Literature DB >> 35135316

Trade-offs between cost of ingestion and rate of intake drive defensive toxin use.

Tyler E Douglas1, Sofia G Beskid1,2, Callie E Gernand3, Brianna E Nirtaut3, Kristen E Tamsil1, Richard W Fitch3, Rebecca D Tarvin1.   

Abstract

Animals that ingest toxins can become unpalatable and even toxic to predators and parasites through toxin sequestration. Because most animals rapidly eliminate toxins to survive their ingestion, it is unclear how populations transition from susceptibility and toxin elimination to tolerance and accumulation as chemical defence emerges. Studies of chemical defence have generally focused on species with active toxin sequestration and target-site insensitivity mutations or toxin-binding proteins that permit survival without necessitating toxin elimination. Here, we investigate whether animals that presumably rely on toxin elimination for survival can use ingested toxins for defence. We use the A4 and A3 Drosophila melanogaster fly strains from the Drosophila Synthetic Population Resource (DSPR), which respectively possess high and low metabolic nicotine resistance among DSPR fly lines. We find that ingesting nicotine increased A4 but not A3 fly survival against Leptopilina heterotoma wasp parasitism. Further, we find that despite possessing genetic variants that enhance toxin elimination, A4 flies accrued more nicotine than A3 individuals, likely by consuming more medium. Our results suggest that enhanced toxin metabolism can allow greater toxin intake by offsetting the cost of toxin ingestion. Passive toxin accumulation that accompanies increased toxin intake may underlie the early origins of chemical defence.

Entities:  

Keywords:  bioaccumulation; chemical defence; enemy-free space; multi-trophic selection; xenobiotic metabolism

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35135316      PMCID: PMC8826133          DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2021.0579

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biol Lett        ISSN: 1744-9561            Impact factor:   3.703


  28 in total

1.  Causal connection between detoxification enzyme activity and consumption of a toxic plant compound.

Authors:  M J Snyder; J I Glendinning
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 1.836

Review 2.  The evolution and origin of tetrodotoxin acquisition in the blue-ringed octopus (genus Hapalochlaena).

Authors:  Brooke L Whitelaw; Ira R Cooke; Julian Finn; Kyall Zenger; J M Strugnell
Journal:  Aquat Toxicol       Date:  2018-10-24       Impact factor: 4.964

3.  Interacting amino acid replacements allow poison frogs to evolve epibatidine resistance.

Authors:  Rebecca D Tarvin; Cecilia M Borghese; Wiebke Sachs; Juan C Santos; Ying Lu; Lauren A O'Connell; David C Cannatella; R Adron Harris; Harold H Zakon
Journal:  Science       Date:  2017-09-22       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Response of Drosophila melanogaster to selection for P450-mediated resistance to isoquinoline alkaloids.

Authors:  J C Fogleman
Journal:  Chem Biol Interact       Date:  2000-03-01       Impact factor: 5.192

5.  Target-site resistance to neonicotinoids.

Authors:  Andrew J Crossthwaite; Stefano Rendine; Marco Stenta; Russell Slater
Journal:  J Chem Biol       Date:  2014-07-17

6.  Trade-offs between cost of ingestion and rate of intake drive defensive toxin use.

Authors:  Tyler E Douglas; Sofia G Beskid; Callie E Gernand; Brianna E Nirtaut; Kristen E Tamsil; Richard W Fitch; Rebecca D Tarvin
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2022-02-09       Impact factor: 3.703

7.  Lifespan and reproduction in Drosophila: New insights from nutritional geometry.

Authors:  Kwang Pum Lee; Stephen J Simpson; Fiona J Clissold; Robert Brooks; J William O Ballard; Phil W Taylor; Nazaneen Soran; David Raubenheimer
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2008-02-11       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Genetic dissection of a model complex trait using the Drosophila Synthetic Population Resource.

Authors:  Elizabeth G King; Chris M Merkes; Casey L McNeil; Steven R Hoofer; Saunak Sen; Karl W Broman; Anthony D Long; Stuart J Macdonald
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2012-04-10       Impact factor: 9.043

9.  Does Drosophila sechellia escape parasitoid attack by feeding on a toxic resource?

Authors:  Laura Salazar-Jaramillo; Bregje Wertheim
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2021-01-06       Impact factor: 2.984

10.  Identifying Loci Contributing to Natural Variation in Xenobiotic Resistance in Drosophila.

Authors:  Michael A Najarro; Jennifer L Hackett; Brittny R Smith; Chad A Highfill; Elizabeth G King; Anthony D Long; Stuart J Macdonald
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2015-11-30       Impact factor: 5.917

View more
  2 in total

1.  Trade-offs between cost of ingestion and rate of intake drive defensive toxin use.

Authors:  Tyler E Douglas; Sofia G Beskid; Callie E Gernand; Brianna E Nirtaut; Kristen E Tamsil; Richard W Fitch; Rebecca D Tarvin
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2022-02-09       Impact factor: 3.703

Review 2.  Defence mitigation by predators of chemically defended prey integrated over the predation sequence and across biological levels with a focus on cardiotonic steroids.

Authors:  Shabnam Mohammadi; Lu Yang; Matthew Bulbert; Hannah M Rowland
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2022-09-07       Impact factor: 3.653

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.