Mitochondrial DNA diversity and Wolbachia infection in the flea beetle Aphthona nigriscutis (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae): An introduced biocontrol agent for leafy spurge

Roehrdanz, Richard L.; Olson, Denise L.; Bourchier, Robert S.; Sears, Stephen D.; Cortilet, A.; Fauske, Gerald M.

doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2005.12.004

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Wolbachia affected beetle hosts in several ways. Linkage disequilibrium and/or selective sweep between bacteria and host genomes (usually with host mtDNA) were detected in six species (3% or 9% if excluding Chrysomelidae and Curculionidae): two (4%) Chrysomelidae ( Altica lythri, Jäckel, Mora & Dobler, 2013 ; Aphthona nigriscutis , Roehrdanz et al, 2006 ) and four (5%) Curculionidae ( Eusomus ovulum, Mazur et al, 2016 ; Naupactus cervinus, Rodriguero, Lanteri & Confalonieri, 2010b , Polydrusus inustus, Polydrusus pilifer , Kajtoch, Korotyaev & Lachowska-Cierlik, 2012 ). Cytoplasmic incompatibility was detected or suspected but unconfirmed in 12 (6% or 18% if excluding Chrysomelidae and Curculionidae) Coleoptera: six (13%) Chrysomelidae ( Chelymorpha alternans, Keller et al, 2004 , Diabrotica barberi , Roehrdanz & Levine, 2007 , et al, Diabrotica virgifera virgifera , Giordano, Jackson & Robertson, 1997 ; Callosobruchus chinensis , Kondo et al, 2002 ; Callosobruchus analis , Numajiri, Kondo & Toquenaga, 2017 ; Brontispa longissimi , Takano et al, 2017 ), three (4%) of Curculionidae ( Cossomus sp., Zhang et al, 2010 ; Hypothenemus hampei , Mariño, Verle Rodrigues & Bayman, 2017 , Xylosandrus germanus , Kawasaki et al, 2016 ), one of Sylvanidae ( Oryzaephilus surinamensis , Sharaf et al, 2010 ) and one of Tenebrionidae ( Tribolium confusum , Li et al, 2016b ; Ming et al, 2015 ).…”

Section: Characterization Of Wolbachia Infection Amentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The big challenge is to understand the impact of infection on beetle biology, physiology and ecology. It is known that Wolbachia has several effects on host reproduction, but relatively few studies prove or suggest e.g., cytoplasmic incompatibility, male-killing or other effects on the development of selected beetles ( Clark et al, 2001 ; Keller et al, 2004 ; Roehrdanz et al, 2006 ; Roehrdanz & Levine, 2007 ; Sharaf et al, 2010 ; Zhang et al, 2010 ; Jäckel, Mora & Dobler, 2013 ; Ming et al, 2015 ; Kawasaki et al, 2016 ; Li et al, 2016b ; Mariño, Verle Rodrigues & Bayman, 2017 ; Numajiri, Kondo & Toquenaga, 2017 ; Takano et al, 2017 ). It is very probable that this bacteria has large and frequent effects on beetle reproduction and is consequently partially responsible for beetle radiation, at least in some taxonomic groups, geographic areas or habitats.…”

Section: Current Gaps and Future Endeavorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, more detailed studies, at the population level, have shown that infection is not as straightforward as was assumed in the early stages of Wolbachia research. More and more species have been found to be only partially infected, e.g., in only some parts of their ranges or infection was associated with only some phylogenetic lineages (usually correlated with the distribution of mitochondrial lineages) ( Clark et al, 2001 ; Roehrdanz et al, 2006 ). Furthermore, examples of multiply infected species and individuals have been reported, which has important consequences for the understanding of some of the effects of Wolbachia infection ( Malloch, Fenton & Butcher, 2000 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Current state of knowledge on Wolbachia infection among Coleoptera: a systematic review

