AI Chat Paper
Note: Please note that the following content is generated by AMiner AI. SciOpen does not take any responsibility related to this content.
{{lang === 'zh_CN' ? '文章概述' : 'Summary'}}
{{lang === 'en_US' ? '中' : 'Eng'}}
Chat more with AI
PDF (1.2 MB)
Collect
Submit Manuscript AI Chat Paper
Show Outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Research paper | Open Access

Laboratory testing and molecular analysis of the resistance of wild and cultivated soybeans to cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner)

Xiaoyi WangHaifeng ChenAihua ShaRong ZhouZhihui ShangXiaojuan ZhangChanjuan ZhangLimiao ChenQingnan HaoZhonglu YangDezhen QiuShuilian ChenXinan Zhou( )
Department of Soybean, Oil Crops Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Wuhan 430062, China

Peer review under responsibility of Crop Science Society of China and Institute of Crop Science, CAAS.

Show Author Information

Abstract

Identifying a superior soybean variety with high defoliator resistance is important to avoid yield loss. Cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera Hübner) is one of the major defoliators of soybean (Glycine max [L.] Merr.) worldwide. In this study, we evaluated the effect of H. armigera larvae on ED059, a wild soybean (Glycine soja Sieb. et Zucc.), and three cultivated soybean varieties: Tianlong 2, PI 535807, and PI 533604, in choice and no-choice assays. The percentage of ED059 leaflets consumed by H. armigera was lower than that of the three cultivated soybeans. Larvae that fed on ED059 exhibited low weight gain and high mortality rate. Waldbauer nutritional indices suggested that ED059 reduced the growth, consumption, and frass production of H. armigera larvae. Larvae that fed on ED059 showed lower efficiency of conversion of ingested and of digested food than those that fed on Tianlong 2 and PI 533604. However, they showed statistically similar consumption index and approximate digestibility compared with those fed on the three cultivated soybeans. Quantitative real-time PCR analysis revealed that 24 h after insect attack, ED059 had higher transcript levels of Kunitz trypsin inhibitor 3, Cysteine proteinase inhibitor 2, and Nerolidol synthase 1 but a lower transcript level of Pathogenesis-related protein 1 than Tianlong 2. The gene expression results were consistent with the presence of higher levels of jasmonic acid (JA) and transcript levels of the JA biosynthesis enzyme allene oxide cyclase 3 in ED059 than in Tianlong 2. Our findings indicate that ED059 is a superior soybean line with strong insect resistance that may be mediated via the JA pathway.

References

[1]

A. Farid, Study of bollworm Heliothis armigera (Hub.) on tomato in Jyroft and Kahnuj, Appl. Entomol. Phytopathol. 54 (1986) 15–24.

[2]

B. Naseri, Y. Fathipour, S. Moharramipour, V. Hosseininaveh, Comparative life history and fecundity of Helicoverpa amigera (Hub.) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on different soybean varieties, Entomol Sci. 12 (2009) 147–154.

[3]

G. Bowers Jr., Registration of crockett soybean, Crop Sci. 30 (1990) 427.

[4]

E. Hartwig, L. Lambert, T. Kilen, Registration of Lamar soybean, Crop Sci. 30 (1990) 231.

[5]

H.U. Stotz, T. Koch, A. Biedermann, K. Weniger, W. Boland, T. Mitchell-Olds, Evidence for regulation of resistance in Arabidopsis to Egyptian cotton worm by salicylic and jasmonic acid signaling pathways, Planta 214 (2002) 648–652.

[6]

I. Mewis, H.M. Appel, A. Hom, R. Raina, J.C. Schultz, Major signaling pathways modulate Arabidopsis glucosinolate accumulation and response to both phloem-feeding and chewing insects, Plant Physiol. 138 (2005) 1149–1162.

[7]
E. Bartlet, G. Kiddle, I. Williams, R. Wallsgrove, Wound-induced increases in the glucosinolate content of oilseed rape and their effect on subsequent herbivory by a crucifer specialist, Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Insect–Plant Relationships, 56, Springer, Netherlands, 1999, pp. 163–167.
[8]

P.J. Moran, G.A. Thompson, Molecular responses to aphid feeding in Arabidopsis in relation to plant defense pathways, Plant Physiol. 125 (2001) 1074–1085.

