Insecticidal and larvicidal activities of the mycotoxins aflatoxin B1, rubratoxin B, patulin and diacetoxyscirpenol towards Drosophila melanogaster

Reiss, J.

doi:10.1016/0009-2797(75)90055-1

Cited by 34 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At the 0.88 ppm concentration, both A-9 and A-11 strains showed significant mortality rates for first instar larvae, but the A-9 larvae died at higher rates than the A-11 larvae. Similar results were also obtained after the application of mycotoxins such as rubratoxin B, patulin and diacetoxyscirpenol (Reis, 1975). The total number of offsprings (for F1 progeny) of aflatoxin B 1 treated D.melanogaster were affected by all application groups ( Medium II, III and IV) of toxin ( Table 3).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 71%

Selenium protective activity against aflatoxin B1 adverse affects on Drosophila melanogaster

Uysal

Ağar

2005

Braz. arch. biol. technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 71%

Selenium protective activity against aflatoxin B1 adverse affects on Drosophila melanogaster

Uysal

Ağar

2005

Braz. arch. biol. technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This mechanism could function because mycotoxins are effective against Drosophila larvae in pharmaceutical tests [23]. Moreover, deleting a gene encoding a regulatory protein involved in positively influencing secondary metabolite expression in various filamentous fungi competing with Drosophila larvae was beneficial to the insects and detrimental to the fungi [15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental evolution of defense against a competitive mold confers reduced sensitivity to fungal toxins but no increased resistance in Drosophilalarvae

Trienens

Rohlfs

2011

BMC Evol Biol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundFungal secondary metabolites have been suggested to function as chemical defenses against insect antagonists, i.e. predators and competitors. Because insects and fungi often compete for dead organic material, insects may achieve protection against fungi by reducing sensitivity to fungal chemicals. This, in turn, may lead to increased resistance allowing insects better to suppress the spread of antagonistic but non-pathogenic microbes in their habitat. However, it remains controversial whether fungal toxins serve as a chemical shield that selects for insects that are less sensitive to toxins, and hence favors the evolution of insect resistance against microbial competitors.ResultsTo examine the relationship between the ability to survive competition with toxic fungi, sensitivity to fungal toxins and resistance, we created fungal-selected (FS) replicated insect lines by exposing Drosophila melanogaster larvae to the fungal competitor Aspergillus nidulans over 26 insect generations. Compared to unselected control lines (UC), larvae from the FS lines had higher survival rates in the presence of A. nidulans indicating selection for increased protection against the fungal antagonist. In line with our expectation, FS lines were less susceptible to the A. nidulans mycotoxin Sterigmatocystin. Of particular interest is that evolved protection against A. nidulans and Sterigmatocytin was not correlated with increased insect survival in the presence of other fungi and mycotoxins. We found no evidence that FS lines were better at suppressing the expansion of fungal colonies but observed a trend towards a less detrimental effect of FS larvae on fungal growth.ConclusionAntagonistic but non-pathogenic fungi favor insect variants better protected against the fungal chemical arsenal. This highlights the often proposed but experimentally underexplored importance of secondary metabolites in driving animal-fungus interactions. Instead of enhanced resistance, insect larvae tend to have evolved increased tolerance of the fungal competitor. Future studies should examine whether sensitivity to allelopathic microbial metabolites drives a trade-off between resistance and tolerance in insect external defense.

show abstract

“…By using a knock-out mutant of A. nidulans that is unable to express the transcription factor LaeA and hence lacks the ability to synthesise a large number of secondary metabolites (Bok and Keller 2004), including mycotoxins, a recent study demonstrated that fungal secondary chemicals may operate as a shield against fungivores (Rohlfs et al 2007). It is likely that secondary metabolites also play a central role in insect-fungus competition, because many fungal compounds have insecticidal properties (Reiss 1975;Melone and Chinnici 1986;Rohlfs and Obmann 2009); yet a causal relationship between impaired saprophagous insect development and microbial secondary metabolite production remains to be demonstrated. In order to understand the rapid evolution of resistance to a noxious fungus, two main hypotheses are subject to current investigations: Wrst, Drosophila might have been selected for resistance against the chemical arsenal fungi secrete into the larval feeding substrate, an anti-microbial strategy that would allow them to use mould-laden resources.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this context, the beneWt of larval grouping becomes especially pronounced (Rohlfs 2005a), and might explain why aggregative behaviour is widespread in saprophagous insect communities (Rohlfs and HoVmeister 2003). It remains to be demonstrated whether toxic secondary metabolites (so-called mycotoxins) produced by the fungus are the underlying mechanism causing high larval and post-emergence adult mortality (Reiss 1975;Melone and Chinnici 1986;Rohlfs and Obmann 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental evolution of resistance against a competing fungus in Drosophila melanogaster

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Competition between microorganisms and arthropods has been shown to be an important ecological interaction determining animal development and spatial distribution patterns in saprophagous communities. In fruit-inhabiting Drosophila, variation in insect developmental success is not only determined by species-specific effects of various noxious filamentous fungi but, as suggested by an earlier study, also by additive genetic variation in the ability to successfully withstand the negative impact of the fungi. If this variation represents a direct adaptive response to the degree to which insect breeding substrates are infested with harmful fungi, genetic variation for successful development in the presence of fungi could be maintained by variation in infestation of resource patches with fungi. We selected for the ability to resist the negative influence of mould by maintaining replicated Drosophila melanogaster populations on substrates infested with Aspergillus nidulans. After five cycles of exposure to the fungus during the larval stage, the selected populations were compared with unselected control populations regarding adult survival and reproduction to reveal an evolved resistance against the fungal competitor. On fungus-infested larval feeding substrates, emerged adults from mould-selected populations had higher survival rates and higher early fecundity than the control populations. In the unselected populations, females had higher mortality rates than males, and a high proportion of both females and males appeared to be unable to lay eggs or fertilise eggs, respectively. When larvae developed on non-infested food we found indications of a loss of resistance to abiotic and starvation stress in the adult stage in flies from the selected populations. This suggests that there are costs associated with an increase in resistance against the microbial competitor. We discuss the underlying mechanisms that might have selected for increased resistance against harmful fungi.

show abstract

Insecticidal and larvicidal activities of the mycotoxins aflatoxin B1, rubratoxin B, patulin and diacetoxyscirpenol towards Drosophila melanogaster

Cited by 34 publications

References 11 publications

Selenium protective activity against aflatoxin B1 adverse affects on Drosophila melanogaster

Selenium protective activity against aflatoxin B1 adverse affects on Drosophila melanogaster

Experimental evolution of defense against a competitive mold confers reduced sensitivity to fungal toxins but no increased resistance in Drosophilalarvae

Experimental evolution of resistance against a competing fungus in Drosophila melanogaster

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About