In feeding, aphids inject saliva into plant tissues, gaining access to phloem sap and eliciting (and sometimes overcoming) plant responses. We are examining the involvement, in this aphid-plant interaction, of individual aphid proteins and enzymes, as identified in a salivary gland cDNA library. Here, we focus on a salivary protein we have arbitrarily designated Protein C002. We have shown, by using RNAi-based transcript knockdown, that this protein is important in the survival of the pea aphid (Acyrthosiphon pisum) on fava bean, a host plant. Here, we further characterize the protein, its transcript, and its gene, and we study the feeding process of knockdown aphids. The encoded protein fails to match any protein outside of the family Aphididae. By using in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry, the transcript and the protein were localized to a subset of secretory cells in principal salivary glands. Protein C002, whose sequence contains an Nterminal secretion signal, is injected into the host plant during aphid feeding. By using the electrical penetration graph method on c002-knockdown aphids, we find that the knockdown affects several aspects of foraging and feeding, with the result that the c002-knockdown aphids spend very little time in contact with phloem sap in sieve elements. Thus, we infer that Protein C002 is crucial in the feeding of the pea aphid on fava bean.aphid-plant interaction ͉ saliva ͉ RNAi ͉ electrical penetration graph ͉ immunohistochemistry T he ability, or inability, of an aphid to feed on a plant results from a multifaceted interplay between the feeding systems of the insect and the defense systems of the plant (for recent reviews, from several perspectives, of aphid-plant interactions, see refs.

No abstract

BackgroundOne of the reasons hard red winter wheat cultivar ‘Duster’ (PI 644016) is widely grown in the southern Great Plains is that it confers a consistently high level of resistance to biotype GP of Hessian fly (Hf). However, little is known about the genetic mechanism underlying Hf resistance in Duster. This study aimed to unravel complex structures of the Hf region on chromosome 1AS in wheat by using genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) markers and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers.ResultsDoubled haploid (DH) lines generated from a cross between two winter wheat cultivars, ‘Duster’ and ‘Billings’ , were used to identify genes in Duster responsible for effective and consistent resistance to Hf. Segregation in reaction of the 282 DH lines to Hf biotype GP fit a one-gene model. The DH population was genotyped using 2,358 markers developed using the GBS approach. A major QTL, explaining 88% of the total phenotypic variation, was mapped to a chromosome region that spanned 178 cM and contained 205 GBS markers plus 1 SSR marker and 1 gene marker, with 0.86 cM per marker in genetic distance. The analyses of GBS marker sequences and further mapping of SSR and gene markers enabled location of the QTL-containing linkage group on the short arm of chromosome 1A. Comparative mapping of the common markers for the gene for QHf.osu-1Ad in Duster and the Hf-resistance gene for QHf.osu-1A74 in cultivar ‘2174’ showed that the two Hf resistance genes are located on the same chromosome arm 1AS, only 11.2 cM apart in genetic distance. The gene at QHf.osu-1Ad in Duster has been delimited within a 2.7 cM region.ConclusionTwo distinct resistance genes exist on the short arm of chromosome 1A as found in the two hard red winter cultivars, 2174 and Duster. Whereas the Hf resistance gene in 2174 is likely allelic to one or more of the previously mapped resistance genes (H9, H10, H11, H16, or H17) in wheat, the gene in Duster is novel and confers a more consistent phenotype than 2174 in response to biotype GP infestation in controlled-environment assays.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12864-015-1297-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cytokinins (CKs) are a class of compounds that have long been thought to be exclusively plant growth regulators. Interestingly, some species of phytopathogenic bacteria and fungi have been shown to, and gall-inducing insects have been hypothesized to, produce CKs and use them to manipulate their host plants. We used high performance liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS) to examine concentrations of a wide range of CKs in 17 species of phytophagous insects, including gall- and non-gall-inducing species from all six orders of Insecta that contain species known to induce galls: Thysanoptera, Hemiptera, Lepidoptera, Coleoptera, Diptera, and Hymenoptera. We found CKs in all six orders of insects, and they were not associated exclusively with gall-inducing species. We detected 24 different CK analytes, varying in their chemical structure and biological activity. Isoprenoid precursor nucleotide and riboside forms of trans-zeatin (tZ) and isopentenyladenine (iP) were most abundant and widespread across the surveyed insect species. Notably, the observed concentrations of CKs often markedly exceeded those reported in plants suggesting that insects are synthesizing CKs rather than obtaining them from the host plant via tissue consumption, compound sequestration, and bioaccumulation. These findings support insect-derived CKs as means for gall-inducing insects to manipulate their host plant to facilitate cell proliferation, and for both gall- and non-gall-inducing insects to modify nutrient flux and plant defenses during herbivory. Furthermore, wide distribution of CKs across phytophagous insects, including non-gall-inducing species, suggests that insect-borne CKs could be involved in manipulation of source-sink mechanisms of nutrient allocation to sustain the feeding site and altering plant defensive responses, rather than solely gall induction. Given the absence of any evidence for genes in the de novo CK biosynthesis pathway in insects, we postulate that the tRNA-ipt pathway is responsible for CK production. However, the unusually high concentrations of CKs in insects, and the tendency toward dominance of their CK profiles by tZ and iP suggest that the tRNA-ipt pathway functions differently and substantially more efficiently in insects than in plants.