[9]

A. Steppuhn, K. Gase, B. Krock, R. Halitschke, I.T. Baldwin, Nicotine's defensive function in nature, PLoS Biol. 2 (2004) e217.

[10]
E.A. Bernays, R.F. Chapman, Host-Plant Selection by Phytophagous Insects, Springer, 1994.
[11]

E. Bernays, Regulation of feeding behaviour, comprehensive insect physiology, Biochem. Pharmacol. 4 (1985) 1–32.

[12]

A. Kessler, R. Halitschke, I.T. Baldwin, Silencing the jasmonate cascade: induced plant defenses and insect populations, Science 305 (2004) 665–668.

[13]

M. Kogan, E.F. Ortman, Antixenosis: a new term proposed to define painters nonpreference modality of resistance, Bull. ESA 24 (1978) 175–176.

[14]

L. Lambert, T. Kilen, Multiple insect resistance in several soybean genotypes, Crop Sci. 24 (1984) 887–890.

[15]

J. Wu, I.T. Baldwin, Herbivory-induced signalling in plants: perception and action, Plant Cell & Environ. 32 (2009) 1161–1174.

[16]
R.M. Van Poecke, Arabidopsis–insect interactions, The Arabidopsis Book/American Society of Plant Biologists, 52007. e0107.
[17]

K. Komatsu, S. Okuda, M. Takahashi, R. Matsunaga, Y. Nakazawa, QTL mapping of antibiosis resistance to common cutworm (Fabricius) in soybean, Crop Sci. 45 (2005) 2044–2048.

[18]

B. Rector, J. All, W. Parrott, H. Boerma, Identification of molecular markers linked to quantitative trait loci for soybean resistance to corn earworm, Theor. Appl. Genet. 96 (1998) 786–790.

[19]

J.M. Narvel, D.R. Walker, B.G. Rector, J.N. All, W.A. Parrott, H.R. Boerma, A retrospective DNA marker assessment of the development of insect resistant soybean, Crop Sci. 41 (2001) 1931–1939.

[20]

D. Chandrasena, C. DiFonzo, D. Wang, An assessment of Japanese beetle defoliation on aphid-resistant and aphid-susceptible soybean lines, Crop Sci. 52 (2012) 2351–2357.

[21]

C. Yesudas, H. Sharma, D. Lightfoot, Identification of QTL in soybean underlying resistance to herbivory by Japanese beetles (Popillia japonica, Newman), Theor. Appl. Genet. 121 (2010) 353–362.

[22]

R.H. Painter, Insect resistance in crop plants, Soil Sci. 72 (1951) 481.

[23]

G. Waldbauer, The consumption and utilization of food by insects, Adv. Insect Physiol. 5 (1968) 229–288.

[24]

W. Ruan, M. Lai, Actin, a reliable marker of internal control? Clin. Chim. Acta 385 (2007) 1–5.

[25]

L. Thorrez, K. Van Deun, L.C. Tranchevent, L. Van Lommel, K. Engelen, K. Marchal, Y. Moreau, I. Van Mechelen, F. Schuit, Using ribosomal protein genes as reference: a tale of caution, PLoS One 3 (2008) e1854.

[26]

J. Vandesompele, K. De Preter, F. Pattyn, B. Poppe, N. Van Roy, A. De Paepe, F. Speleman, Accurate normalization of real-time quantitative RT-PCR data by geometric averaging of multiple internal control genes, Genome Biol. 3 (2002) (research0034).

[27]

Y.H. Li, F. Wei, X.Y. Dong, J.H. Peng, S.Y. Liu, H. Chen, Simultaneous analysis of multiple endogenous plant hormones in leaf tissue of oilseed rape by solid-phase extraction coupled with high-performance liquid chromatography–electrospray ionisation tandem mass spectrometry, Phytochem. Anal. 22 (2011) 442–449.

[28]

A. Sogbesan, A. Ugwumba, Nutritional evaluation of termite (Macrotermes subhyalinus) meal as animal protein supplements in the diets of Heterobranchus longifilis (Valenciennes, 1840) fingerlings, Turk. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 8 (2008) 149–157.

[29]

P.W. Price, C.E. Bouton, P. Gross, B.A. McPheron, J.N. Thompson, A.E. Weis, Interactions among three trophic levels: influence of plants on interactions between insect herbivores and natural enemies, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 11 (1980) 41–65.

