DOCSLIB.ORG

Comparative Analyses of the Salivary Gland Secretomes from Related Species of the Gall Midge Family Cecidomyiidae

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comparative Analyses of the Salivary Gland Secretomes from Related Species of the Gall Midge Family Cecidomyiidae Comparative analyses of the salivary gland secretomes from related species of the gall midge family Cecidomyiidae by Zainab Abdalhussin Ali Al-Jbory B.S., Baghdad University, Iraq, 1989 M.S., Baghdad University, Iraq, 1997 AN ABSTRACT OF A DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Entomology College of Agriculture KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY Manhattan, Kansas 2018 Abstract The tools for arthropods with sucking-mouth parts to attack hosts are mainly in the saliva. For plant-sucking insects, these salivary secretions are primarily produced in the salivary glands. Secreted proteins (also referred to as salivary gland secretomes) are among the important components in the saliva of sucking insects. Gall midges (Cecidomyiidae), a large family of plant-sucking insects, apparently secrete proteins (some of them are effector proteins) into host tissues, inducing various forms of plant outgrowth (galls). Three major insect pest species in the genera Mayetiola, the stem gall midges, are known to produce saliva that can reprogram plant cells and manipulate the host plant growth, causing serious damage to the plants of small grains. The three pest species are the Hessian fly (Mayetiola destructor), the barley midge (Mayetiola hordei), and the oat midge (Mayetiola avenae). Another economically important species of this gall midge family is the wheat midge (Sitodiplosis mosellana). It is a major insect pest of spring wheat and feeds on wheat heads, causing damage to the developing wheat seeds. A global analysis of the salivary gland secretome of first instar larvae of the Hessian fly, (a member of Mayetiola and) a model species for studying insect-plant interactions, has previously revealed a large number of genes encoding Secreted Salivary Gland Proteins, so called SSGPs. For comparison, we conducted analyses on transcripts encoding SSGPs from salivary glands of the first instar larvae of the wheat midge, barley midge, and oat midge. In the first chapter, a transcriptomic analysis of wheat midge has been conducted. In this analysis, a total of 3,500 cDNA clones were sequenced, and 1,301 high quality sequences were obtained and approximately 25% of the cDNAs (with high quality sequences) encoded SSGPs. The SSGPs were grouped into 97 groups based on sequence homology. Among the SSGP- encoding transcripts, 206 encoded unique proteins with no sequence similarity to any known protein and 29 encoded proteins similar to known proteins including proteases, serpines, thioesterases, ankryins, and feritins. The compositions of SSGP transcripts from the wheat midge were then compared with that of Hessian fly. The analyses have identified many common characteristics between the species. Despite these commonalities, no sequence similarity was found between SSGPs from wheat midge and those from Hessian fly, suggesting that SSGPs from these two insect species perform different functions to manipulate host plants. The second chapter contains results of comparative transcriptomic analyses on the barley and oat midges. A total of 2570 cDNA clones were sequenced from the barley midge, and 743 were high quality cDNA sequences, and the analysis identified 458 cDNA clones encoding SSGPs, of these, 178 encoded unique proteins (also called unigenes). Transcripts encoding SSGPs were grouped into 51 groups based on sequence homology. A total of 3226 cDNA clones were sequenced from oat midge, and 718 cDNA sequences were high quality and used for further analysis. The analysis identified 450 cDNA clones encoding SSGPs. Among the SSGP- encoding transcripts, 194 are unigenes, which were placed into 50 groups. The compositions of SSGP transcripts from the barley and oat midges were then compared with that of Hessian fly. The analysis identified five groups containing 102 (57.3%) unigenes from barley midges and seven groups containing 107 (55.1%) unigenes from oat midges which encode SSGPs that are conserved among the three species. The SSGPs