» Articles » PMID: 35135316

Trade-offs Between Cost of Ingestion and Rate of Intake Drive Defensive Toxin Use

Overview
Journal Biol Lett
Specialty Biology
Date 2022 Feb 9
PMID 35135316
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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 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 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.

Citing Articles

Passive accumulation of alkaloids in inconspicuously colored frogs refines the evolutionary paradigm of acquired chemical defenses.

Tarvin R, Coleman J, Donoso D, Betancourth-Cundar M, Lopez-Hervas K, Gleason K Elife. 2024; 13.

PMID: 39728927 PMC: 11677230. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.100011.


Where Does All the Poison Go? Investigating Toxicokinetics of Newt (Taricha) Tetrodotoxin (TTX) in Garter Snakes (Thamnophis).

Robinson K, Moniz H, Stokes A, Feldman C J Chem Ecol. 2024; 50(9-10):489-502.

PMID: 38842636 DOI: 10.1007/s10886-024-01517-7.


Passive accumulation of alkaloids in inconspicuously colored frogs refines the evolutionary paradigm of acquired chemical defenses.

Tarvin R, Coleman J, Donoso D, Betancourth-Cundar M, Lopez-Hervas K, Gleason K bioRxiv. 2024; .

PMID: 38798461 PMC: 11118485. DOI: 10.1101/2024.05.13.593697.


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

Mohammadi S, Yang L, Bulbert M, Rowland H R Soc Open Sci. 2022; 9(9):220363.

PMID: 36133149 PMC: 9449480. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.220363.


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

Douglas T, Beskid S, Gernand C, Nirtaut B, Tamsil K, Fitch R Biol Lett. 2022; 18(2):20210579.

PMID: 35135316 PMC: 8826133. DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2021.0579.

References
1.
Salazar-Jaramillo L, Wertheim B . Does escape parasitoid attack by feeding on a toxic resource?. PeerJ. 2021; 9:e10528. PMC: 7796662. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10528. View

2.
Tarvin R, Borghese C, Sachs W, Santos J, Lu Y, OConnell L . Interacting amino acid replacements allow poison frogs to evolve epibatidine resistance. Science. 2017; 357(6357):1261-1266. PMC: 5834227. DOI: 10.1126/science.aan5061. View

3.
Crossthwaite A, Rendine S, Stenta M, Slater R . Target-site resistance to neonicotinoids. J Chem Biol. 2014; 7(4):125-8. PMC: 4182339. DOI: 10.1007/s12154-014-0116-y. View

4.
King E, Merkes C, McNeil C, Hoofer S, Sen S, Broman K . Genetic dissection of a model complex trait using the Drosophila Synthetic Population Resource. Genome Res. 2012; 22(8):1558-66. PMC: 3409269. DOI: 10.1101/gr.134031.111. View

5.
Snyder M, Glendinning J . Causal connection between detoxification enzyme activity and consumption of a toxic plant compound. J Comp Physiol A. 1996; 179(2):255-61. DOI: 10.1007/BF00222792. View