Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25403155›Full record

ArticleBMC biology2014

Defense suppression benefits herbivores that have a monopoly on their feeding site but can backfire within natural communities.

Joris J Glas, Juan M Alba, Sauro Simoni, Carlos A Villarroel, Marije Stoops, Bernardus Cj Schimmel, Robert C Schuurink, Maurice W Sabelis, Merijn R Kant

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC biology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
8.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 87 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Ecology and evolution · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Distinct Signatures of Host Defense Suppression by Plant-Feeding Mites.International journal of molecular sciences · 2018
    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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Joris J GlasDepartment of Population Biology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, Netherlands. j.j.glas@uva.nl.
Juan M AlbaDepartment of Population Biology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, Netherlands. J.M.AlbaCano@uva.nl.
Sauro SimoniCRA-ABP Consiglio per la Ricerca e la Sperimentazione in Agricoltura - Research, Centre for Agrobiology and Pedology, via Lanciola 12/a, 50125, Florence, Italy. sauro.simoni@entecra.it.
Carlos A VillarroelDepartment of Plant Physiology, Swammerdam Institute for Life Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, Netherlands. C.A.VillarroelFigueroa@uva.nl.
Marije StoopsDepartment of Population Biology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, Netherlands. marijestoops@gmail.com.
Bernardus Cj SchimmelDepartment of Population Biology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, Netherlands. B.C.J.Schimmel@uva.nl.
Robert C SchuurinkDepartment of Plant Physiology, Swammerdam Institute for Life Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, Netherlands. R.C.Schuurink@uva.nl.
Maurice W SabelisDepartment of Population Biology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, Netherlands. M.W.Sabelis@uva.nl.
Merijn R KantDepartment of Population Biology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH, Amsterdam, Netherlands. M.Kant@uva.nl.
University of Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPlants have inducible defenses to combat attacking organisms. Hence, some herbivores have adapted to suppress these defenses. Suppression of plant defenses has been shown to benefit herbivores by boosting their growth and reproductive performance.

resultsWe observed in field-grown tomatoes that spider mites (Tetranychus urticae) establish larger colonies on plants already infested with the tomato russet mite (Aculops lycopersici). Using laboratory assays, we observed that spider mites have a much higher reproductive performance on russet mite-infested plants, similar to their performance on the jasmonic acid (JA)-biosynthesis mutant def-1. Hence, we tested if russet mites suppress JA-responses thereby facilitating spider mites. We found that russet mites manipulate defenses: they induce those mediated by salicylic acid (SA) but suppress those mediated by JA which would otherwise hinder growth. This suppression of JA-defenses occurs downstream of JA-accumulation and is independent from its natural antagonist SA. In contrast, spider mites induced both JA- and SA-responses while plants infested with the two mite species together display strongly reduced JA-responses, yet a doubled SA-response. The spider mite-induced JA-response in the presence of russet mites was restored on transgenic tomatoes unable to accumulate SA (nahG), but russet mites alone still did not induce JA-responses on nahG plants. Thus, indirect facilitation of spider mites by russet mites depends on the antagonistic action of SA on JA while suppression of JA-defenses by russet mites does not. Furthermore, russet mite-induced SA-responses inhibited secondary infection by Pseudomonas syringae (Pst) while not affecting the mite itself. Finally, while facilitating spider mites, russet mites experience reduced population growth.

conclusionsOur results show that the benefits of suppressing plant defenses may diminish within communities with natural competitors. We show that suppression of defenses via the JA-SA antagonism can be a consequence, rather than the cause, of a primary suppression event and that its overall effect is determined by the presence of competing herbivores and the distinct palette of defenses these induce. Thus, whether or not host-defense manipulation improves an herbivore's fitness depends on interactions with other herbivores via induced-host defenses, implicating bidirectional causation of community structure of herbivores sharing a plant.

Indexed as

HerbivoryTetranychidaeAnimalsCyclopentanesGene Expression Regulation, PlantOxylipinsPlant Growth RegulatorsPlant LeavesPlants, Genetically ModifiedSalicylic AcidSolanum lycopersicumCyclopentanesjasmonic acidOxylipinsPlant Growth RegulatorsSalicylic Acid

Identifiers

PMID25403155
PMCPMC4258945
OpenAlexW2041614872

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.