conserved among the three midges are from family one (SSGP-1), family 4 (SSGP-4), family 11 (SSGP- 11), and family 71 (SSGP-71). The SSGPs conserved among the three species indicate conserved functions such as a role in plant manipulation. Some SSGP unigenes were found to be conserved between only two species. Specifically, there were eight gene groups which are conserved between two species. Within these eight groups 19 (10.7%) unigenes from the barley midge and 25 (12.9%) unigenes from the oat midge were found to be conserved between only the barley and oat midges, whereas no homologues have been found in the Hessian fly. The remaining unigenes encode SSGPs that are unique to different midge species. The highly divergent SSGP groups that have been identified with no homology among the three midges indicate potential roles of these SSGPs in host specification. Due to the important roles of effector proteins in insect-plant interactions for gall midge species and since no insect effector protein have been identified directly from infested plant tissues so far, I have chosen one of the SSGP family, SSGP-1, which are conserved among all three gall midge species, for further analysis in chapter 4. Members in family SSGP-1 are also the most abundantly expressed at the transcript level. Based on Hessian fly data, family 1 contains seven genes and are named SSGP-1A1, SSGP-1A2, SSGP-1B1, SSGP-1C1, SSGP- 1C2, SSGP-1D1, and SSGP-1E1. To detect the presence of these proteins in the infested wheat tissues, and to identify probable targets from wheat that interact with the SSGPs in the feeding site, we have generated and purified recombinant proteins for five of the seven proteins, namely SSGP-1A2, SSGP-1B1, SSGP-1C1, SSGP-1D1, and SSGP-1E1 (since SSGP-1A1 and SSGP- 1C2 are very similar to SSGP-1A2 and SSGP-1C1, respectively). Antibodies were produced for the recombinant proteins for western blot analyses and indirect immunostaining. Immunostaining on dissected tissues including salivary glands, guts, and Malpighian tubules from 3-day old larvae, was conducted with antibodies against the five SSGPs, and detected a specific localization of all proteins in salivary glands except SSGP-1E1, which exhibited a weak signal in the foregut, in addition to localization in salivary glands. Western blot analyses demonstrated that these five proteins were expressed in larvae at all stages. The continuous production of these proteins suggests that they play roles in initiation and maintenance in Hessian fly infestation. Consistent with their effector functions, these five proteins were detected for the first time in infested wheat tissues based on western blot analyses. To identify possible target proteins from host plants that interact with SSGP-1 family proteins, in vitro pull down assays were performed. Putative interacting targets for SSGP-1A2, SSGP-1B1, and SSGP-1C1 have been identified by LC-MS/MS. These putative interaction target proteins included uncharacterized proteins, ribosomal proteins, a lipoxygenase, and a tubulin. Identification of these putative targets provided a base for further confirmation of their interaction with Hessian fly effectors in the future. Comparative analyses of the salivary gland secretomes from related species of the gall midge family Cecidomyiidae by Zainab Abdalhussin Ali Al-jbory B.S., Baghdad University, Iraq, 1989 M.S., Baghdad University, Iraq, 1997 A DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Entomology College of Agriculture KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY Manhattan, Kansas 2018 Approved by: Approved by: Co-Major Professor Co-Major Professor Ming-Shun Chen C. Michael Smith Copyright © Zainab Al-Jbory 2018. Abstract The tools for arthropods with sucking-mouth parts to attack hosts are mainly in the saliva. For plant-sucking insects, these salivary secretions are primarily produced in the salivary glands. Secreted proteins (also referred to as salivary gland secretomes) are among the important components in the saliva of sucking insects. Gall midges (Cecidomyiidae), a large family of plant-sucking insects, apparently secrete proteins (some of them are effector proteins) into host tissues, inducing various forms of plant outgrowth (galls). Three major insect pest species in the genera