Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32232572›Full record

ArticlePlanta2020

Oral cues are not enough: induction of defensive proteins in Nicotiana tabacum upon feeding by caterpillars.

Po-An Lin, Gary W Felton

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Planta, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Po-An LinDepartment of Entomology, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA, USA. pbl5066@psu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3290-1394
Gary W FeltonDepartment of Entomology, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1076-1431
Pennsylvania State University · US

Funding

Advanced Centre of Research in High Energy Materials, University of Hyderabad (IN) PEN04576Sigma Xi Grants-in-Aid of ResearchU.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (US) 2017-67013-26596
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

MAIN

conclusionThe study challenges the general belief that plants are highly sensitive to oral cues of herbivores and reveals the role of the damage level on the magnitude of defense induction. Many leaf-feeding caterpillars share similar feeding behaviors involving repeated removal of previously wounded leaf tissue (semicircle feeding pattern). We hypothesized that this behavior is a strategy to attenuate plant-induced defenses by removing both the oral cues and tissues that detect it. Using tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) and the tobacco hornworm (Manduca sexta), we found that tobacco increased defensive responses during herbivory compared to mechanical wounding at moderate damage levels (30%). However, tobacco did not differentiate between mechanical wounding and herbivory when the level of leaf tissue loss was either small (4%) or severe (100%, whole leaf removal). Higher amounts of oral cues did not induce higher defenses when damage was small. Severe damage led to the highest level of systemic defense proteins compared to other levels of leaf tissue loss with or without oral cues. In conclusion, we did not find clear evidence that semicircle feeding behavior compromises plant defense induction. In addition, the level of leaf tissue loss and oral cues interact to determine the level of induced defensive responses in tobacco. Although oral cues play an important role in inducing defensive proteins, the level of induction depends more on the level of leaf tissue loss in tobacco.

Indexed as

CuesAnimalsFeeding BehaviorHerbivoryHost-Parasite InteractionsLarvaManducaMothsNicotianaPlant LeavesPlant ProteinsProtease InhibitorsWounds and InjuriesPlant ProteinsProtease InhibitorsDamage levelFeeding behaviorHerbivoryInduced defense

Identifiers

PMID32232572
OpenAlexW3013797308

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.