The TASTY Locus on Chromosome 1 of Arabidopsis Affects Feeding of the Insect Herbivore Trichoplusia Ni

Overview

Journal Plant Physiol

Specialty Physiology

Date 2001 Jun 13

PMID 11402216

Citations 38

Authors

G Jander

J Cui

B Nhan

N E Pierce

F M Ausubel

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The generalist insect herbivore Trichoplusia ni (cabbage looper) readily consumes Arabidopsis and can complete its entire life cycle on this plant. Natural isolates (ecotypes) of Arabidopsis are not equally susceptible to T. ni feeding. While some are hardly touched by T. ni, others are eaten completely to the ground. Comparison of two commonly studied Arabidopsis ecotypes in choice experiments showed that Columbia is considerably more resistant than Landsberg erecta. In no-choice experiments, where larvae were confined on one or the other ecotype, weight gain was more rapid on Landsberg erecta than on Columbia. Genetic mapping of this difference in insect susceptibility using recombinant inbred lines resulted in the discovery of the TASTY locus near 85 cM on chromosome 1 of Arabidopsis. The resistant allele of this locus is in the Columbia ecotype, and an F(1) hybrid has a sensitive phenotype that is similar to that of Landsberg erecta. The TASTY locus is distinct from known genetic differences between Columbia and Landsberg erecta that affect glucosinolate content, trichome density, disease resistance, and flowering time.

Citing Articles

Exchange of Microbiomes in Plant-Insect Herbivore Interactions.

Pirttila A, Brusila V, Koskimaki J, Wali P, Ruotsalainen A, Mutanen M mBio. 2023; 14(2):e0321022.

PMID: 36880763 PMC: 10127587. DOI: 10.1128/mbio.03210-22.

The Circadian Clock in Lepidoptera.

Brady D, Saviane A, Cappellozza S, Sandrelli F Front Physiol. 2021; 12:776826.

PMID: 34867483 PMC: 8635995. DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2021.776826.

Genetic variation, environment and demography intersect to shape Arabidopsis defense metabolite variation across Europe.

Katz E, Li J, Jaegle B, Ashkenazy H, Abrahams S, Bagaza C Elife. 2021; 10.

PMID: 33949309 PMC: 8205490. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.67784.

Plant resistance towards insect herbivores: a dynamic interaction.

Gatehouse J New Phytol. 2021; 156(2):145-169.

PMID: 33873279 DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-8137.2002.00519.x.

Transcriptional Variation in Glucosinolate Biosynthetic Genes and Inducible Responses to Aphid Herbivory on Field-Grown .

Sato Y, Tezuka A, Kashima M, Deguchi A, Shimizu-Inatsugi R, Yamazaki M Front Genet. 2019; 10:787.

PMID: 31572432 PMC: 6749069. DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2019.00787.

References

Kunkel B . A useful weed put to work: genetic analysis of disease resistance in Arabidopsis thaliana. Trends Genet. 1996; 12(2):63-9. DOI: 10.1016/0168-9525(96)81402-8. View

Alonso-Blanco C, Koornneef M . Naturally occurring variation in Arabidopsis: an underexploited resource for plant genetics. Trends Plant Sci. 2000; 5(1):22-9. DOI: 10.1016/s1360-1385(99)01510-1. View

Kearsey M, Farquhar A . QTL analysis in plants; where are we now?. Heredity (Edinb). 1998; 80 ( Pt 2):137-42. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2540.1998.00500.x. View

Broadway R, Colvin A . Influence of cabbage proteinase inhibitorsin situ on the growth of larvalTrichoplusia ni andPieris rapae. J Chem Ecol. 2013; 18(7):1009-24. DOI: 10.1007/BF00980059. View

Larkin J, Young N, Prigge M, Marks M . The control of trichome spacing and number in Arabidopsis. Development. 1996; 122(3):997-1005. DOI: 10.1242/dev.122.3.997. View