Mayetiola, the stem gall midges, are known to produce saliva that can reprogram plant cells and manipulate the host plant growth, causing serious damage to the plants of small grains. The three pest species are the Hessian fly (Mayetiola destructor), the barley midge (Mayetiola hordei), and the oat midge (Mayetiola avenae). Another economically important species of this gall midge family is the wheat midge (Sitodiplosis mosellana). It is a major insect pest of spring wheat and feeds on wheat heads, causing damage to the developing wheat seeds. A global analysis of the salivary gland secretome of first instar larvae of the Hessian fly, (a member of Mayetiola and) a model species for studying insect-plant interactions, has previously revealed a large number of genes encoding Secreted Salivary Gland Proteins, so called SSGPs. For comparison, we conducted analyses on transcripts encoding SSGPs from salivary glands of the first instar larvae of the wheat midge, barley midge, and oat midge. In the first chapter, a transcriptomic analysis of wheat midge has been conducted. In this analysis, a total of 3,500 cDNA clones were sequenced, and 1,301 high quality sequences were obtained and approximately 25% of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bulletin Number / Numéro 2 Entomological Society of Canada Société D’Entomologie Du Canada June / Juin 2008
    Volume 40 Bulletin Number / numéro 2 Entomological Society of Canada Société d’entomologie du Canada June / juin 2008 Published quarterly by the Entomological Society of Canada Publication trimestrielle par la Société d’entomologie du Canada ............................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .......................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................ ....................... ................................................................................. ................................................. List of contents / Table des matières Volume 40 (2), June / june 2008 Up front / Avant-propos ................................................................................................................49 Moth balls / Boules à mites .............................................................................................................51 Meeting announcements / Réunions futures ..................................................................................52 Dear Buggy / Cher Bibitte ..............................................................................................................53
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Cost of Invasive Non-Native Species on Great Britain F
    The Economic Cost of Invasive Non-Native Species on Great Britain F. Williams, R. Eschen, A. Harris, D. Djeddour, C. Pratt, R.S. Shaw, S. Varia, J. Lamontagne-Godwin, S.E. Thomas, S.T. Murphy CAB/001/09 November 2010 www.cabi.org 1 KNOWLEDGE FOR LIFE The Economic Cost of Invasive Non-Native Species on Great Britain Acknowledgements This report would not have been possible without the input of many people from Great Britain and abroad. We thank all the people who have taken the time to respond to the questionnaire or to provide information over the phone or otherwise. Front Cover Photo – Courtesy of T. Renals Sponsors The Scottish Government Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK Government Department for the Economy and Transport, Welsh Assembly Government FE Williams, R Eschen, A Harris, DH Djeddour, CF Pratt, RS Shaw, S Varia, JD Lamontagne-Godwin, SE Thomas, ST Murphy CABI Head Office Nosworthy Way Wallingford OX10 8DE UK and CABI Europe - UK Bakeham Lane Egham Surrey TW20 9TY UK CABI Project No. VM10066 2 The Economic Cost of Invasive Non-Native Species on Great Britain Executive Summary The impact of Invasive Non-Native Species (INNS) can be manifold, ranging from loss of crops, damaged buildings, and additional production costs to the loss of livelihoods and ecosystem services. INNS are increasingly abundant in Great Britain and in Europe generally and their impact is rising. Hence, INNS are the subject of considerable concern in Great Britain, prompting the development of a Non-Native Species Strategy and the formation of the GB Non-Native Species Programme Board and Secretariat.
