| Literature DB >> 32061084 |
Jinghua Zhu1, Xiaoqing Liu1, Kunmiao Zhu1, Hanyu Zhou1, Liang Li1, Zengxin Li1, Weiwei Qin1, Yueping He1.
Abstract
The vanilloid-type transient receptor potential (TRPV) channel is reported to be the molecular target of the commercial insecticide pymetrozine, which specifically disrupts the feeding of plant sap-sucking insects. However, the functions of TRPV channels in plant sap-sucking insects have not been fully elucidated. In the present study, RNA interference was used to investigate the effects of the knockdown of TRPV genes (Nan and Iav) on the mortality, locomotion, and feeding behavior of an important plant-feeding insect pest in rice, the brown planthopper, Nilaparvata lugens. Injecting dsRNA of Nan and Iav into fourth-instar nymphs significantly knocked down the target genes. The injection of dsNan or dsIav did not affect any morphological phenotype (including leg extension) of N. lugens nymphs and adults. Knockdown of Nan or Iav resulted in significantly decreased climbing activity against top plants but did not influence the leg-griping strength of adults. Knockdown of Nan resulted in a significantly elevated mortality of N. lugens in the observation period of 7 d after injection, whereas no significant difference in survival rates 7 d after injection was found between dsIav-injected and dsGFP-injected insects. Electropenetrographic (EPG) recordings indicated that knockdown of Nan and Iav reduced the ingestion activity in the rice phloem tissues of N. lugens. Knockdown of Nan and Iav significantly reduced the amount of honeydew excreted by N. lugens. Our findings indicated a relationship between TRPV and N. lugens locomotion and feeding behavior, which may help to fully elucidate the functions of TRPV in insects.Entities:
Keywords: zzm321990 Nilaparvata lugenszzm321990 ; RNAi; electropenetrography; feeding behavior; transient receptor potential
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32061084 PMCID: PMC7022682 DOI: 10.1093/jisesa/ieaa002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Insect Sci ISSN: 1536-2442 Impact factor: 1.857
Fig. 1.Mean transcript levels in whole bodies of Nilaparvata lugens at 7 d after injection with dsRNA of Nan, Iav or GFP. *Indicates a significant difference (P < 0.05) between dsGFP and dsNan or dsIav treatments. Data were expressed as the mean ± SEM.
Fig. 2.Survival curves of N. lugens 1–7 d after injection with dsRNA of Nan, Iav or GFP, when fed on rice (A and B). (A) A log-rank (Mantel-Cox) test using GraphPad Prism software showed a significant difference (*) in survival rate between dsGFP and dsNan treatments (P < 0.05). (B) A log-rank (Mantel-Cox) test showed no significant difference (ns) in survival rate between dsGFP and dsIav treatments (P > 0.05).
Fig. 3.Climbing assay (A and B) and gripping assay (C) for N. lugens adults after being injected with dsRNA of Nan, Iav or GFP. *Indicates a significant difference (P < 0.05) between dsGFP and dsNan or dsIav treatments. ‘ns’ indicates no significant difference (P > 0.05) between dsGFP and dsNan or dsIav treatments. Data were expressed as the mean ± SEM.
Fig. 4.Proportion of adults that reached each EPG waveform during feeding on a rice plant after RNAi. N4 (N4-a + N4-b) for stylets in the phloem tissue (including an intracellular activity (N4-a) and sustained phloem sap ingestion (N4-b) in the phloem tissue) termed phloem ingestion phase; N5 for stylets in the xylem tissue. The number in the parentheses upon each column means the number of the insects reached N4, N4-a, N4-b, or N5 waveform/all the recording replicates.
Comparison of 6-h EPG response variables of Nilaparvata lugens feeding rice plants after injected with dsGFP and dsNan
| Variables | ds | ds |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Mean time to first probe (min) per insect | 5.5 ± 2.1 (18) | 5.8 ± 1.8 (18) | 0.05 (1,35), 0.915 |
| 2. Mean duration of first probe (min) per insect | 48.5 ± 26.8 (18) | 28.7 ± 9.2 (18) | 3.44 (1,35), 0.489 |
| 3. Mean number of probes per insect | 6.9 ± 1.1 (18) | 8.8 ± 0.8 (18) | 3.89 (1,35), 0.183 |
| 4. WDI for np (min) | 26.9 ± 5.5 (18) | 76.5 ± 18.2 (18)* | 9.63 (1,35), 0.013 |
| 5. WDI for pathway (min) | 75.3 ± 13.0 (18) | 114.5 ± 10.5 (18)* | 0.87 (1,35), 0.024 |
| 6. NWEI for phloem phase | 6.2 ± 0.8 (18) | 3.4 ± 0.9 (12)* | 0.81 (1,29), 0.023 |
| 7. WDI for phloem phase (min) | 209.1 ± 23.7 (18) | 49.4 ± 20.0 (12)* | 2.04 (1,29), <0.001 |
| 8. NWEI for xylem phase | 2.2 ± 0.4 (16) | 5.2 ± 1.0 (18)* | 4.56 (1,33), 0.008 |
| 9. WDI for xylem phase (min) | 48.4 ± 11.2 (16) | 119.1 ± 20.2 (18)* | 11.2 (1,33), 0.004 |
*Indicates a significant difference (P < 0.05) between dsGFP and dsNan o treatments within the same variable. Data were presented as mean ± SEM (n).
1WDI means waveform duration per insect.
2NWEI means number of waveform events per insect.
Comparison of 6-h EPG response variables of Nilaparvata lugens feeding rice plants after injected with dsGFP and dsIav
| ds | ds |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Mean time to first probe (min) per insect | 5.6 ± 2 (18) | 5.3 ± 1.1 (18) | 0.02 (1,35), 0.900 |
| 2. Mean duration of first probe (min) per insect | 48.7 ± 26.1 (18) | 34.3 ± 19.1 (18) | 0.19 (1,35), 0.667 |
| 3. Mean number of probes per insect | 7.7 ± 1.5 (18) | 13.3 ± 2.5 (18) | 3.57 (1,35), 0.068 |
| 4. WDI for np (min) | 29.4 ± 6.8 (18) | 40.8 ± 8.25 (18) | 1.09 (1,35), 0.303 |
| 5. WDI for pathway (min) | 76.8 ± 12.9 (18) | 156.7 ± 20.0 (18)* | 10.6 (1,35), 0.003 |
| 6. NWEI for phloem phase | 6.5 ± 0.7 (18) | 3.2 ± 0.6 (13)* | 11.3 (1,30), 0.002 |
| 7. WDI for phloem phase (min) | 209.2 ± 23 (18) | 133.2 ± 27.4 (13)* | 4.25 (1,30), 0.048 |
| 8. NWEI for xylem phase | 2.5 ± 0.4 (17) | 4.8 ± 0.6 (16)* | 9.42 (1,32), 0.004 |
| 9. WDI for xylem phase (min) | 49.8 ± 9.3 (17) | 69.7 ± 17.8 (16) | 0.89 (1,32), 0.353 |
*Indicates a significant difference (P < 0.05) between dsGFP and dsIav treatments within the same variable. Data were presented as mean ± SEM (n).
1WDI means waveform duration per insect.
2NWEI means number of waveform events per insect.
Fig. 5.Mean amount of honeydew per day excreted by a N. lugens female adult after being injected with dsRNA of Nan, Iav, or GFP. *Indicates a significant difference (P < 0.05) between dsGFP and dsNan or dsIav treatments. Data were expressed as the mean ± SEM.