The transmission of insect-borne plant pathogens, including viruses, bacteria, phytoplasmas, and fungi depends upon the abundance and behavior of their vectors. These pathogens should therefore be selected to influence their vectors to enhance their transmission, either indirectly, through the infected host plant, or directly, after acquisition of the pathogen by the vector. Accumulating evidence provides partial support for the occurrence of vector manipulation by plant pathogens, especially for plant viruses, for which a theoretical framework can explain patterns in the specific effects on vector behavior and performance depending on their modes of transmission. The variability in effects of pathogens on their vectors, however, suggests inconsistency in the occurrence of vector manipulation but also may reflect incomplete information about these systems. For example, manipulation can occur through combinations of specific effects, including direct and indirect effects on performance and behavior, and dy...

Insect-Borne Plant Pathogens and Their Vectors: Ecology, Evolution, and Complex Interactions.

Acquisition and transmission by an insect vector is central to the infection cycle of the majority of plant pathogenic viruses. Plant viruses can interact with their insect host in a variety of ways including both non-persistent and circulative transmission; in some cases, the latter involves virus replication in cells of the insect host. Replicating viruses can also elicit both innate and specific defense responses in the insect host. A consistent feature is that the interaction of the virus with its insect host/vector requires specific molecular interactions between virus and host, commonly via proteins. Understanding the interactions between plant viruses and their insect host can underpin approaches to protect plants from infection by interfering with virus uptake and transmission. Here, we provide a perspective focused on identifying novel approaches and research directions to facilitate control of plant viruses by better understanding and targeting virus–insect molecular interactions. We also draw parallels with molecular interactions in insect vectors of animal viruses, and consider technical advances for their control that may be more broadly applicable to plant virus vectors.

/pdf/plant-virus-insect-vector-interactions-current-and-potential-wqh5if8q6d.pdf

Plant Virus-Insect Vector Interactions: Current and Potential Future Research Directions.

Plants, viruses and the environment: Ecology and mutualism.

Plant viruses possess adaptations for facilitating acquisition, retention, and inoculation by vectors. Until recently, it was hypothesized that these adaptations are limited to virus proteins that enable virions to bind to vector mouthparts or invade their internal tissues. However, increasing evidence suggests that viruses can also manipulate host plant phenotypes and vector behaviors in ways that enhance their own transmission. Manipulation of vector-host interactions occurs through virus effects on host cues that mediate vector orientation, feeding, and dispersal behaviors, and thereby, the probability of virus transmission. Effects on host phenotypes vary by pathosystem but show a remarkable degree of convergence among unrelated viruses whose transmission is favored by the same vector behaviors. Convergence based on transmission mechanism, rather than phylogeny, supports the hypothesis that virus effects are adaptive and not just by-products of infection. Based on this, it has been proposed that viruses manipulate hosts through multifunctional proteins that facilitate exploitation of host resources and elicitation of specific changes in host phenotypes. But this proposition is rarely discussed in the context of the numerous constraints on virus evolution imposed by molecular and environmental factors, which figure prominently in research on virus-host interactions not dealing with host manipulation. To explore the implications of this oversight, we synthesized available literature to identify patterns in virus effects among pathogens with shared transmission mechanisms and discussed the results of this synthesis in the context of molecular and environmental constraints on virus evolution, limitations of existing studies, and prospects for future research.

/pdf/evolutionary-determinants-of-host-and-vector-manipulation-by-5cv0l3fjz1.pdf

Evolutionary Determinants of Host and Vector Manipulation by Plant Viruses.

https://escholarship.org/content/qt4m89z47v/qt4m89z47v.pdf?t=phrnxc

Effects of pathogens on sensory-mediated interactions between plants and insect vectors

Plant viruses are known to modify the behaviour of their insect vectors, both directly and indirectly,generally adapting to each type of virus?vector relationship in a way that enhances transmissionefficiency. Here, we report results of three different studies showing how a virus transmitted in a non-persistent (NP) manner (Cucumber mosaic virus; CMV, Cucumovirus) can induce changes in its host plant,cucumber (Cucumis sativus cv. Marumba) that modifies the behaviour of its aphid vector (Aphis gossypiiGlover; Hemiptera: Aphididae) in a way that enhances virus transmission and spread non-viruliferousaphids changed their alighting, settling and probing behaviour activities over time when exposed toCMV-infected and mock-inoculated cucumber plants. Aphids exhibited no preference to migrate fromCMV-infected to mock-inoculated plants at short time intervals (1, 10 and 30 min after release), butshowed a clear shift in preference to migrate from CMV-infected to mock-inoculated plants 60 min afterrelease. Our free-choice preference assays showed that A. gossypii alates preferred CMV-infected overmock-inoculated plants at an early stage (30 min), but this behaviour was reverted at a later stage andaphids preferred to settle and reproduce on mock-inoculated plants. The electrical penetration graph(EPG) technique revealed a sharp change in aphid probing behaviour over time when exposed to CMV-infected plants. At the beginning (first 15 min) aphid vectors dramatically increased the number of shortsuperficial probes and intracellular punctures when exposed to CMV-infected plants. At a later stage (sec-ond hour of recording) aphids diminished their feeding on CMV-infected plants as indicated by much lesstime spent in phloem salivation and ingestion (E1 and E2). This particular probing behaviour includingan early increase in the number of short superficial probes and intracellular punctures followed by aphloem feeding deterrence is known to enhance the transmission efficiency of viruses transmitted in aNP manner. We conclude that CMV induces specific changes in a plant host that modify the alighting,settling and probing behaviour of its main vector A. gossypii, leading to optimum transmission and spreadof the virus. Our findings should be considered when modelling the spread of viruses transmitted in a NPmanner.

Elisa Garz

Papers

A non-persistently transmitted-virus induces a pull?push strategy inits aphid vector to optimize transmission and spread