    [Show full text]
  • The National Plant Biosecurity Status Report
    The National Plant Biosecurity Status Report 2014 © Plant Health Australia 2015 Disclaimer: This publication is published by Plant Health Australia for information purposes only. Information in the document is drawn from a variety of sources outside This work is copyright. Apart from any use as Plant Health Australia. Although reasonable care was taken in its preparation, Plant Health permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part Australia does not warrant the accuracy, reliability, completeness or currency of the may be reproduced by any process without prior information, or its usefulness in achieving any purpose. permission from Plant Health Australia. Given that there are continuous changes in trade patterns, pest distributions, control Requests and enquiries concerning reproduction measures and agricultural practices, this report can only provide a snapshot in time. and rights should be addressed to: Therefore, all information contained in this report has been collected for the 12 month period from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2014, and should be validated and Communications Manager confirmed with the relevant organisations/authorities before being used. A list of Plant Health Australia contact details (including websites) is provided in the Appendices. 1/1 Phipps Close DEAKIN ACT 2600 To the fullest extent permitted by law, Plant Health Australia will not be liable for any loss, damage, cost or expense incurred in or arising by reason of any person relying on the ISSN 1838-8116 information in this publication. Readers should make and rely on their own assessment An electronic version of this report is available for and enquiries to verify the accuracy of the information provided.
    [Show full text]
  • Hessian Fly, Mayetiola Destructor (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae), Smart-Trap Design and Deployment Strategies
    Hessian fly, Mayetiola destructor (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae), smart-trap design and deployment strategies by Ryan B. Schmid B.S., South Dakota State University, 2011 M.S., South Dakota State University, 2014 AN ABSTRACT OF A DISSERTATION submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Entomology College of Agriculture KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY Manhattan, Kansas 2018 Abstract Timely enactment of insect pest management and incursion mitigation protocols requires development of time-sensitive monitoring approaches. Numerous passive monitoring methods exist (e.g., insect traps), which offer an efficient solution to monitoring for pests across large geographic regions. However, given the number of different monitoring tools, from specific (e.g., pheromone lures) to general (e.g., sticky cards), there is a need to develop protocols for deploying methods to effectively and efficiently monitor for a multitude of potential pests. The non-random movement of the Hessian fly, Mayetiola destructor (Say) (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae), toward several visual, chemical, and tactile cues, makes it a suitable study organism to examine new sensor technologies and deployment strategies that can be tailored for monitoring specific pests. Therefore, the objective was to understand Hessian fly behavior toward new sensor technologies (i.e., light emitting diodes (LEDs) and laser displays) to develop monitoring and deployment strategies. A series of laboratory experiments and trials were conducted to understand how
    [Show full text]
  • Hessian Fly CP
    INDUSTRY BIOSECURITY PLAN For the Grains Industry Threat-Specific Contingency Plan COMMON NAME: Hessian fly SCIENTIFIC NAME: Mayetiola destructor (Say) 1817 Cecidomyia contractor; Cecidomyia culmicola Morris 1849; SYNONYMS: Cecidomyia destructor Say 1817; Cecidomyia frumentaria Rondani 1864; Chortomyia secalina (Loew 1858); Mayetiola secalis Bollow 1950; Phytophaga cerealis Rondani 1843; Phytophaga destructor (Say 1817); Mayetiola mimeuri (Mesnil 1934) The scientific and technical content of this document is current to the date published and all efforts were made to obtain relevant and published information on the pest. New information will be included as it becomes available, or when the document is reviewed. The material contained in this publication is produced for general information only. It is not intended as professional advice on any particular matter. No person should act or fail to act on the basis of any material contained in this publication without first obtaining specific, independent professional advice. Plant Health Australia and all persons acting for Plant Health Australia in preparing this publication, expressly disclaim all and any liability to any persons in respect of anything done by any such person in reliance, whether in whole or in part, on this publication. The views expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of Plant Health Australia. Contacts: John Botha* [email protected], Andy Szito [email protected] or Darryl Hardie [email protected] Department of Agriculture, Bentley Delivery Centre, WA, 6983. *Tel. (08) 93683755 Background General M. destructor is a species of European origin accidentally introduced into North America in about 1776, and into New Zealand by 1888 Host range The information below is mainly out of the Crop Protection Compendium (On-line version, 2005): Primary hosts: Triticum spp.
