| Literature DB >> 31767006 |
Jin-Hua Shi1, Ze Sun1, Xin-Jun Hu1, Huanan Jin1, Caroline Ngichop Foba1, Hao Liu1, Chao Wang1, Le Liu1, Feng-Feng Li1, Man-Qun Wang2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Plant defense against herbivores begins with perception. The earlier plant detects the harm, the greater plant will benefit in its arm race with the herbivore. Before feeding, the larvae of the rice pest Cnaphalocrocis medinalis, initially spin silk and fold up a leaf. Rice can detect and protect itself against C. medinalis feeding. However, whether rice could perceive C. medinalis leaf rolling behavior is currently unknown. Here, we evaluated the role of leaf rolling by C. medinalis and artificial leaf rolling in rice plant defense and its indirect effect on two important C. medinalis parasitoids (Itoplectis naranyae and Apanteles sp.) through a combination of volatile profiling, gene-transcriptional and phytohormonal profiling.Entities:
Keywords: Cnaphalocrocis medinalis; Early detection; Jasmonic acid; Salicylic acid; Transcriptome; Volatiles
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31767006 PMCID: PMC6878700 DOI: 10.1186/s12870-019-2116-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Plant Biol ISSN: 1471-2229 Impact factor: 4.215
Fig. 1Olfactometer responses of Itoplectis naranyae and Apanteles sp. to odors f from artificial rolling plant and natural rolling plant treatments after 12 h (a, c) and 24 h (b, d) versus undamaged plant. Each wasp was released one at a time in the main arm of the Y-tube and given 5 min to make a choice between the test or control odor. Means with asterisk are significantly different (P < 0.05)
The amounts of volatile compounds (mean % of internal standard ± SEM) emitted from undamaged plant, artificial rolling and natural rolling plant treatments
| Compound | Undamaged | Artificial rolling | Natural rolling |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) after 12 h attack | |||
| Hexanol, 2-ethyl- | 3.39 ± 0.19 b | 4.42 ± 1.19 b | 12.89 ± 1.33 a |
| β-Linalool | 6.64 ± 2.2 | 4..6 ± 0.73 | 7.69 ± 2 |
| Nonanal | 4.98 ± 0.2 b | 5.07 ± 0.99 b | 13.71 ± 1.33 a |
| Camphor | 0.58 ± 0.06 | 2.33 ± 1.01 | 1.12 ± 0.17 |
| Decanal | 5.78 ± 0.69 b | 5.64 ± 1.23 b | 21.18 ± 1.65 a |
| Ethylacetophenone | 0.59 ± 0.04 b | 1.29 ± 0.24 a | 1.39 ± 0.08 a |
| Methyl salicylate | 0.42 ± 0.03 | 1.08 ± 0.54 | 0.54 ± 0.18 |
| D-Limonene | 1.2 ± 0.12 | 1.88 ± 0.58 | 2.25 ± 0.42 |
| Decane, 3-methyl- | 0.83 ± 0.25 b | 1.59 ± 0.3 b | 4.08 ± 1.13 a |
| Methyldecahydronaphthalene | 0.35 ± 0.1 | 0.66 ± 0.16 | 1.62 ± 0.58 |
| Undecane, 2-methyl- | 2.86 ± 0.61 | 3.42 ± 0.95 | 6 ± 1.72 |
| Undecane, 3-methyl- | 5.91 ± 0.46 b | 5.23 ± 0.77 b | 12.52 ± 1.84 a |
| Dodecane | 2.62 ± 0.47 | 4.75 ± 2.01 | 5.07 ± 1 |
| Tetradecane | 9.12 ± 0.64 | 12.55 ± 2.97 | 12.73 ± 0.67 |
| α-Cedrene | 4.31 ± 0.3 | 5.66 ± 1.75 | 5.9 ± 0.2 |
| Pentadecane | 8.69 ± 0.61 | 18.01 ± 5.86 | 13.81 ± 0.89 |
| Pentadecane, 2-methyl- | 1.46 ± 0.13 | 2.42 ± 0.69 | 2.3 ± 0.25 |
| Hexadecane | 8.75 ± 0.6 | 12.34 ± 4.14 | 12.66 ± 0.91 |
| Pentadecane, 2,6,10-trimethyl- | 3.69 ± 0.23 | 4.31 ± 1.56 | 5.52 ± 0.59 |
| Heptadecane | 5.91 ± 0.5 | 5.64 ± 1.66 | 8.35 ± 0.51 |
| Pentadecane, 2,6,10,14-tetramethyl- | 3.58 ± 0.31 | 3.76 ± 0.9 | 4.61 ± 0.4 |
| Tridecane, 3-methyl- | 0.73 ± 0.06 | 1.63 ± 0.62 | 1.41 ± 0.2 |
| (b) after 24 h attack | |||
| Hexanol, 2-ethyl- | 3.39 ± 0.19 b | 3.58 ± 0.59 b | 10.02 ± 0.85 a |
| β-Linalool | 6.64 ± 2.2 | 23.04 ± 16.27 | 18.02 ± 5.77 |
| Nonanal | 4.98 ± 0.2 b | 3.84 ± 0.72 b | 10.61 ± 0.67 a |
| Camphor | 0.58 ± 0.06 b | 0.4 ± 0.12 b | 1.03 ± 0.08 a |
