| Literature DB >> 31879865 |
Paula Thitz1, Lauri Mehtätalo2, Panu Välimäki3, Tendry Randriamanana4, Mika Lännenpää4,5, Ann E Hagerman6, Tommi Andersson7, Riitta Julkunen-Tiitto4, Tommi Nyman4,8.
Abstract
Despite active research, antiherbivore activity of specific plant phenolics remains largely unresolved. We constructed silver birch (Betula pendula) lines with modified phenolic metabolism to study the effects of foliar flavonoids and condensed tannins on consumption and growth of larvae of a generalist herbivore, the autumnal moth (Epirrita autumnata). We conducted a feeding experiment using birch lines in which expression of dihydroflavonol reductase (DFR), anthocyanidin synthase (ANS) or anthocyanidin reductase (ANR) had been decreased by RNA interference. Modification-specific effects on plant phenolics, nutrients and phenotype, and on larval consumption and growth were analyzed using uni- and multivariate methods. Inhibiting DFR expression increased the concentration of flavonoids at the expense of condensed tannins, and silencing DFR and ANR decreased leaf and plant size. E. autumnata larvae consumed on average 82% less of DFRi plants than of unmodified controls, suggesting that flavonoids or glandular trichomes deter larval feeding. However, larval growth efficiency was highest on low-tannin DFRi plants, indicating that condensed tannins (or their monomers) are physiologically more harmful than non-tannin flavonoids for E. autumnata larvae. Our results show that genetic manipulation of the flavonoid pathway in plants can effectively be used to produce altered phenolic profiles required for elucidating the roles of low-molecular weight phenolics and condensed tannins in plant-herbivore relationships, and suggest that phenolic secondary metabolites participate in regulation of plant growth.Entities:
Keywords: Betula pendula; Condensed tannins; Epirrita autumnata; Herbivory; Phenolics; RNA interference
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31879865 PMCID: PMC7056695 DOI: 10.1007/s10886-019-01134-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Chem Ecol ISSN: 0098-0331 Impact factor: 2.626
Fig. 1Interpretation of results when herbivore consumption and/or growth differ across alternative diets. For example, a low-quality diet decreases herbivore growth relative to their consumption (i.e., leads to low gross growth efficiency (GGE)). However, herbivores adapted to variable defenses of their hosts can use compensatory feeding to maintain their normal growth rate despite lowered GGE. Feeding deterrents in the diet decrease both herbivore consumption and growth, while changes in GGE depend on the relative magnitude of changes in RGR and RCR
Fig. 2(a) The location of the three enzymes inhibited using RNA interference along the flavonoid pathway (DFR, dihydroflavonol reductase; ANS, anthocyanidin synthase; ANR, anthocyanidin reductase). (b–i) Concentrations of different phenolic compounds in leaves of the control and modified Betula pendula lines. Error bars show ±1 SE, asterisks denote statistically significant differences compared to the control line at 1/8 degrees of freedom in multi- or univariate linear mixed models at 0.01 < P < 0.05 (*), 0.001 < P < 0.01 (**), or P < 0.001 (***). Only flavanones and compounds present in the unmodified control line are shown. Note the different scales in the figures
Fig. 3NMS ordination of (a) individual experimental plants of the control and modified Betula pendula lines (n = 260, stress = 9.55) based on concentrations of foliar phenolics and condensed tannins, and (b) plants with Epirrita autumnata (n = 127, stress = 8.27) based on plant chemical and phenotypic traits
Summary statistics for the multi- and univariate linear mixed models made for the concentrations of foliar phenolics and condensed tannins in control and modified Betula pendula lines, with the fixed effects of RNAi construct, herbivory treatment, and experimental replication