    [Show full text]
  • NDP 41 Hessian
    NDP 41 V1- National Diagnostic Protocol for Mayetiola destructor National Diagnostic Protocol Mayetiola destructor Hessian Fly NDP 41 V1 NDP 41 V1 - National Diagnostic Protocol for Mayetiola destructor © Commonwealth of Australia Ownership of intellectual property rights Unless otherwise noted, copyright (and any other intellectual property rights, if any) in this publication is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia (referred to as the Commonwealth). Creative Commons licence All material in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence, save for content supplied by third parties, logos and the Commonwealth Coat of Arms. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence is a standard form licence agreement that allows you to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt this publication provided you attribute the work. A summary of the licence terms is available from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en. The full licence terms are available from https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/legalcode. This publication (and any material sourced from it) should be attributed as: Subcommittee on Plant Health Diagnostics (2018). National Diagnostic Protocol for Mayetiola destructor – NDP41 V1. (Eds. Subcommittee on Plant Health Diagnostics) Authors Severtson, D, Szito, A.; Reviewers Nicholas, A, Kehoe, M. ISBN 978-0-6481143-3-8 CC BY 3.0. Cataloguing data Subcommittee on Plant Health Diagnostics (2018). National Diagnostic Protocol for Mayetiola destructor – NDP41 V1. (Eds. Subcommittee
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Biology and Life Cycle of the Barley Stem Gall Midge and Hessian Fly (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) in Morocco
    Revue Marocaine de Protection des Plantes, 2016, N° 9: 17-37 Comparative Biology and Life Cycle of The Barley Stem Gall Midge and Hessian fly (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) in Morocco Comparaison de la Biologie et du cycle de vie de la cécidomyie à galle de l’orge et de la mouche de Hesse (Diptères: Cecidomyiidae) au Maroc 1, 2 2 1, 3 LHALOUI S. , EL BOUHSSINI M. , OTMANE R. , 1,3 1, 2, OURINICHE S. & ALAMI A. 1Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Centre Régional de Settat 2: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas, Rabat, Morocco 3: Faculté des Sciences et Techniques, Université Hassan I, Settat, Maroc ABSTRACT The barley stem gall midge, Mayetiola hordei (Keiffer) is the most serious pest of barley in Morocco. The biology and life cycle of this insect were studied in a laboratory and under natural weather conditions. The results showed that similarly to Hessian fly, barley stem gall midge has two feeding instars and a third non-feeding instar. The generation time was longer for barley stem gall midge than for Hessian fly (45 vs 32 days at 18 ± 1°C, and a 12:12 (L: D) h photoperiod). The eggs of barley stem gall midge hatched in 7 days compared to 4 days for Hessian fly. The largest discrepancy in developmental time was for second instar and pupa. Second instars and pupae of barley stem gall midge required twice as long as those of Hessian fly to develop and molt into next stage (12 vs. 6 days). The first and third instars of barley stem gall midge also required a little bit longer to complete development (9 and 10 days vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Silvics and Silviculture of Coastal Western Redcedar : a Literature Review / Karel Klinka and David Brisco
    SPECIAL REPORT SERIES Silvics and Silviculture of Coastal Western Redcedar A LITERATURE REVIEW 2 0 0 9 Ministry of Forests and Range Forest Science Program SPECIAL REPORT SERIES Silvics and Silviculture of Coastal Western Redcedar A LiteratURE REVIEW Karel Klinka and David Brisco Ministry of Forests Ministry of Forests and Range Forest Science Program The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for the information and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement or approval by the Government of British Columbia of any product or service to the exclusion of any others that may also be suitable. Contents of this report are presented as information only. Funding assistance does not imply endorsement of any statements or information contained herein by the Government of British Columbia. Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Main entry under title: Silvics and silviculture of coastal western redcedar : a literature review / Karel Klinka and David Brisco. (Special report series, issn 0843-6452 ; 11) Includes bibliographical references. isbn 978-0-7726-6110-4 1. Western Redcedar - British Columbia. 2. Forests and forestry - British Columbia. 3. Forest management - British Columbia. I. British Columbia. Ministry of Forests and Range. II. Title. III. Series: Special report (British Columbia. Ministry of Forests and Range) ; 11. sd397.w46k55 2009 634.9'756509711 c2009-900862-9 Citation: Klinka, K. and D. Brisco. 2009. Silvics and silviculture of coastal western redcedar: a literature review. B.C. Min. For. Range, For. Sci. Prog., Victoria, B.C. Spec. Rep. Ser. 11. www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Srs/Srs11.htm Prepared by Karel Klinka Forest Sciences Department University of British Columbia 3041 – 2424 Main Mall Vancouver, BC v6t 1z4 David Brisco Ecotope Consulting Services 269 Gordonhorn Crescent Kamloops, BC v2e 1g5 © 2009 Province of British Columbia When using information from this or any Forest Science Program report, please cite fully and correctly.
