| Literature DB >> 33329418 |
Elena Gonella1, Bianca Orrù1, Ramona Marasco2, Daniele Daffonchio2, Alberto Alma1.
Abstract
The family Pentatomidae (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) includes several invasive stink bug species capable to attack a large number of wild and cultivated plants, causing several damages to different crops. Pentatomids rely on obligate symbiotic associations with bacteria of the family Enterobacteriaceae, mainly of the genus Pantoea. A distinctive trait of these associations is the transmission route: during oviposition, females smear egg masses with symbiont-containing secretions, which are ingested by newly hatched nymphs, allowing the symbiont to pass through their digestive tract and establish in the crypts of the posterior midgut. Preventing newborns from orally acquiring symbionts seriously affects their fitness and survival. This symbiont inheritance process can be manipulated to develop innovative pest control measures by sterilization of egg masses prior to nymph hatching. This review summarizes the recent knowledge advances concerning the gut primary symbionts of pentatomids, with a specific focus on the most troubling pest species for agriculture. Current understanding of host colonization dynamics in pentatomids is presented, as well as the phenotypic effects determined in different insect species by the alteration of vertical transmission. Details on the current knowledge on the whole bacterial communities accompanying primary symbionts are analyzed. The recent research exploiting the perturbation of symbiont acquisition by pentatomid nymphs is discussed, by considering published work on laboratory and field trials with several active substances. These translational strategies are presently regarded as promising for limiting the populations of many important pentatomid pests in a sustainable way.Entities:
Keywords: Pantoea; egg smearing; gut symbiont; pest control; stink bug; vertical transmission
Year: 2020 PMID: 33329418 PMCID: PMC7728854 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.547031
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Figure 1Phylogenetic placement of gut primary symbionts of pentatomid stink bugs. The phylogenetic tree was constructed by the maximum likelihood method, using the MEGA X software. The 16S rRNA gene sequences of pentatomid gut symbionts, available in public databases, were selected according to: Hirose et al. (2006), Prado and Almeida (2009a), Kikuchi et al. (2012), Kenyon et al. (2015), Bistolas et al. (2014), Hosokawa et al. (2016), Karamipour et al. (2016), Otero-Bravo and Sabree (2018), and Kashkouli et al. (2019a). Allied Pantoea species are included. Names of pentatomid hosts are indicated in bold; accession numbers of each sequence included in the analysis are indicated in parenthesis. Numbers at each node represent percentages of bootstrap replications calculated from 1,000 replicate trees. The scale bar represents the sequence divergence. K. pneumoniae was used as an outgroup in the family Enterobacteriaceae.
List of described gut primary symbionts of pentatomid hosts.
| Unnamed | Heat treatment; surface sterilization (ethanol + bleach) | >Nymphal mortality; | Laboratory trials | Kashkouli et al., | |
| Heat treatment; surface sterilization (ethanol + bleach) | >Pre-adult development; | Laboratory trials | Kashkouli et al., | ||
| Unnamed | Surface sterilization (ethanol + bleach) | > Developmental time; | N. a. | Prado and Almeida, | |
| Unnamed | N. d. | N. d. | N.a. | Bistolas et al., | |
| Unnamed | N. d. | N. d. | N. a. | Bistolas et al., | |
| Heat treatment; surface sterilization (ethanol + bleach) | >Pre-adult development; | Laboratory trials | Kashkouli et al., | ||
| Unnamed | N. d. | N. d. | N. a. | Prado and Almeida, | |
| Unnamed | N. d. | N. d. | N. a. | Prado and Almeida, | |
| Unnamed | N. d. | N. d. | N. a. | Prado and Almeida, | |
| “ | N. d. | N. d. | N. a. | Bistolas et al., | |
| Unnamed | N. d. | N. d. | N. a. | Bistolas et al., | |
| “ | N. d. | N. d. | N. a. | Bistolas et al., | |
| Unnamed | N. d. | N. d. | N. a. | Bistolas et al., | |
| Unnamed | N. d. | N. d. | N. a. | Bistolas et al., | |
| Unnamed | N. d. | N. d. | N. a. | Bistolas et al., | |
| “ | N. d. | N. d. | N. a. | Otero-Bravo et al., | |
| “ | N. d. | N. d. | N. a. | Otero-Bravo et al., | |
| Unnamed | N. d. | N. d. | N. a. | Kikuchi et al., | |
| Unnamed | Surface sterilization (ethanol + formaldehyde) | Retarded growth; | N. a. | Kikuchi et al., | |
| Unnamed | N. d. | N. d. | N. a. | Prado and Almeida, | |
| Unnamed | N. d. | N. d. | N. a. | Bistolas et al., | |
| Unnamed | Surface sterilization (ethanol + bleach) | >Developmental time; | N. a. | Karamipour et al., | |
| “ | Surface sterilization (bleach); treatments with several antimicrobials and surfactants | >Nymphal mortality; | Laboratory and field trials | Mathews and Barry, | |
| Unnamed | N. d. | N. d. | N. a. | Bistolas et al., | |
| Unnamed | N. d. | N. d. | N. a. | Bistolas et al., | |
| Unnamed | N. d. | N. d. | N. a. | Bistolas et al., | |
| Unnamed | Surface sterilization (ethanol + bleach) | >Developmental time | N. a. | Prado and Almeida, | |
| Surface sterilization (ethanol + bleach; ethanol + formaldehyde); heat treatment | =Fitness >Nymphal mortality; Retarded growth; <Size; Abnormal body color | N. a. | Prado et al., | ||
| Unnamed | N. d. | N. d. | N. a. | Husseneder et al., | |
| Surface sterilization (ethanol + formaldehyde) | >Nymphal mortality | N. a. | Abe et al., | ||
| Unnamed | Surface sterilization (bleach) | >Duration of II instar; | N. a. | Bistolas et al., | |
| Unnamed | N. d. | N.d. | N. a. | Prado and Almeida, |
The modalities tested for symbiont suppression and the resulting effects are indicated, as well as the current advancement of development of pest management strategies, when available. N. d., not determined; N. a., not available; =, no significant changes observed; >, significant increment; <, significant reduction; Ca., Candidatus.
Figure 2Graphical representation of the laboratory trails testing the anti-P. carbekii activity of commercial products with antimicrobial activity, interrupting the life cycle of H. halys (Mathews and Barry, 2014; Taylor et al., 2017; Gonella et al., 2019). The effect of treating with antimicrobial compounds (AC) is compared with a negative control (NC), which shows no alteration of stink bug development. Mortality rates induced by different substances, as well as P. carbekii infection rates related to treatments, are depicted in the heatmaps.