| Compound group/Compound1 | RNAi construct | Herbivory treatment | Experimental replication | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| numDF | denDF | numDF | denDF | numDF | denDF | |||||||
| Phenolic acids | 9 | 772 | 391.59 | <0.001 | 3 | 772 | 0.23 | 0.874 | 6 | 772 | 14.19 | <0.001 |
| Loge( | 3 | 8 | 17.38 | <0.001 | 2 | 253 | 4.94 | 0.008 | ||||
| Loge (coumaroylquinic acid derivative 1 + 0.1) | 3 | 8 | 1130.71 | <0.001 | 2 | 253 | 12.79 | <0.001 | ||||
| coumaroylquinic acid derivative 2 | 3 | 8 | 9.28 | 0.006 | 2 | 253 | 5.58 | 0.004 | ||||
| Flavones | 6 | 511 | 10.51 | <0.001 | 2 | 511 | 1.46 | 0.234 | 4 | 511 | 25.15 | <0.001 |
| flavone 1 | 3 | 8 | 0.99 | 0.444 | 2 | 253 | 28.31 | <0.001 | ||||
| sqrt (flavone 2) | 3 | 8 | 20.48 | <0.001 | 2 | 253 | 32.80 | <0.001 | ||||
| Dihydroflavonols | 9 | 772 | 57.39 | <0.001 | 3 | 772 | 0.40 | 0.757 | 6 | 772 | 12.47 | <0.001 |
| Loge (ampelopsin monoglucoside+0.1) | 3 | 8 | 149.71 | <0.001 | 2 | 253 | 24.05 | <0.001 | ||||
| sqrt (taxifolin monoglucoside) | 3 | 8 | 106.19 | <0.001 | 2 | 253 | 23.83 | <0.001 | ||||
| sqrt (dihydroflavonol 3) | 3 | 8 | 42.63 | <0.001 | 2 | 253 | 10.78 | <0.001 | ||||
| Myricetins (flavonols) | 15 | 1294 | 91.83 | <0.001 | 5 | 1294 | 0.54 | 0.748 | 10 | 1294 | 7.18 | <0.001 |
| Loge (myricetin 3-galactoside) | 3 | 8 | 30.66 | <0.001 | 2 | 253 | 6.48 | 0.002 | ||||
| sqrt (myricetin 3-glucoside) | 3 | 8 | 67.75 | <0.001 | 2 | 253 | 4.13 | 0.017 | ||||
| Loge (myricetin 3-arabinoside +10) | 3 | 8 | 15.53 | 0.001 | 2 | 253 | 3.16 | 0.044 | ||||
| myricetin 3-rhamnoside | 3 | 8 | 6.68 | 0.014 | 2 | 253 | 8.28 | <0.001 | ||||
| myricetin methyl ether 3-glucoside | 3 | 8 | 14.49 | 0.001 | 2 | 253 | 8.89 | <0.001 | ||||
| Quercetins (flavonols) | 9 | 772 | 24.02 | <0.001 | 3 | 772 | 0.54 | 0.652 | 6 | 772 | 5.80 | <0.001 |
| quercetin 3-galactoside | 3 | 8 | 5.14 | 0.029 | 2 | 253 | 6.16 | 0.002 | ||||
| quercetin 3-glucoside | 3 | 8 | 9.78 | 0.005 | 2 | 253 | 0.32 | 0.724 | ||||
| quercetin 3-rhamnoside | 3 | 8 | 2.20 | 0.165 | 2 | 253 | 3.84 | 0.022 | ||||
| Other compounds | ||||||||||||
| sqrt (kaempferol 3-rhamnoside) | 3 | 8 | 2.91 | 0.101 | 1 | 253 | 3.49 | 0.063 | 2 | 253 | 4.47 | 0.012 |
| Loge (catechin +0.1) | 3 | 8 | 240.83 | <0.001 | 1 | 253 | 1.69 | 0.194 | 2 | 253 | 72.74 | <0.001 |
| unidentified 1 | 3 | 8 | 0.38 | 0.773 | 1 | 253 | 0.03 | 0.866 | 2 | 253 | 3.58 | 0.029 |
| DPPG | 3 | 8 | 0.39 | 0.767 | 1 | 253 | 0.92 | 0.338 | 2 | 253 | 5.28 | 0.006 |
| Loge (condensed tannins) | 3 | 8 | 4.59 | 0.038 | 1 | 245 | 3.70 | 0.056 | 2 | 245 | 17.55 | <0.001 |
numDF, numerator degrees of freedom; denDF, denominator degrees of freedom;
1The fixed part of the model included RNAi construct (control, DFRi, ANSi, or ANRi), herbivory treatment, and experimental replication, and the model included random intercepts for plant lines. Lines in bold refer to overall tests for each whole group of compounds, while other lines show results for individual compounds within each group. Other compounds were tested with corresponding univariate models, and compounds not present in the control line were omitted from the models. The models for low-molecular weight phenolics were based on observations from 268 plants, and for condensed tannins on observations from 260 plants
Summary statistics from linear mixed models made for Epirrita autumnata consumption and growth parameters, with RNAi construct as a fixed factor and larval starting weight as a covariate
| Larval trait | RNAi construct | larval starting weight | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| numDF | denDF | numDF | denDF | |||||
| Loge (consumption+10)1 | 1 | 5.6 | 11.21 | 0.009 | 1 | 13.7 | 8.54 | 0.011 |
