The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Major Signaling Pathways Modulate Arabidopsis Glucosinolate Accumulation and Response to Both Phloem-Feeding and Chewing Insects
Open accessAbstract
Plant responses to enemies are coordinated by several interacting signaling systems. Molecular and genetic studies with mutants and exogenous signal application suggest that jasmonate (JA)-, salicylate (SA)-, and ethylene (ET)-mediated pathways modulate expression of portions of the defense phenotype in Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana), but have not yet linked these observations directly with plant responses to insect attack. We compared the glucosinolate (GS) profiles of rosette leaves of 4-week-old mutant and transgenic Arabidopsis (Columbia) plants compromised in these three major signaling pathways, and characterized responses by those plants to feeding by two phloem-feeding aphids (generalist Myzus persicae and specialist Brevicoryne brassicae) and one generalist caterpillar species (Spodoptera exigua Hubner). Blocked JA signaling in coronatine-insensitive (coi1) and enhanced expression of SA-signaled disease resistance in hypersensitive response-like (hrl1) mutants reduced constitutive GS concentrations, while blocking SA signaling at the mediator protein npr1 mutant (NPR) increased them. There was no significant impact on constitutive GS contents of blocking ET signaling (at ET resistant [etr1]) or reducing SA concentrations (nahG transgene). We found increased GS accumulation in response to insect feeding, which required functional NPR1 and ETR1 but not COI1 or SA. Insect feeding caused increases primarily in short-chain aliphatic methylsulfinyl GS. By contrast, responses to exogenous JA, a frequent experimental surrogate for insect attack, were characterized by an increase in indolyl GS. Insect performance, measured as population increase or weight increase, was negatively related to GS levels, but we found evidence that other, ET-regulated factors may also be influential. Plant resistance to (consumption by) S. exigua was not related to insect growth because some plant chemistries inhibited growth while others inhibited feeding. These major signaling pathways modulate Arabidopsis GS accumulation and response to both phloem-feeding and chewing insects, often antagonistically; NPR appears to be central to these interactions. Our results indicate that exogenous signal application and plant consumption measures may not provide useful measures of plant responses to actual insect feeding.
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
Ultraviolet Radiation From a Plant Perspective: The Plant-Microorganism Context
Vanhaelewyn, L., Van Der Straeten, D., De Coninck, B., & Vandenbussche, F. (2020) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2020.597642 · Cited by 188
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Mewis, I., Appel, H. M., Hom, A., Raina, R., & Schultz, J. C.
- Venue
- Plant Physiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-05-27
- Volume
- 138
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 1149-1162
- ISSN
- 0032-0889 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-2548
- OpenAlex
- W2093492034
- Cited by
- 444
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 29.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
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.