Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38369495›Full record

ArticleBMC plant biology2024

Contrasting plant transcriptome responses between a pierce-sucking and a chewing herbivore go beyond the infestation site.

Álvaro Montesinos, Soledad Sacristán, Palmira Del Prado-Polonio, Ana Arnaiz, Sandra Díaz-González, Isabel Diaz, M Estrella Santamaria

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC plant biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Álvaro MontesinosCentro de Biotecnología y Genómica de Plantas, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) - Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA/CSIC) Campus de Montegancedo, Pozuelo de Alarcón, 28223, Madrid, Spain.
Soledad SacristánCentro de Biotecnología y Genómica de Plantas, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) - Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA/CSIC) Campus de Montegancedo, Pozuelo de Alarcón, 28223, Madrid, Spain.
Palmira Del Prado-PolonioCentro de Biotecnología y Genómica de Plantas, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) - Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA/CSIC) Campus de Montegancedo, Pozuelo de Alarcón, 28223, Madrid, Spain.
Ana ArnaizCentro de Biotecnología y Genómica de Plantas, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) - Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA/CSIC) Campus de Montegancedo, Pozuelo de Alarcón, 28223, Madrid, Spain.
Sandra Díaz-GonzálezCentro de Biotecnología y Genómica de Plantas, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) - Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA/CSIC) Campus de Montegancedo, Pozuelo de Alarcón, 28223, Madrid, Spain.
Isabel DiazCentro de Biotecnología y Genómica de Plantas, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) - Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA/CSIC) Campus de Montegancedo, Pozuelo de Alarcón, 28223, Madrid, Spain.
M Estrella SantamariaCentro de Biotecnología y Genómica de Plantas, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) - Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA/CSIC) Campus de Montegancedo, Pozuelo de Alarcón, 28223, Madrid, Spain. me.santamaria@upm.es.
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid · ESInstituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria · ESCentre for Plant Biotechnology and Genomics · ESUniversidad de Zaragoza · ES

Funding

Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación PID2020-112756RA-I00Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad BFU2015-72484-EXPUniversidad de Zaragoza MARGARITA SALASUniversidad Politécnica de Madrid MARGARITA SALAS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPlants have acquired a repertoire of mechanisms to combat biotic stressors, which may vary depending on the feeding strategies of herbivores and the plant species. Hormonal regulation crucially modulates this malleable defense response. Jasmonic acid (JA) and salicylic acid (SA) stand out as pivotal regulators of defense, while other hormones like abscisic acid (ABA), ethylene (ET), gibberellic acid (GA) or auxin also play a role in modulating plant-pest interactions. The plant defense response has been described to elicit effects in distal tissues, whereby aboveground herbivory can influence belowground response, and vice versa. This impact on distal tissues may be contingent upon the feeding guild, even affecting both the recovery of infested tissues and those that have not suffered active infestation.

resultsTo study how phytophagous with distinct feeding strategies may differently trigger the plant defense response during and after infestation in both infested and distal tissues, Arabidopsis thaliana L. rosettes were infested separately with the chewing herbivore Pieris brassicae L. and the piercing-sucker Tetranychus urticae Koch. Moderate infestation conditions were selected for both pests, though no quantitative control of damage levels was carried out. Feeding mode did distinctly influence the transcriptomic response of the plant under these conditions. Though overall affected processes were similar under either infestation, their magnitude differed significantly. Plants infested with P. brassicae exhibited a short-term response, involving stress-related genes, JA and ABA regulation and suppressing growth-related genes. In contrast, T. urticae elicited a longer transcriptomic response in plants, albeit with a lower degree of differential expression, in particular influencing SA regulation. These distinct defense responses transcended beyond infestation and through the roots, where hormonal response, flavonoid regulation or cell wall reorganization were differentially affected.

conclusionThese outcomes confirm that the existent divergent transcriptomic responses elicited by herbivores employing distinct feeding strategies possess the capacity to extend beyond infestation and even affect tissues that have not been directly infested. This remarks the importance of considering the entire plant's response to localized biotic stresses.

Indexed as

ArabidopsisButterfliesAbscisic AcidAnimalsCyclopentanesGene Expression Regulation, PlantHerbivoryMasticationTranscriptomeAbscisic AcidCyclopentanesArabidopsis thalianaLeavesPhytophagous infestationPieris brassicaeRootsTetranychus urticae

Identifiers

PMID38369495
PMCPMC10875829
OpenAlexW4391928835

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.