    [Show full text]
  • Status Report
    The National Plant Biosecurity Status Report 2012 © Plant Health Australia 2013 Disclaimer: This publication is published by Plant Health Australia for information purposes only. Information in the document is drawn from a variety of sources outside This work is copyright. Apart from any use as Plant Health Australia. Although reasonable care was taken in its preparation, Plant Health permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part Australia does not warrant the accuracy, reliability, completeness or currency of the may be reproduced by any process without prior information, or its usefulness in achieving any purpose. permission from Plant Health Australia. Given that there are continuous changes in trade patterns, pest distributions, control Requests and enquiries concerning reproduction measures and agricultural practices, this report can only provide a snapshot in time. and rights should be addressed to: Therefore, all information contained in this report has been collected for the 12 month period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, and should be validated and Communications Manager confirmed with the relevant organisations/authorities before being used. A list of Plant Health Australia contact details (including websites) is provided in the Appendices. 1/1 Phipps Close DEAKIN ACT 2600 To the fullest extent permitted by law, Plant Health Australia will not be liable for any loss, damage, cost or expense incurred in or arising by reason of any person relying on the ISSN 1838-8116 information in this publication. Readers should make and rely on their own assessment An electronic version of this report is available for and enquiries to verify the accuracy of the information provided.
    [Show full text]
  • Arab and Near East Plant Protection Newsletter
    ARAB AND NEAR EAST PLANT PROTECTION NEWSLETTER Number 67, March 2016 Editor-in-Chief Ibrahim Al-JBOORY – Faculty of Agriculture, Baghdad University, Iraq. Editorial Board Bassam BAYAA – Faculty of Agriculture, University of Aleppo, Aleppo, Syria. Khaled MAKKOUK – National Council for Scientific Research, Beirut, Lebanon. Shoki AL-DOBAI – Food and Agriculture Organization, Cairo, Egypt. Ahmed DAWABAH – College of Food and Agriculture Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Ahmed EL-HENEIDY – Plant Protection Research Institute, ARC, Giza, Egypt. Safaa KUMARI – International Centre for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Tunis, Tunisia. Ahmed EL-AHMED – Faculty of Agriculture, University of Aleppo, Aleppo, Syria. Mustafa HAIDAR – Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences, AUB, Lebanon. Ahmed KATBEH – Faculty of Agriculture, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan. Bouzid NASRAOUI – INAT, University of Carthage, Tunis, Tunisia. Wa’el ALMATNI – Ministry of Agriculture, Damascus, Syria. Editorial Assistant Tara ALFADHLI – P.O. Box 17399, Amman11195, Jordan. The Arab Society for Plant Protection and the Near East Regional Office of the FAO jointly publishes the Arab and Near East Plant Protection Newsletter (ANEPPNEL), three times per year. All correspondence should be sent by email to the Editor ([email protected]). Material from ANEPPNEL may be reprinted provided that appropriate credits are given. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this newsletter do not necessarily imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations or the Arab Society for Plant Protection (ASPP), concerning the legal or constitutional status of any country, territory, city or area, or its authorities or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
    [Show full text]
  • Identification of Sex Pheromone Components of the Hessian Fly, Mayetiola Destructor