| Loge (RCR + 0.1)1 | 3 | 2.0 | 7.12 | 0.126 | 1 | 13.7 | 2.27 | 0.132 |
| growth2 | 3 | 2.0 | 4.42 | 0.190 | 1 | 96.3 | 23.01 | <0.001 |
| Loge (RGR + 1)1 | 3 | 2.2 | 3.73 | 0.202 | 1 | 23.5 | 303.52 | <0.001 |
| Loge (GGE+100)1 | 3 | 4.7 | 2.03 | 0.236 | 1 | 10.6 | 15.88 | 0.002 |
numDF, numerator degrees of freedom; denDF, denominator degrees of freedom; RCR, relative daily consumption rate; RGR, relative daily growth rate; GGE, gross growth efficiency
1The models based on 138 (GGE) or on 149 (other variables) observations of plants and larvae included random intercepts for plant lines, for each combination of experimental replication and RNAi construct, and for chambers
2The model based on 149 observations of plant and larva included random intercepts for plant line, experimental replication (Online Resource Fig. S2), and chamber
Correlation coefficients and Bonferroni-adjusted significances of foliar phenolics, condensed tannins, and water and nitrogen content, and Betula pendula phenotypic traits with NMS axis scores in Fig. 3b
| Leaf phenolics | Kendall’s tau with NMS1 | Kendall’s tau with NMS2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| p-OH cinnamic acid monoglucoside | 0.11 | −0.42 | *** | |
| coumaroylquinic acid derivative 1 | 0.28 | *** | −0.14 | |
| coumaroylquinic acid derivative 2 | −0.01 | −0.48 | *** | |
| flavanone 1 | 0.02 | 0.53 | *** | |
| flavanone 2 | 0.01 | 0.53 | *** | |
| flavanone 3 | 0.12 | 0.46 | *** | |
| flavone 1 | 0.38 | *** | −0.02 | |
| flavone 2 | 0.34 | *** | 0.34 | *** |
| dihydroflavonol 1 | 0.02 | 0.55 | *** | |
| ampelopsin diglucoside | 0.05 | 0.48 | *** | |
| ampelopsin monoglucoside | 0.21 | 0.55 | *** | |
| ampelopsin | 0.02 | 0.53 | *** | |
| dihydroflavonol 2 | 0.00 | 0.50 | *** | |
| taxifolin monoglucoside | 0.04 | 0.37 | *** | |
| taxifolin | 0.03 | 0.54 | *** | |
| dihydroflavonol 3 | 0.04 | 0.26 | ** | |
| myricetin 3-galactoside | 0.61 | *** | 0.16 | |
| myricetin 3-glucoside | 0.61 | *** | 0.30 | *** |
| myricetin 3-arabinoside | 0.53 | *** | −0.07 | |
| myricetin 3-rhamnoside | 0.40 | *** | 0.36 | *** |
| myricetin methyl ether 3-glucoside | 0.38 | *** | 0.46 | *** |
| quercetin 3-galactoside | 0.34 | *** | −0.29 | *** |
| quercetin 3-glucoside | 0.55 | *** | 0.03 | |
| quercetin 3-arabinoside | 0.57 | *** | 0.47 | *** |
| quercetin 3-rhamnoside | 0.34 | *** | 0.24 | ** |
| kaempferol 3-rhamnoside + phenolic acid | 0.02 | −0.38 | *** | |
| gallocatechin | −0.11 | −0.26 | * | |
| catechin | −0.06 | −0.38 | *** | |
| unidentified 1 | −0.03 | −0.18 | ||
| DPPG | 0.15 | −0.02 | ||
| −0.05 | −0.34 | *** | ||
| Nitrogen, water and phenotypic traits | Kendall’s tau with NMS1 | Kendall’s tau with NMS2 | ||
| leaf area | −0.37 | *** | −0.74 | *** |
| leaf dry weight | −0.26 | ** | −0.79 | *** |
| leaf fresh weight | −0.32 | *** | −0.76 | *** |
| adaxial gland density | 0.36 | *** | 0.28 | *** |
| abaxial gland density | 0.40 | *** | 0.20 | |
| leaf water content | −0.37 | *** | −0.24 | ** |
| leaf nitrogen content | −0.20 | −0.27 | *** | |
| specific leaf area | −0.48 | *** | −0.25 | ** |
| specific leaf weight | 0.48 | *** | 0.25 | ** |
| plant leaf biomass | −0.18 | −0.77 | *** | |
| plant stem biomass | −0.19 | −0.78 | *** | |
| plant aboveground biomass | −0.18 | −0.78 | *** | |
* P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001
Fig. 4Effect of RNAi constructs on (a) consumption, (b) relative consumption rate (RCR), (c) relative growth rate (RGR) and (d) gross growth efficiency (GGE) of Epirrita autumnata larvae, with medians and 95% confidence intervals shown. Asterisks over boxes denote Holm-adjusted differences to the control line at 0.01 < P < 0.05 (*), 0.001 < P < 0.01 (**), or P < 0.001 (***). Inset texts refer to significant effects of NMS axis scores (Fig. b) on the focal parameters according to explanatory models (Online Resource Table S5)