Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T03:45:51.157Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Dissecting the relationships between the insect vector Empoasca paraparvipenis with Camptotheca acuminata witches’ broom phytoplasma

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2024

Hong Cai
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Agro-Biodiversity and Pest Management of Education Ministry of China, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming 650201, China
Menglan He
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Agro-Biodiversity and Pest Management of Education Ministry of China, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming 650201, China
Yinfeng Cai
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Agro-Biodiversity and Pest Management of Education Ministry of China, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming 650201, China
Kai Qiao
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Agro-Biodiversity and Pest Management of Education Ministry of China, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming 650201, China
Weiyi Huang
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Agro-Biodiversity and Pest Management of Education Ministry of China, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming 650201, China
Shahzad Munir*
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory for Conservation and Utilization of Bio-resources in Yunnan, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming 650201, China
*
Corresponding author: Shahzad Munir; Email: shahzad_munir@ynau.edu.cn
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Phytoplasmas are phloem-limited bacteria that are primarily transmitted by hemipteran insects and are emerging threats to Camptotheca acuminata Decne plants due to their associations with a witches’ broom disease. Despite numerous studies, there has been no report on insect transmission of phytoplasma among C. acuminata. Here, transmission characteristics of the leafhopper, Empoasca paraparvipenis Zhang and Liu, 2008 and the phytoplasma in plant leaves through PCR quantification are described. The interaction between C. acuminata-phytoplasma and insect vectors was examined by analysing the impact on the life characteristics and progeny population in a temperature-dependent manner. Phytoplasma-infected C. acuminata plant exhibited symptoms including shorter internodes, weak and clustered branches, shrunken and yellowed leaves, and red leaf margins. The acquisition and transmission time of bacterial-infected third-instar nymphs of insect vectors were 10 (11.11%) and 30 min (33.33%), respectively. A single insect vector can infect a plant after 72 h of feeding, and the incidence rate of disease increases with the number of insects following 11–100% from single to 20 insects. The development time of the infected insect vectors (1–3 instars) was significantly shorter than that of the healthy insects, and the development duration of instar individuals was longer. In progeny populations, the higher the phytoplasma concentration (88–0% for 1–5 instars nymph, female and male adults), the shorter the development time and the longer the adult lifetime (both male and female). These findings provided research evidence of phytoplasma transmission by insect vectors; however, further investigation of the mechanisms for prevention and management of phytoplasma diseases is needed.

Information

Type
Research Paper
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. In vitro and in vivo symptoms of C. acuminata (AB in vivo symptoms; CD in vitro symptoms; B1 and D1 infected C. acuminata; B2 and D2 healthy C. acuminata).

Figure 1

Table 1. Pathogen transmission ability of Empoasca paraparvipenis during different time intervals

Figure 2

Figure 2. Pathogen-transmission ability of insect vector. Relative expression of phytoplasma in C. acuminata leaves in different pathogen transmission time and ability of E. paraparvipenis. Each treatment was repeated three times, and the means were subjected to Duncan's multiple range test at P ≤ 0.05. Different letters showed significant differences over time.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Gel electrophoresis of phytoplasma: (A) in different numbers of E. paraparvipenis (M: marker; 1: positive control; 2: 1 insect; 3: 3 insect; 4: 5 insect; 5: 10 insect; 6: 15 insect; 7: 20 insect; 8: negative control.); (B) in C. acuminata leaves at different amount inoculation (M: marker; 1, 12: positive control; 2–4: 1 insect; 5–7: 3 insect; 8–10: 5 insect; 11–13: 10 insect; 16–18: 15 insect; 19–21: 20 insect; 11, 22: negative control).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Regression analysis indicating transmission effects of different insect vector numbers. (A) Relative expression of phytoplasma in E. paraparvipenis and C. acuminata at different insect inoculation. (B) Pathogen transmission ability of E. paraparvipenis in different insect numbers. Each treatment was repeated three times.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Gel electrophoresis of phytoplasma: (A) in E. paraparvipenis at different ages (M: marker; 1: positive control; 2: 1st instar; 3: 2nd instar; 4: 3rd instar; 5: 4th instar; 6: 5th instar; 7: female adults; 8: male adults; 9: negative control); (B) in leaves of C. acuminata at different ages vaccination (M: marker; 1: positive control; 2–4: 1st instar nymphs; 5–7: 2nd instar nymphs; 8–10: 3rd instar nymphs; 11–13: 4th instar nymphs; 14–16: 5th instar nymphs; 17–19: female adults; 20–22: male adults; 23: negative control).

Figure 6

Table 2. Pathogen transmission effects of different development ages of Empoasca paraparvipenis

Figure 7

Figure 6. Development times of leafhoppers E. paraparvipenis. (A) Infected and healthy stages of insects. Different letters indicate the statistical difference among the column (P ≤ 0.05). (B) 1–3 instar nymphs of the infected and healthy insects. (C) 4th instars, adults and pre-oviposition periods of the infected and healthy insects.

Supplementary material: File

Cai et al. supplementary material

Cai et al. supplementary material
Download Cai et al. supplementary material(File)
File 1.4 MB