Kajtoch

Kotásková

2018

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDespite great progress in studies on Wolbachia infection in insects, the knowledge about its relations with beetle species, populations and individuals, and the effects of bacteria on these hosts, is still unsatisfactory. In this review we summarize the current state of knowledge about Wolbachia occurrence and interactions with Coleopteran hosts.MethodsAn intensive search of the available literature resulted in the selection of 86 publications that describe the relevant details about Wolbachia presence among beetles. These publications were then examined with respect to the distribution and taxonomy of infected hosts and diversity of Wolbachia found in beetles. Sequences of Wolbachia genes (16S rDNA, ftsZ) were used for the phylogenetic analyses.ResultsThe collected publications revealed that Wolbachia has been confirmed in 204 beetle species and that the estimated average prevalence of this bacteria across beetle species is 38.3% and varies greatly across families and genera (0–88% infected members) and is much lower (c. 13%) in geographic studies. The majority of the examined and infected beetles were from Europe and East Asia. The most intensively studied have been two groups of herbivorous beetles: Curculionidae and Chrysomelidae. Coleoptera harbor Wolbachia belonging to three supergroups: F found in only three species, and A and B found in similar numbers of beetles (including some doubly infected); however the latter two were most prevalent in different families. A total of 59% of species with precise data were found to be totally infected. Single infections were found in 69% of species and others were doubly- or multiply-infected. Wolbachia caused numerous effects on its beetle hosts, including selective sweep with host mtDNA (found in 3% of species), cytoplasmic incompatibility (detected in c. 6% of beetles) and other effects related to reproduction or development (like male-killing, possible parthenogenesis or haplodiploidy induction, and egg development). Phylogenetic reconstructions for Wolbachia genes rejected cospeciation between these bacteria and Coleoptera, with minor exceptions found in some Hydraenidae, Curculionidae and Chrysomelidae. In contrast, horizontal transmission of bacteria has been suspected or proven in numerous cases (e.g., among beetles sharing habitats and/or host plants).DiscussionThe present knowledge about Wolbachia infection across beetle species and populations is very uneven. Even the basic data about infection status in species and frequency of infected species across genera and families is very superficial, as only c. 0.15% of all beetle species have been tested so far. Future studies on Wolbachia diversity in Coleoptera should still be based on the Multi-locus Sequence Typing system, and next-generation sequencing technologies will be important for uncovering Wolbachia relations with host evolution and ecology, as well as with other, co-occurring endosymbiotic bacteria.

show abstract

Section: Characterization Of Wolbachia Infection Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Current Gaps and Future Endeavorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Current state of knowledge on Wolbachia infection among Coleoptera: a systematic review

Kajtoch

Kotásková

2018

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, studies simply documenting reduced genetic diversity (Roehrdanz et al, 2006;Franks et al, 2011;Ma et al, 2013), the retention of genetic diversity (Taylor et al, 2011), or the presence of geographic structure post-introduction (Vorsino et al, 2014) do not by themselves provide evidence of adaptive evolution. For example, studies simply documenting reduced genetic diversity (Roehrdanz et al, 2006;Franks et al, 2011;Ma et al, 2013), the retention of genetic diversity (Taylor et al, 2011), or the presence of geographic structure post-introduction (Vorsino et al, 2014) do not by themselves provide evidence of adaptive evolution.…”

Section: Adaptationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…adaptation has happened. For example, studies simply documenting reduced genetic diversity (Roehrdanz et al, 2006;Franks et al, 2011;Ma et al, 2013), the retention of genetic diversity (Taylor et al, 2011), or the presence of geographic structure post-introduction (Vorsino et al, 2014) do not by themselves provide evidence of adaptive evolution. Likewise, the assessment of heterosis or inbreeding depression in laboratory crosses (Benvenuto et al, 2012;Sz} ucs et al, 2012b) or the fact that hybridization of an agent can happen with native species without any measurement on its fitness effects (Havill et al, 2012) are not indicative of adaptation in field populations.…”

Section: Adaptationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The implications of rapid eco‐evolutionary processes for biological control ‐ a review

Szűcs

Vercken

Bitume

et al. 2019

Entomologia Exp Applicata

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Novel environmental conditions experienced by introduced species can drive rapid evolution of diverse traits. In turn, rapid evolution, both adaptive and non-adaptive, can influence population size, growth rate, and other important ecological characteristics of populations. In addition, spatial evolutionary processes that arise from a combination of assortative mating between highly dispersive individuals at the expanding edge of populations and altered reproductive rates of those individuals can accelerate expansion speed. Growing experimental evidence shows that the effects of rapid evolution on ecological dynamics can be quite large, and thus it can affect establishment, persistence, and the distribution of populations. We review the experimental and theoretical literature on such eco-evolutionary feedbacks and evaluate the implications of these processes for biological control. Experiments show that evolving populations can establish at higher rates and grow larger than non-evolving populations. However, non-adaptive processes, such as genetic drift and inbreeding depression can also lead to reduced fitness and declines in population size. Spatial evolutionary processes can increase spread rates and change the fitness of individuals at the expansion front. These examples demonstrate the power of eco-evolutionary dynamics and indicate that evolution is likely more important in biocontrol programs than previously realized. We discuss how this knowledge can be used to enhance efficacy of biological control.

show abstract

Evolution of biological control agents following introduction to new environments

Wright

Bennett

2017

BioControl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mitochondrial DNA diversity and Wolbachia infection in the flea beetle Aphthona nigriscutis (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae): An introduced biocontrol agent for leafy spurge

Cited by 13 publications

References 30 publications

Current state of knowledge on Wolbachia infection among Coleoptera: a systematic review

Current state of knowledge on Wolbachia infection among Coleoptera: a systematic review

The implications of rapid eco‐evolutionary processes for biological control ‐ a review

Evolution of biological control agents following introduction to new environments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About