Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20820890›Full record

ArticleJournal of chemical ecology2010

Molecular, biochemical, and organismal analyses of tomato plants simultaneously attacked by herbivores from two feeding guilds.

Cesar R Rodriguez-Saona, Richard O Musser, Heiko Vogel, Sue M Hum-Musser, Jennifer S Thaler

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of chemical ecology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
14.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

61 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 144 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Tomato Aphid (International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Cesar R Rodriguez-SaonaDepartment of Entomology, Philip E. Marucci Center for Blueberry and Cranberry Research & Extension, Rutgers University, Chatsworth, NJ 08019, USA. crodriguez@aesop.rutgers.edu
Richard O Musser
Heiko Vogel
Sue M Hum-Musser
Jennifer S Thaler
Western Illinois University · USCornell University · USMax Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology · DERutgers, The State University of New Jersey · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous work identified aphids and caterpillars as having distinct effects on plant responses to herbivory. We sought to decipher these interactions across different levels of biological organization, i.e., molecular, biochemical, and organismal, with tomato plants either damaged by one 3rd-instar beet armyworm caterpillar (Spodoptera exigua), damaged by 40 adult potato aphids (Macrosiphum euphorbiae), simultaneous damaged by both herbivores, or left undamaged (controls). After placing insects on plants, plants were transferred to a growth chamber for 5 d to induce a systemic response. Subsequently, individual leaflets from non-damaged parts of plants were excised and used for gene expression analysis (microarrays and quantitative real-time PCR), C/N analysis, total protein analysis, proteinase inhibitor (PI) analysis, and for performance assays. At the molecular level, caterpillars up-regulated 56 and down-regulated 29 genes systemically, while aphids up-regulated 93 and down-regulated 146 genes, compared to controls. Although aphids induced more genes than caterpillars, the magnitude of caterpillar-induced gene accumulation, particularly for those associated with plant defenses, was often greater. In dual-damaged plants, aphids suppressed 27% of the genes regulated by caterpillars, while caterpillars suppressed 66% of the genes regulated by aphids. At the biochemical level, caterpillars induced three-fold higher PI activity compared to controls, while aphids had no effects on PIs either alone or when paired with caterpillars. Aphid feeding alone reduced the foliar C/N ratio, but not when caterpillars also fed on the plants. Aphid and caterpillar feeding alone had no effect on the amount of protein in systemic leaves; however, both herbivores feeding on the plant reduced the amount of protein compared to aphid-damaged plants. At the organismal level, S. exigua neonate performance was negatively affected by prior caterpillar feeding, regardless of whether aphids were present or absent. This study highlights areas of concordance and disjunction between molecular, biochemical, and organismal measures of induced plant resistance when plants are attacked by multiple herbivores. In general, our data produced consistent results when considering each herbivore separately but not when considering them together.

Indexed as

AnimalsAphidsCarbonCyclopentanesFeeding BehaviorGene Expression Regulation, PlantMicroarray AnalysisNitrogenOxylipinsPlant LeavesProtease InhibitorsReverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain ReactionSalicylic AcidSolanum lycopersicumSpodopteraCarbonCyclopentanesjasmonic acidNitrogenOxylipinsProtease InhibitorsSalicylic Acid

Identifiers

PMID20820890
OpenAlexW2147113374

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.