Development of a Monoclonal Antibody for the Detection and Quantification of Predation on Slugs within the Arion hortensis agg. (Mollusca: Pulmonata)

Symondson, William Oliver Christian; Erickson, Melissa L.; Liddell, J.

doi:10.1006/bcon.1999.0764

Cited by 25 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…By contrast, most other monoclonal antibodies and polyclonal antisera have demonstrated exponential rates of antigen decay that are most rapid immediately after prey consumption (e.g. Sopp & Sunderland 1989; Symondson & Liddell 1995; Hagler & Naranjo 1997; Symondson et al . 1997, 1999a).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Very few studies have compared the rates at which antigens decay in male and female predators. Symondson et al . (1999a), using a species‐specific monoclonal antibody, reported that the detection period for male P. melanarius was ≈ 30% longer than for females feeding on the slug Arion hortensis (Férussac).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Greenstone & Morgan 1989; Hagler et al . 1992; Symondson & Liddell 1996; Symondson et al . 1997, 1999a, 2000; Bacher et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Secondary predation: quantification of food chain errors in an aphid–spider–carabid system using monoclonal antibodies

Harwood

Phillips

Sunderland³

et al. 2001

Molecular Ecology

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

"Secondary predation" occurs when one predator feeds on a second predator, which has in turn eaten a target prey. Detection of prey remains within predators using monoclonal antibodies cannot distinguish between primary and secondary predation, potentially leading to quantitative and qualitative food chain errors. We report the first fully replicated experiments to measure secondary predation effects, using an aphid-spider-carabid system. Aphids, Sitobion avenae, were fed to spiders, Lepthyphantes tenuis, which were allowed to digest their prey for a range of time intervals. The spiders were then fed to carabids, Poecilus (=Pterostichus) cupreus, which were again allowed to digest their prey for set periods. The anti-aphid monoclonal antibody used to identify S. avenae remains in P. cupreus was one that detected an epitope that increased in availability over the first few hours of digestion, amplifying the signal, extending detection periods and thus increasing the chances of detecting secondary predation. Despite this, and the fact that spiders are known to digest their prey more slowly than many other predators, detection of secondary predation was only possible if the carabids were killed immediately after consuming at least two spiders which were, in turn, eaten immediately after consuming aphids. As this scenario is unlikely to occur frequently in the field it was concluded that secondary predation is unlikely to be a serious source of error during field studies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Secondary predation: quantification of food chain errors in an aphid–spider–carabid system using monoclonal antibodies

Harwood

Phillips

Sunderland³

et al. 2001

Molecular Ecology

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both chaser prey (e.g., Hagler and Naranjo 1997; Symondson et al 1999; Greenstone et al 2007; Harwood et al 2007) and starvation (e.g., Hagler 1998; Chen et al 2000; Harper et al 2006) are routinely used in studies to determine rate of target prey marker disappearance. Hed et al (1999) found that a chaser diet of aphids versus apple for the coccinellid Hippodamia convergens influenced the proportion carrying the fungal pathogen Discula destructiva (dogwood anthracnose) and excreting viable spores in their frass.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detection of Predation Using qPCR: Effect of Prey Quantity, Elapsed Time, Chaser Diet, and Sample Preservation on Detectable Quantity of Prey DNA

Weber

Lundgren

2009

Journal of Insect Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using quantitative PCR that amplified a prey-specific mtDNA 214 bp amplicon from the COI mitochondrial gene of the Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), prey eggs of known age and number were fed to larvae of the generalist predator lady beetle Coleomegilla maculata (De Geer) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), to elucidate the effects of time and diet since consumption, number of prey eggs, and methods for sample fixation and preservation, on the quantity of target DNA detected. Signal was strongly attenuated directly after cessation of feeding, even when predators were immediately frozen at -20°C. However, the quantity of target detected was significantly related to the number of eggs consumed and the time elapsed since eating. Decrease in detected prey DNA was consistent with a negative exponential model. The target DNA sequence disappeared from starved predators (quantitative half-life estimate of 59 min) more slowly than those fed potato aphids after consuming the target prey eggs (half-life estimate 16 min), whereas those fed C. maculata eggs as a chaser were intermediate in the rate at which they degraded the target prey DNA sequence. Fixative protocols are of critical importance in proper use of the qPCR technique. Among seven methods tested, storing the predator immediately in 70% ethanol prechilled to -20°C yielded the highest amount of target sequence, 22.8% of that recovered directly from a single intact prey egg. Samples frozen without solvent at -80°C and -20°C yielded only 6.0% and 2.3% of the target DNA respectively, and room temperature ethanol and ethylene glycol-based antifreeze averaged below 1% recovery of target DNA. Nevertheless, target prey was detected in more than 80% of antifreeze-stored predators. Predators killed and held at room temperature for 4 h or 5 days yielded no target prey DNA in 18 of 20 cases. These results emphasize both the value and the complexities of application of the qPCR technique to field predation studies.

show abstract

“…Direct comparisons enable a profile of predator communities to be compiled but interpretation can be difficult given that rates of antigen and DNA decay can sometimes (Symondson & Liddell, 1993;Chen et al, 2000;Harwood et al, 2001b) but not always (Harwood et al, 2004 vary between species. This is further complicated by differences that can occur between males and females; Symondson et al (1999b) reported that slug antigens within the male carabid P. melanarius were detectable for 30% longer than in females. If between-species or between-gender differences are observed in the laboratory, simple calibratory models should be developed to account for the variable rates of decay.…”

Section: Between-species Comparisonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying aphid predation rates of generalist predators in the field

Harwood¹,

Obrycki²

2005

Eur. J. Entomol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The community of predators within agroecosystems has the potential to restrict aphid populations, especially early in the season before exponential increases in density and prior to the arrival of specialist natural enemies. Although direct observations of predation, laboratory feeding trials and manipulative field studies have been used to estimate levels of biological control exerted by different species (or potentially negative interactions between them), it is often difficult to extrapolate results to naturally occurring interactions in the field.Over 100 investigations have utilized gut-content analysis to estimate aphid predation rates by predators. Throughout the last century, gut dissection, which enables the visual identification of aphid body parts, has been used in over 50% of studies although accurate identification and quantification of predation is difficult. Other techniques have included radio-labelling of prey, dissection of faecal samples, electrophoresis, stable isotope analysis and use of polyclonal antisera. In recent studies of invertebrate predation, monoclonal antibodies have been the most frequently applied technique but advances in molecular biology have enabled the detection of species-specific DNA sequences. The use of these applications to quantify predation by aphidophagous predators will be reviewed, with emphasis on potential sources of error and difficulties of quantitative interpretation. Despite the considerable focus currently directed towards molecular approaches, antibody-based techniques are likely to remain an important tool for studying predation rates of pests in the field, especially when antibodies have already been developed. However, the study of multiple predation events within complex generalist predator food webs is only likely through the detection of species-specific DNA sequences using molecular techniques.

show abstract

Development of a Monoclonal Antibody for the Detection and Quantification of Predation on Slugs within the Arion hortensis agg. (Mollusca: Pulmonata)

Cited by 25 publications

References 14 publications

Secondary predation: quantification of food chain errors in an aphid–spider–carabid system using monoclonal antibodies

Secondary predation: quantification of food chain errors in an aphid–spider–carabid system using monoclonal antibodies

Detection of Predation Using qPCR: Effect of Prey Quantity, Elapsed Time, Chaser Diet, and Sample Preservation on Detectable Quantity of Prey DNA

Quantifying aphid predation rates of generalist predators in the field

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About