Molecular constraints on tolerance‐resistance trade‐offs: Is there a cost?

Abstract Plants possess myriad defenses against their herbivores, including constitutive and inducible chemical compounds and regrowth strategies known as tolerance. Recent studies have shown that plant tolerance and resistance are positively associated given they are co‐localized in the same molecu...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: J. Miles Mesa, Ken N. Paige
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2023-12-01
Series:Plant-Environment Interactions
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/pei3.10125
_version_ 1797397256272347136
author J. Miles Mesa
Ken N. Paige
author_facet J. Miles Mesa
Ken N. Paige
author_sort J. Miles Mesa
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Plants possess myriad defenses against their herbivores, including constitutive and inducible chemical compounds and regrowth strategies known as tolerance. Recent studies have shown that plant tolerance and resistance are positively associated given they are co‐localized in the same molecular pathway, the oxidative pentose phosphate pathway. However, given that both defensive strategies utilize carbon skeletons from a shared resource pool in the oxidative pentose phosphate pathway there are likely costs in maintaining both resistance‐tolerance strategies. Here we investigate fitness costs in maintaining both strategies by utilizing a double knockout of cyp79B2 and cyp79B3, key enzymes in the biosynthetic process of indole glucosinolates, which convert tryptophan to indole‐3‐acetaldoxime (IAOx) and is further used to produce indole glucosinolates. These mutant plants are devoid of any indole glucosinolates thus reducing plant resistance. Results show that knocking out indole glucosinolate production and thus one of the resistance pathways leads to an approximate 94% increase in fitness compensation shifting the undercompensating wild‐type Columbia‐0 to an overcompensating genotype following damage. We discuss the potential mechanistic basis for the observed patterns.
first_indexed 2024-03-09T01:08:19Z
format Article
id doaj.art-1b07d0d9eb6643848a370a369e8c3b02
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2575-6265
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-09T01:08:19Z
publishDate 2023-12-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Plant-Environment Interactions
spelling doaj.art-1b07d0d9eb6643848a370a369e8c3b022023-12-11T09:10:53ZengWileyPlant-Environment Interactions2575-62652023-12-014631732310.1002/pei3.10125Molecular constraints on tolerance‐resistance trade‐offs: Is there a cost?J. Miles Mesa0Ken N. Paige1Department of Evolution, Ecology and Behavior University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign Urbana Illinois USADepartment of Evolution, Ecology and Behavior University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign Urbana Illinois USAAbstract Plants possess myriad defenses against their herbivores, including constitutive and inducible chemical compounds and regrowth strategies known as tolerance. Recent studies have shown that plant tolerance and resistance are positively associated given they are co‐localized in the same molecular pathway, the oxidative pentose phosphate pathway. However, given that both defensive strategies utilize carbon skeletons from a shared resource pool in the oxidative pentose phosphate pathway there are likely costs in maintaining both resistance‐tolerance strategies. Here we investigate fitness costs in maintaining both strategies by utilizing a double knockout of cyp79B2 and cyp79B3, key enzymes in the biosynthetic process of indole glucosinolates, which convert tryptophan to indole‐3‐acetaldoxime (IAOx) and is further used to produce indole glucosinolates. These mutant plants are devoid of any indole glucosinolates thus reducing plant resistance. Results show that knocking out indole glucosinolate production and thus one of the resistance pathways leads to an approximate 94% increase in fitness compensation shifting the undercompensating wild‐type Columbia‐0 to an overcompensating genotype following damage. We discuss the potential mechanistic basis for the observed patterns.https://doi.org/10.1002/pei3.10125Arabidopsisendoreduplicationglucosinolatesovercompensationoxidative pentose phosphate pathwayresistance‐tolerance tradeoffs
spellingShingle J. Miles Mesa
Ken N. Paige
Molecular constraints on tolerance‐resistance trade‐offs: Is there a cost?
Plant-Environment Interactions
Arabidopsis
endoreduplication
glucosinolates
overcompensation
oxidative pentose phosphate pathway
resistance‐tolerance tradeoffs
title Molecular constraints on tolerance‐resistance trade‐offs: Is there a cost?
title_full Molecular constraints on tolerance‐resistance trade‐offs: Is there a cost?
title_fullStr Molecular constraints on tolerance‐resistance trade‐offs: Is there a cost?
title_full_unstemmed Molecular constraints on tolerance‐resistance trade‐offs: Is there a cost?
title_short Molecular constraints on tolerance‐resistance trade‐offs: Is there a cost?
title_sort molecular constraints on tolerance resistance trade offs is there a cost
topic Arabidopsis
endoreduplication
glucosinolates
overcompensation
oxidative pentose phosphate pathway
resistance‐tolerance tradeoffs
url https://doi.org/10.1002/pei3.10125
work_keys_str_mv AT jmilesmesa molecularconstraintsontoleranceresistancetradeoffsisthereacost
AT kennpaige molecularconstraintsontoleranceresistancetradeoffsisthereacost