| Decanal | 5.78 ± 0.69 b | 4.5 ± 0.91 b | 12.77 ± 2.01 a |
| Ethylacetophenone | 0.59 ± 0.04 b | 0.89 ± 0.13 b | 1.44 ± 0.16 a |
| Methyl salicylate | 0.42 ± 0.03 | 0.27 ± 0.09 | 0.54 ± 0.11 |
| D-Limonene | 1.2 ± 0.12 | 3.34 ± 1.38 | 4.24 ± 1.03 |
| Decane, 3-methyl- | 0.83 ± 0.25 | 1.22 ± 0.33 | 2.74 ± 1.41 |
| Methyldecahydronaphthalene | 0.35 ± 0.1 | 0.27 ± 0.05 | 0.51 ± 0.19 |
| Undecane, 2-methyl- | 2.86 ± 0.61 | 1.1 ± 0.2 | 3.9 ± 1.51 |
| Undecane, 3-methyl- | 5.91 ± 0.46 ab | 2.87 ± 0.74 b | 8.04 ± 1.77 a |
| Dodecane | 2.62 ± 0.47 | 3.44 ± 1.07 | 4.68 ± 0.65 |
| Tetradecane | 9.12 ± 0.64 | 9.99 ± 1.85 | 13.44 ± 0.65 |
| α-Cedrene | 4.31 ± 0.3 | 4.28 ± 0.56 | 6.34 ± 0.43 |
| Pentadecane | 8.69 ± 0.61 | 8.52 ± 1.49 | 13.09 ± 1.01 |
| Pentadecane, 2-methyl- | 1.46 ± 0.13 | 1.55 ± 0.39 | 2.14 ± 0.03 |
| Hexadecane | 8.75 ± 0.6 | 8.23 ± 1.36 | 12.6 ± 1.09 |
| Pentadecane, 2,6,10-trimethyl- | 3.69 ± 0.23 | 3.98 ± 0.98 | 5.65 ± 0.44 |
| Heptadecane | 5.91 ± 0.5 | 5.98 ± 1.21 | 8.82 ± 0.56 |
| Pentadecane, 2,6,10,14-tetramethyl- | 3.58 ± 0.31 | 3.55 ± 0.85 | 5.19 ± 0.36 |
| Tridecane, 3-methyl- | 0.73 ± 0.06 | 0.77 ± 0.11 | 1.21 ± 0.24 |
Note: Means marked with different letter indicates significant differences in compounds across treatments (Tukey’s post hoc test, P < 0.05)
Fig. 2Principal Component Analysis comparing volatile blends from undamaged plant, artificial rolling and natural rolling plant treatments. a after 12 h attack and (b) after 24 h attack. Grouping pattern of samples were with respect to the first two principal components and Hotelling’s ellipse at 95% confidence interval for the observations. Each point represents one sample
Fig. 3Comparative analysis of changes in the rice leaf transcriptome in response to artificial rolling, natural rolling and rolling and feeding by Cnaphalocrocis medinalis after 12 h. Genes associated with a q ≤ 0.05 for at least one time point were used to construct the Venn diagram
Numbers of genes up- or down-regulated, whose transcript levels increased after the indicated treatments (|log2 Fold Change| > 1, P-value< 0.05)
| Control | Case | Up-regulated | Down-regulated | Total DEGs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Undamaged | Artificial rolling | 759 | 548 | 1307 |
| Undamaged | Natural rolling | 1073 | 870 | 1943 |
| Undamaged | Rolling and feeding | 2899 | 1807 | 4706 |
Note: DEGs Differentially expressed genes
Fig. 4Comparative analysis of gene transcriptomes associated with jasmonic acid and salicylic acid pathways. a gene transcriptional differences related to jasmonic acid pathway and (b) gene transcriptional differences related to salicylic acid pathway. Note: enoyl-CoA hydratase/3-hydroxyacyl-CoA dehydrogenase (MFP2); 12-oxophytodienoic acid reductase (OPR); lipoxygenase (LOX); hydroperoxide dehydratase (AOS); acetyl-CoA acyltransferase 1 (ACAA1); allene oxide cyclase (AOC); transcription factor MYC2 (MYC2); acyl-CoA oxidase (ACX); TGA transcription factors (TGA); phenylalanine ammonia-lyase (PAL); pathogenesis-related (PR) protein; regulatory protein NPR1 (NPR1)
Fig. 5Plant phytohormones produced after natural rolling and rolling and feeding by Cnaphalocrocis medinalis, and artificial rolling of rice leaf at different time points. a jasmonic acid biosynthesis and (b) salicylic acid biosynthesis. Mean ± SEM. Means followed by different letter indicates significant differences between the treatments at specific time points (P < 0.01)
Fig. 6Rice plant can perceive the leaf rolling behavior of Cnaphalocrocis medinalis, release blends of volatiles (terpenes, aldehydes, ketones, esters) and recruit the natural enemy of the pest