4.6 Article

A comparative venomic fingerprinting approach reveals that galling and non-galling fig wasp species have different venom profiles

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 13, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207051

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo [2013/01918-1, 2014/01884-2, 2014/50265-3]
  2. University of Sao Paulo NPPNS [2012.1.17587.1.1]
  3. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico [306385/2011-2, 306078/2014-7]
  4. Institute Nacional de Ciencia e Tecnologia para inovacao farmaceutica

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The galling habit represents a complex type of interaction between insects and plants, ranging from antagonism to mutualism. The obligate pollination mutualism between Ficus and fig wasps relies strongly on the induction of galls in Ficus flowers, where wasps' offspring develop. Even though gall induction plays an important role in many insect-plant interactions, the mechanisms that trigger gall formation are still not completely known. Using a fingerprinting approach, we show here that venom protein profiles from galling fig wasps differ from the venom profiles of non-galling species, suggesting the secretion plays different roles according to the type of interaction it is involved in. Each studied cleptoparasitic species had a distinct venom profile, suggesting that cleptoparasitism in fig wasps covers a vast diversity of molecular interactions. Fig wasp venoms are mainly composed of peptides. No low molecular weight compounds were detected by UPLC-DAD-MS, suggesting that such compounds (e.g., IAA and cytokinines) are not involved in gall induction. The differences in venom composition observed between galling and non-galling fig wasp species bring new perspectives to the study of gall induction processes and the role of insect secretions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available