Churchill G, Doerge R . Empirical threshold values for quantitative trait mapping. Genetics. 1994; 138(3):963-71. PMC: 1206241. DOI: 10.1093/genetics/138.3.963. View

Reymond P, Weber H, Damond M, Farmer E . Differential gene expression in response to mechanical wounding and insect feeding in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell. 2000; 12(5):707-20. PMC: 139922. DOI: 10.1105/tpc.12.5.707. View

Mitchell-Olds T . GENETIC CONSTRAINTS ON LIFE-HISTORY EVOLUTION: QUANTITATIVE-TRAIT LOCI INFLUENCING GROWTH AND FLOWERING IN ARABIDOPSIS THALIANA. Evolution. 2017; 50(1):140-145. DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1996.tb04480.x. View

Jansen R, van Ooijen J, Stam P, Lister C, Dean C . Genotype-by-environment interaction in genetic mapping of multiple quantitative trait loci. Theor Appl Genet. 2013; 91(1):33-7. DOI: 10.1007/BF00220855. View

10.

Haughn G, Davin L, Giblin M, Underhill E . Biochemical Genetics of Plant Secondary Metabolites in Arabidopsis thaliana: The Glucosinolates. Plant Physiol. 1991; 97(1):217-26. PMC: 1080987. DOI: 10.1104/pp.97.1.217. View

11.

Mauricio R . Costs of resistance to natural enemies in field populations of the annual plant Arabidopsis thaliana. Am Nat. 2008; 151(1):20-8. DOI: 10.1086/286099. View

12.

. Analysis of the genome sequence of the flowering plant Arabidopsis thaliana. Nature. 2000; 408(6814):796-815. DOI: 10.1038/35048692. View

13.

Khan Z, Ciepiela A, Norris D . Behavioral and physiological responses of cabbage looper,Trichoplusia ni (Hübner), to steam distillates from resistant versus susceptible soybean plants. J Chem Ecol. 2013; 13(8):1903-15. DOI: 10.1007/BF01013239. View

14.

Buell C, Somerville S . Use of Arabidopsis recombinant inbred lines reveals a monogenic and a novel digenic resistance mechanism to Xanthomonas campestris pv campestris. Plant J. 1997; 12(1):21-9. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-313x.1997.12010021.x. View

15.

Liu Y, Mitsukawa N, Lister C, Dean C, Whittier R . Isolation and mapping of a new set of 129 RFLP markers in Arabidopsis thaliana using recombinant inbred lines. Plant J. 1996; 10(4):733-6. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-313x.1996.10040733.x. View

16.

Rashotte A, Jenks M, Nguyen T, Feldmann K . Epicuticular wax variation in ecotypes of Arabidopsis thaliana. Phytochemistry. 1997; 45(2):251-5. DOI: 10.1016/s0031-9422(96)00792-3. View

17.

Innan H, Terauchi R, Miyashita N . Microsatellite polymorphism in natural populations of the wild plant Arabidopsis thaliana. Genetics. 1997; 146(4):1441-52. PMC: 1208087. DOI: 10.1093/genetics/146.4.1441. View

18.

Tanksley S . Mapping polygenes. Annu Rev Genet. 1993; 27:205-33. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.ge.27.120193.001225. View

19.

Kahl J, Siemens D, Aerts R, Gabler R, Kuhnemann F, Preston C . Herbivore-induced ethylene suppresses a direct defense but not a putative indirect defense against an adapted herbivore. Planta. 2000; 210(2):336-42. DOI: 10.1007/PL00008142. View

20.

Stotz H, Pittendrigh B, Kroymann J, Weniger K, Fritsche J, Bauke A . Induced plant defense responses against chewing insects. Ethylene signaling reduces resistance of Arabidopsis against Egyptian cotton worm but not diamondback moth. Plant Physiol. 2000; 124(3):1007-18. PMC: 59200. DOI: 10.1104/pp.124.3.1007. View