[30]

G.A. Glawe, J.A. Zavala, A. Kessler, N.M. Van Dam, I.T. Baldwin, Ecological costs and benefits correlated with trypsin protease inhibitor production in Nicotiana attenuata, Ecology 84 (2003) 79–90.

[31]

J.A. Zavala, A.G. Patankar, K. Gase, D. Hui, I.T. Baldwin, Manipulation of endogenous trypsin proteinase inhibitor production in Nicotiana attenuata demonstrates their function as antiherbivore defenses, Plant Physiol. 134 (2004) 1181–1190.

[32]

R.M. Broadway, S.S. Duffey, Plant proteinase inhibitors: Mechanism of action and effect on the growth and digestive physiology of larval Heliothis zea and Spodoptera exiqua, J. Insect Physiol. 32 (1986) 827–833.

[33]

D. Kim, K. Lee, J.B. Kim, S. Kim, J. Song, Y. Seo, B.M. Lee, S.Y. Kang, Identification of Kunitz trypsin inhibitor mutations using SNAP markers in soybean mutant lines, Theor. Appl. Genet. 121 (2010) 751–760.

[34]

O.L. Franco, S.C. Dias, C.P. Magalhaes, A. Monteiro, , F.R. Melo, O.B. Oliveira-Neto, R.G. Monnerat, M.F. Grossi-de-Sa, Effects of soybean Kunitz trypsin inhibitor on the cotton boll weevil (Anthonomus grandis), Phytochemistry 65 (2004) 81–89.

[35]

A. Aharoni, A.P. Giri, S. Deuerlein, F. Griepink, W.J. de Kogel, F.W. Verstappen, H.A. Verhoeven, M.A. Jongsma, W. Schwab, H.J. Bouwmeester, Terpenoid metabolism in wild-type and transgenic Arabidopsis plants, Plant Cell 15 (2003) 2866–2884.

[36]

I.F. Kappers, A. Aharoni, T.W. Van Herpen, L.L. Luckerhoff, M. Dicke, H.J. Bouwmeester, Genetic engineering of terpenoid metabolism attracts bodyguards to Arabidopsis, Science 309 (2005) 2070–2072.

[37]

P.E. Staswick, I. Tiryaki, The oxylipin signal jasmonic acid is activated by an enzyme that conjugates it to isoleucine in Arabidopsis, Plant Cell 16 (2004) 2117–2127.

[38]

C. Wasternack, B. Ortel, O. Miersch, R. Kramell, M. Beale, F. Greulich, I. Feussner, B. Hause, T. Krumm, W. Boland, Diversity in octadecanoid-induced gene expression of tomato, J. Plant Physiol. 152 (1998) 345–352.

[39]

F. Schaller, Enzymes of the biosynthesis of octadecanoid-derived signalling molecules, J. Exp. Bot. 52 (2001) 11–23.

[40]

Y. Reinprecht, S.Y. Luk-Labey, K. Yu, V.W. Poysa, I. Rajcan, G.R. Ablett, K.P. Pauls, Molecular basis of seed lipoxygenase null traits in soybean line OX948, Theor. Appl. Genet. 122 (2011) 1247–1264.

[41]

Q. Wu, J. Wu, H. Sun, D. Zhang, D. Yu, Sequence and expression divergence of the AOC gene family in soybean: insights into functional diversity for stress responses, Biotechnol. Lett. 33 (2011) 1351–1359.

[42]

N. Bodenhausen, P. Reymond, Signaling pathways controlling induced resistance to insect herbivores in Arabidopsis, Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 20 (2007) 1406–1420.

The Crop Journal
Pages 19-28
Cite this article:
Wang X, Chen H, Sha A, et al. Laboratory testing and molecular analysis of the resistance of wild and cultivated soybeans to cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner). The Crop Journal, 2015, 3(1): 19-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cj.2014.08.004

277

Views

3

Downloads

10

Crossref

N/A

Web of Science

9

Scopus

2

CSCD

Altmetrics

Received: 11 April 2014
Revised: 15 August 2014
Accepted: 28 September 2014
Published: 05 October 2014
© 2014 Crop Science Society of China and Institute of Crop Science, CAAS. All rights reserved.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).

Return