Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25299618›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Chemical defense balanced by sequestration and de novo biosynthesis in a lepidopteran specialist.

Joel Fürstenberg-Hägg, Mika Zagrobelny, Kirsten Jørgensen, Heiko Vogel, Birger Lindberg Møller, Søren Bak

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. New genes from old: asymmetric divergence of gene duplicates and the evolution of development.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2017
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Joel Fürstenberg-HäggPlant Biochemistry Laboratory, Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Copenhagen Plant Science Centre, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; VILLUM Research Center "Plant Plasticity", Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Mika ZagrobelnyPlant Biochemistry Laboratory, Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Copenhagen Plant Science Centre, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; VILLUM Research Center "Plant Plasticity", Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Kirsten JørgensenPlant Biochemistry Laboratory, Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Copenhagen Plant Science Centre, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; VILLUM Research Center "Plant Plasticity", Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Heiko VogelDepartment of Entomology, Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, Jena, Germany.
Birger Lindberg MøllerPlant Biochemistry Laboratory, Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Copenhagen Plant Science Centre, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; VILLUM Research Center "Plant Plasticity", Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Søren BakPlant Biochemistry Laboratory, Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Copenhagen Plant Science Centre, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; VILLUM Research Center "Plant Plasticity", Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
University of Copenhagen · DKMax Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The evolution of sequestration (uptake and accumulation) relative to de novo biosynthesis of chemical defense compounds is poorly understood, as is the interplay between these two strategies. The Burnet moth Zygaena filipendulae (Lepidoptera) and its food-plant Lotus corniculatus (Fabaceae) poses an exemplary case study of these questions, as Z. filipendulae belongs to the only insect family known to both de novo biosynthesize and sequester the same defense compounds directly from its food-plant. Z. filipendulae and L. corniculatus both contain the two cyanogenic glucosides linamarin and lotaustralin, which are defense compounds that can be hydrolyzed to liberate toxic hydrogen cyanide. The overall amounts and ratios of linamarin and lotaustralin in Z. filipendulae are tightly regulated, and only to a low extent reflect the ratio in the ingested food-plant. We demonstrate that Z. filipendulae adjusts the de novo biosynthesis of CNglcs by regulation at both the transcriptional and protein level depending on food plant composition. Ultimately this ensures that the larva saves energy and nitrogen while maintaining an effective defense system to fend off predators. By using in situ PCR and immunolocalization, the biosynthetic pathway was resolved to the larval fat body and integument, which infers rapid replenishment of defense compounds following an encounter with a predator. Our study supports the hypothesis that de novo biosynthesis of CNglcs in Z. filipendulae preceded the ability to sequester, and facilitated a food-plant switch to cyanogenic plants, after which sequestration could evolve. Preservation of de novo biosynthesis allows fine-tuning of the amount and composition of CNglcs in Z. filipendulae.

Indexed as

AnimalsFabaceaeGlucosidesGlycosidesLarvaLepidopteraLotusMothsNitrilesGlucosidesGlycosideslinamarinlotaustralinNitriles

Identifiers

PMID25299618
PMCPMC4191964
OpenAlexW2112798245

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.