |
| Duration of 1st C (min) | 1.48 ± 0.74 | 0.86 ± 0.23 | 6.74 ± 4.14 |
| Duration of E1 (h) | 0.22 ± 0.08 | 0.43 ± 0.18 | 0.40 ± 0.10 |
| Duration of E2 (h) | 1.16 ± 0.45* | 0.71 ± 0.43** | 3.82 ± 0.76 |
| Duration of G (h) | 1.69 ± 0.57 | 1.37 ± 0.71 | 0.22 ± 0.15 |
| Number of C | 28.83 ± 6.50* | 34.00 ± 5.62* | 14.92 ± 2.80 |
| Number of E1 | 2.25 ± 0.60 | 3.50 ± 1.03 | 2.92 ± 0.63 |
| Number of E2 | 0.83 ± 0.30 | 1.25 ± 0.58 | 1.00 ± 0.28 |
| Number of G | 1.25 ± 0.41 | 0.33 ± 0.14 | 0.17 ± 0.11 |
Values are the means (±SE) of 12 biological replicates, and asterisks indicate significance of differences between the transgenic lines and the wild type (*P < 0.05 and **P < 0.01, Mann–Whitney U pairwise comparisons). np, no probing; C, stylet penetration; E1, salivation phase; E2, phloem sap ingestion; G, xylem ingestion.
The aphid resistance of transgenic chrysanthemum plants and wild type
| Plant lines | Mean aphids/leaf area (cm2) | IR (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abaxial surface** | Adaxial surface*** | ||
| Wild type | 4.51 ± 0.98A | 0.28 ± 0.07A | 0 |
| CHS3 | 0.32 ± 0.05B | 0.00 ± 0.00B | 93 |
| CHS11 | 0.21 ± 0.05B | 0.00 ± 0.00B | 96 |
Values are the means (±SE) of 10 biological replicates, and different superscripts indicate significantly different (**P < 0.0001; ***P < 0.05).
Inhibition ratio relative to wild type plants at 30 Day. IR is given by (N W–N T)/N W × 100, where N W represent the mean of aphid number per leaf area on the wild type and N T the mean of that on transgenic plant at 30 Day.