    J Chem Ecol (2009) 35:81–95 DOI 10.1007/s10886-008-9569-1 Identification of Sex Pheromone Components of the Hessian Fly, Mayetiola destructor Martin N. Andersson & Jenny Haftmann & Jeffrey J. Stuart & Sue E. Cambron & Marion O. Harris & Stephen P. Foster & Stephan Franke & Wittko Francke & Ylva Hillbur Received: 15 May 2008 /Revised: 15 September 2008 /Accepted: 5 November 2008 /Published online: 10 December 2008 # Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008 Abstract Coupled gas chromatographic (GC)–electroan- (with respect to the main compound, (2S,10E)-10-tridecen- tennographic detection (EAD) analyses of ovipositor 2-yl acetate). The five-component blend was more attractive extract of calling Hessian fly, Mayetiola destructor, females to male flies than a three-component blend lacking the two revealed that seven compounds elicited responses from dienes. Furthermore, the five-component blend was more male antennae. Four of the compounds—(2S)-tridec-2-yl attractive than a blend with the same compounds but that acetate, (2S,10Z)-10-tridecen-2-yl acetate, (2S,10E)-10- contained one tenth the concentration of (2S,8E,10E)-8, tridecen-2-yl acetate, and (2S,10E)-10-tridecen-2-ol—were 10-tridecadien-2-yl acetate (more accurately mimicking the identified previously in female extracts. Two new EAD- ratios found in female extract). This suggests that the ratios active compounds, (2S,8Z,10E)-8,10-tridecadien-2-yl acetate emitted by females might deviate from those in gland and (2S,8E,10E)-8,10-tridecadien-2-yl acetate, were identi- extracts. In a field-trapping experiment, the five-component fied by GC–mass spectroscopy (MS) and the use of synthetic blend applied to polyethylene cap dispensers in a 100:10 μg reference samples.
    [Show full text]
  • Gall Midges (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) of Turkey
    Türk. entomol. derg., 2005, 29 (1): 17-34 ISSN 1010-6960 Gall midges (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) of Turkey Marcela SKUHRAVÁ* Şerife BAYRAM** Halit ÇAM*** Serdar TEZCAN**** Peyman CAN***** Summary The present fauna of gall midges of Turkey includes 71 species belonging to 38 genera. Of them, 62 species are phytophagous and are associated with 59 host plant species. In this study, their zoogeographical analysis and economical importance have also been evaluated. Key words: Cecidomyiidae, Diptera, fauna, Turkey, zoogeography Anahtar sözcükler: Cecidomyiidae, Diptera, fauna, Türkiye, zoocoğrafya Introduction Until now the data on gall midges (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) existing in Turkey were encountered in papers of about twenty Turkish researchers. In present paper a summary of gall midge species occurring in the territory of Turkey has been given for the first time. The level of gall midge species knowledge in Turkey is not satisfactory enough in comparison with the knowledge of some adjacent European countries – Bulgaria and Greece, but it is much higher in comparison with the knowledge of this family in adjacent Asian countries, such as Syria, Iran and Iraq. * Czech Zoological Society, Vinicna 7, 128 00 Praha 2, Czech Republic e-mail: [email protected] ** University of Ankara, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Plant Protection, 06110, Ankara, Turkey e-mail: [email protected] *** University of Gaziosmanpasa, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Plant Protection, 60240 Tokat, Turkey **** University of Ege, Department of Plant Protection, 35100 Bornova, Izmir, Turkey ***** Aegean Forestry Research Institute Urla, Izmir, Turkey Alınış (Received: 25.03.2005 17 Trotter (1903) was the first to collect galls in Turkey in the course of his journey through Balkan Peninsula and Turkey.
    [Show full text]