Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30236059›Full record

ArticleBMC evolutionary biology2018

Transcriptomic response of female adult moths to host and non-host plants in two closely related species.

M Orsucci, P Audiot, S Nidelet, F Dorkeld, A Pommier, M Vabre, D Severac, M Rohmer, B Gschloessl, R Streiff

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC evolutionary biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

M OrsucciCBGP, INRA, CIRAD, IRD, Montpellier SupAgro, Univ Montpellier, Montpellier, France. marion.orsucci@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-8516-1361
P AudiotCBGP, INRA, CIRAD, IRD, Montpellier SupAgro, Univ Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
S NideletCBGP, INRA, CIRAD, IRD, Montpellier SupAgro, Univ Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
F DorkeldCBGP, INRA, CIRAD, IRD, Montpellier SupAgro, Univ Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
A PommierCBGP, INRA, CIRAD, IRD, Montpellier SupAgro, Univ Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
M VabreDIASCOPE, INRA, Mauguio, France.
D SeveracMGX-Montpellier GenomiX, c/o Institut de Génomique Fonctionnelle, 34094, Montpellier Cedex 5, France.
M RohmerMGX-Montpellier GenomiX, c/o Institut de Génomique Fonctionnelle, 34094, Montpellier Cedex 5, France.
B GschloesslCBGP, INRA, CIRAD, IRD, Montpellier SupAgro, Univ Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
R StreiffCBGP, INRA, CIRAD, IRD, Montpellier SupAgro, Univ Montpellier, Montpellier, France. rejane.streiff@inra.fr.
Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement · FRMontpellier GenomiX · FRUppsala University · SE

Funding

Agence Nationale de la Recherche (FR) ANR-13-BSV7-0012-01Université de Montpellier PhD grant
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDivergent selection has been shown to promote speciation in many taxa and especially in phytophagous insects. In the Ostrinia species complex, the European corn borer (ECB) and adzuki bean borer (ABB) are two sibling species specialized to different host plants. The first is a well-known maize pest, whereas the second is a polyphagous species associated with various dicotyledons. Their specialization to host plants is driven by morphological, behavioral and physiological adaptations. In particular, previous studies have shown that ECB and ABB display marked behavior with regard to plant choice during oviposition, involving specific preference and avoidance mechanisms. In this study, our goal was to identify the mechanisms underlying this host-plant specialization in adult females through an analysis of their gene expression. We assembled and annotated a de novo reference transcriptome and measured differences in gene expression between ECB and ABB females, and between environments. We related differentially expressed genes to host preference behavior, and highlighted the functional categories involved. We also conducted a specific analysis of chemosensory genes, which are considered to be good candidates for host recognition before oviposition.

resultsWe recorded more differentially expressed genes in ECB than in ABB samples, and noticed that the majority of genes potentially involved in the host preference were different between the two species. At the functional level, the response to plant environment in adult females involved many processes, including the metabolism of carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, and amino acids; detoxification mechanisms and immunity; and the chemosensory repertoire (as expected). Until now, most of the olfactory receptors described in Ostrinia spp. had been tested for their putative role in pheromone recognition by males. Here we observed that one specific olfactory receptor was clearly associated with ECB's discrimination between maize and mugwort conditions, highlighting a potential new candidate involved in plant odor discrimination in adult females.

conclusionsOur results are a first step toward the identification of candidate genes and functions involved in chemosensory processes, carbohydrate metabolism, and virus and retrovirus dynamics. These candidates provide new avenues for research into understanding the role of divergent selection between different environments in species diversification.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PhysiologicalAnimalsFemaleGene Expression ProfilingLinear ModelsMaleMolecular Sequence AnnotationMothsPlantsPrincipal Component AnalysisSpecies SpecificityTranscriptomeAdaptationInsect-plant interactionOvipositionSpecializationTranscriptomics

Identifiers

PMID30236059
PMCPMC6148789
OpenAlexW2890646541

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.