The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Successful herbivore attack due to metabolic diversion of a plant chemical defense
Open accessAbstract
Plants protect themselves against herbivory with a diverse array of repellent or toxic secondary metabolites. However, many herbivorous insects have developed counteradaptations that enable them to feed on chemically defended plants without apparent negative effects. Here, we present evidence that larvae of the specialist insect, Pieris rapae (cabbage white butterfly, Lepidoptera: Pieridae), are biochemically adapted to the glucosinolate–myrosinase system, the major chemical defense of their host plants. The defensive function of the glucosinolate–myrosinase system results from the toxic isothiocyanates that are released when glucosinolates are hydrolyzed by myrosinases on tissue disruption. We show that the hydrolysis reaction is redirected toward the formation of nitriles instead of isothiocyanates if plant material is ingested by P. rapae larvae, and that the nitriles are excreted with the feces. The ability to form nitriles is due to a larval gut protein, designated nitrile-specifier protein, that by itself has no hydrolytic activity on glucosinolates and that is unrelated to any functionally characterized protein. Nitrile-specifier protein appears to be the key biochemical counteradaptation that allows P. rapae to feed with impunity on plants containing glucosinolates and myrosinases. This finding sheds light on the ecology and evolution of plant–insect interactions and suggests novel highly selective pest management strategies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Mao, Y.-B., Cai, W.-J., Wang, J.-W., Hong, G.-J., Tao, X.-Y., Wang, L.-J., Huang, Y.-P., & Chen, X.-Y. (2007) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt1352 · Cited by 1,358
Plant chemistry and insect sequestration
Opitz, S. E. W., & Müller, C. (2009) · Chemoecology · doi:10.1007/s00049-009-0018-6 · Cited by 392
The cabbage aphid: a walking mustard oil bomb
Kazana, E., Pope, T. W., Tibbles, L., Bridges, M., Pickett, J. A., Bones, A. M., Powell, G., & Rossiter, J. T. (2007) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.0237 · Cited by 191
Plant–arthropod interactions: who is the winner?
Stahl, E., Hilfiker, O., & Reymond, P. (2018) · The Plant Journal · doi:10.1111/tpj.13773 · Cited by 164
Selenium-tolerant diamondback moth disarms hyperaccumulator plant defense
Freeman, J. L., Quinn, C. F., Marcus, M. A., Fakra, S., & Pilon-Smits, E. A. H. (2006) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2006.09.015 · Cited by 128
Metadata
- Authors
- Wittstock, U., Agerbirk, N., Stauber, E. J., Olsen, C. E., Hippler, M., Mitchell-Olds, T., Gershenzon, J., & Vogel, H.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2004-03-29
- Volume
- 101
- Issue
- 14
- Pages
- 4859-4864
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2065123516
- Cited by
- 516
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 25.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Successful herbivore attack due to metabolic diversion of a plant chemical defense. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0308007101
- The paper
- Wittstock, U., Agerbirk, N., Stauber, E. J., Olsen, C. E., Hippler, M., Mitchell-Olds, T., Gershenzon, J., & Vogel, H. (2004). Successful herbivore attack due to metabolic diversion of a plant chemical defense. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0308007101
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.