Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Brief Communication
  • Published:

Herbivory

Caterpillar saliva beats plant defences

Nature volume 416, pages 599–600 (2002)Cite this article

A new weapon emerges in the evolutionary arms race between plants and herbivores.

Abstract

Blood-feeding arthropods secrete special salivary proteins that suppress the defensive reaction they induce in their hosts1,2. This is in contrast to herbivores, which are thought to be helpless victims of plant defences elicited by their oral secretions3,4. On the basis of the finding that caterpillar regurgitant can reduce the amount of toxic nicotine released by the tobacco plant Nicotiana tabacum5, we investigate here whether specific salivary components from the caterpillar Helicoverpa zea might be responsible for this suppression. We find that the enzyme glucose oxidase counteracts the production of nicotine induced by the caterpillar feeding on the plant.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Ablation of the caterpillar (Helicoverpa zea) spinneret to prevent production of saliva.
Figure 2: Effect of caterpillar saliva on induced resistance in tobacco plants (Nicotiana tabacum).

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Felton, G. W. & Eichenseer, H. Induced Plant Defences Against Pathogens and Herbivores (Am. Phytopathol. Soc., St Paul, Minnesota, 1999).

  2. Ribeiro, J. M. C. Regulatory Mechanisms in Insect Feeding (Chapman & Hall, New York, 1995).

  3. Mattiacci, L., Dicke, M. & Posthumus, M. A. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 92, 2036–2040 (1995).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Alborn, H. T. et al. Science 276, 945–949 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kahl, J. et al. Planta 210, 336–342 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Eichenseer, H., Mathews, M. C., Bi, J. L., Murphy, J. B. & Felton, G. W. Arch. Insect Biochem. Physiol. 42, 99–109 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Saunders, J. A. & Blume, D. E. J. Chromatogr. 205, 147–154 (1981).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Entomology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, 72701, Arkansas, USA

    Richard O. Musser, Herb Eichenseer & Gary Ervin

  2. Department of Horticulture, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, 72701, Arkansas, USA

    Sue M. Hum-Musser & J. Brad Murphy

  3. Department of Entomology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, 16802, USA

    Michelle Peiffer & Gary W. Felton

Authors
  1. Richard O. Musser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sue M. Hum-Musser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Herb Eichenseer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michelle Peiffer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gary Ervin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. J. Brad Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Gary W. Felton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gary W. Felton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Musser, R., Hum-Musser, S., Eichenseer, H. et al. Caterpillar saliva beats plant defences. Nature 416, 599–600 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1038/416599a

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/416599a

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing