Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Covariation and phenotypic integration in chemical communication displays: biosynthetic constraints and eco-evolutionary implications.
Junker, Robert R; Kuppler, Jonas; Amo, Luisa; Blande, James D; Borges, Renee M; van Dam, Nicole M; Dicke, Marcel; Dötterl, Stefan; Ehlers, Bodil K; Etl, Florian; Gershenzon, Jonathan; Glinwood, Robert; Gols, Rieta; Groot, Astrid T; Heil, Martin; Hoffmeister, Mathias; Holopainen, Jarmo K; Jarau, Stefan; John, Lena; Kessler, Andre; Knudsen, Jette T; Kost, Christian; Larue-Kontic, Anne-Amélie C; Leonhardt, Sara Diana; Lucas-Barbosa, Dani; Majetic, Cassie J; Menzel, Florian; Parachnowitsch, Amy L; Pasquet, Rémy S; Poelman, Erik H; Raguso, Robert A; Ruther, Joachim; Schiestl, Florian P; Schmitt, Thomas; Tholl, Dorothea; Unsicker, Sybille B; Verhulst, Niels; Visser, Marcel E; Weldegergis, Berhane T; Köllner, Tobias G.
Afiliação
  • Junker RR; Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Salzburg, Hellbrunnerstrasse 34, 5020, Salzburg, Austria.
  • Kuppler J; Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Salzburg, Hellbrunnerstrasse 34, 5020, Salzburg, Austria.
  • Amo L; Department of Animal Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW), NL-6700, EH Wageningen, the Netherlands.
  • Blande JD; Department of Evolutionary Ecology, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (CSIC), 28006, Madrid, Spain.
  • Borges RM; Department of Environmental and Biological Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, 70211, Kuopio, Finland.
  • van Dam NM; Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 560012, India.
  • Dicke M; German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv), Halle-Jena-Leipzig/Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Deutscher Platz 5e, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
  • Dötterl S; Laboratory of Entomology, Wageningen University, PO Box 16, 6700 AA, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
  • Ehlers BK; Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Salzburg, Hellbrunnerstrasse 34, 5020, Salzburg, Austria.
  • Etl F; Department of Bioscience, Aarhus University, Vejlsøvej 25, 8600, Silkeborg, Denmark.
  • Gershenzon J; Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Salzburg, Hellbrunnerstrasse 34, 5020, Salzburg, Austria.
  • Glinwood R; Department of Botany and Biodiversity Research, University of Vienna, 1030, Vienna, Austria.
  • Gols R; Department of Biochemistry, Max-Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, 07745, Jena, Germany.
  • Groot AT; Department of Crop Production Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7043, S750 07, Uppsala, Sweden.
  • Heil M; Laboratory of Entomology, Wageningen University, PO Box 16, 6700 AA, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
  • Hoffmeister M; Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics (IBED), University of Amsterdam, 1090 GE, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
  • Holopainen JK; Department of Entomology, Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, 07745, Jena, Germany.
  • Jarau S; Departamento de Ingeniería Genética, CINVESTAV - Irapuato, Irapuato, CP 36821, México.
  • John L; Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Salzburg, Hellbrunnerstrasse 34, 5020, Salzburg, Austria.
  • Kessler A; Department of Environmental and Biological Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, 70211, Kuopio, Finland.
  • Knudsen JT; Institute for Neurobiology, Ulm University, Helmholtzstr. 10/1, 89081, Ulm, Germany.
  • Kost C; Institute for Neurobiology, Ulm University, Helmholtzstr. 10/1, 89081, Ulm, Germany.
  • Larue-Kontic AC; Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA.
  • Leonhardt SD; Deptartment of Biology, Lund University, SE 223 62, Lund, Sweden.
  • Lucas-Barbosa D; Nattaro Labs AB, Medicon Village, 223 81, Lund, Sweden.
  • Majetic CJ; Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, Research Group Experimental Ecology and Evolution, 07745, Jena, Germany.
  • Menzel F; Department of Ecology, School of Biology/Chemistry, University of Osnabrück, 49074, Osnabrück, Germany.
  • Parachnowitsch AL; Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Salzburg, Hellbrunnerstrasse 34, 5020, Salzburg, Austria.
  • Pasquet RS; Department of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, Würzburg University, 97074, Würzburg, Germany.
  • Poelman EH; Laboratory of Entomology, Wageningen University, PO Box 16, 6700 AA, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
  • Raguso RA; Department of Biology, Saint Mary's College, Notre Dame, IN, 46556, USA.
  • Ruther J; Institute of Zoology, University of Mainz, 55128, Mainz, Germany.
  • Schiestl FP; Plant Ecology and Evolution, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Uppsala, 75236, Sweden.
  • Schmitt T; Department of ECOBIO, IRD, 44 Bd de Dunkerque, 13572, Marseille Cedex 02, France.
  • Tholl D; Laboratory of Entomology, Wageningen University, PO Box 16, 6700 AA, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
  • Unsicker SB; Department of Neurobiology and Behavior, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA.
  • Verhulst N; Institute of Zoology, University of Regensburg, Universitätsstraße 31, 93053, Regensburg, Germany.
  • Visser ME; Department of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany, University of Zürich, Zollikerstrasse 107, 8008, Zürich, Switzerland.
  • Weldegergis BT; Department of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, Würzburg University, 97074, Würzburg, Germany.
  • Köllner TG; Department of Biological Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA.
New Phytol ; 220(3): 739-749, 2018 11.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28256726
Chemical communication is ubiquitous. The identification of conserved structural elements in visual and acoustic communication is well established, but comparable information on chemical communication displays (CCDs) is lacking. We assessed the phenotypic integration of CCDs in a meta-analysis to characterize patterns of covariation in CCDs and identified functional or biosynthetically constrained modules. Poorly integrated plant CCDs (i.e. low covariation between scent compounds) support the notion that plants often utilize one or few key compounds to repel antagonists or to attract pollinators and enemies of herbivores. Animal CCDs (mostly insect pheromones) were usually more integrated than those of plants (i.e. stronger covariation), suggesting that animals communicate via fixed proportions among compounds. Both plant and animal CCDs were composed of modules, which are groups of strongly covarying compounds. Biosynthetic similarity of compounds revealed biosynthetic constraints in the covariation patterns of plant CCDs. We provide a novel perspective on chemical communication and a basis for future investigations on structural properties of CCDs. This will facilitate identifying modules and biosynthetic constraints that may affect the outcome of selection and thus provide a predictive framework for evolutionary trajectories of CCDs in plants and animals.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Evolução Biológica / Vias Biossintéticas Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies Limite: Animals Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Evolução Biológica / Vias Biossintéticas Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies Limite: Animals Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article