which processes shape grapevine moth immune response against parasitism? plastic or selective...

Which processes shape grapevine moth immune response against parasitism?

Plastic or selective response

Fanny Vogelweith, Denis Thiéry, Yannick Moret & Jérôme Moreau

15th International Symposium on Insect-Plant Relationships

Tritrophic interactions

Trophic levels

Secondary consummers

Natural ennemies

Primary produceurs

Plants

Primary consummers

Phytophagous

Interdependences

Community regulation

≠ rate of parasitismMoreau et al. 2010 – Biological control

Hypotheses?

Intimacy of the relationships between pests and natural enemies

Plant composition

Immune system

Natural ennemiesPhytophagous insectHost plant

Bukovinsky et al. 2009

Resistance

Haemocyte

Insect larval

Haemolymph

Quinones+

Cytotoxic compounds

Melanin

Egg of parasitoid

PAMP

PRP

P PO

PO

Antimicrobial peptides

Constitutive and induced defenses

Insect immune system

Tyrosine

Genetic

Variation of insect immune system

Environment

Cotter et al. 2004

Nutrition(Siva-Jothy & Thompson

2002Schmid-Hempel 2003)

Density(Barnes & Siva-

Jothy 2000)

What we already know…Grape variety effect on :

Vogelweith et al. 2011. Functional Ecology Moreau et al. 2010. Biological Control

Relationship between immunity and parasitism

Immune parameters Parasitism

Vogelweith et al. 2013. Naturwissenschaften

ρ = 0.71 p < 0.0001

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

CBTKCCDGFVIOEMERDBPRCBSCBG

Para

sitis

m

Larval immune system

Naïves larvae

Relationship between parasitism and immunity

Plastic response

Larval immune system

Para

sitis

m

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

How to explain this relationship

Plastic response

Rearing larvae at L4

Immune measures

P POPO

6 days

Presence or AbsenceParasitoïd

2 parasitoïd species tested

C. capitator & P. nigrina

Absence of parasitoïd

Plastic response

Abs. C.c. P.n.

05

10152025303540

Mea

sure

uni

t (x1

03 ) ±

C.I.

95 %

Haemocyte concentration

Abs. C.c. P.n.

PO Activity

Abs. C.c. P.n.

Total-PO activity

Campoplex capitator

Phytomyptera nigrina

P POPO

a aa

aa

a

aa a

Plastic response

Are the larvae able to detect parasitoids?

aa aa

aa

b b

a

a

b b

Dead larvae Alive larvae Chrysalis

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Indi

vidu

al p

ropo

rtion

+/-

C. I

. 95%

Abs C.c. P.n.L.c. Abs C.c. P.n.L.c. Abs C.c. P.n.L.c.Vogelweith et al. 2013. Plos One

Synthetic value of immune system

Para

sitis

m

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Conclusion

Larvae detect parasitoïds

But no effect on immune parameters

Plastic response

Selective responsePlastic response

Vogelweith et al. 2013 – Plos One

Selective response

Average parasitism : recording of 9

populations between 2008 and 2012

Immune parameters measures on naïve

larvae in 2012

Hae

moc

yte

conc

entr

ation

(x10

3 ha

emoc

ytes

/µl)

10

13

16

19

22

25

28

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Mean rate of parasitism

20

30

40

50

60

70

PO (x

103 m

iliun

ité/m

in)

6

8

10

12

14

16

Tota

l-PO

(x10

3 m

iliun

ité/m

in)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Mean rate of parasitism

ρ = 0.62 ; p = 0.07; I.C. 95% = [-0.10; 0.90]

ρ = 0.65; p = 0.05 ; I.C. 95% = [-0.03; 0.98]

Selective response

ρ = 0.72; P = 0.03; I.C. 95% = [0.03; 0.94]

PO

PO

P

Conclusion

1st year 2nd year 3rd year


Para

sitis

m

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Conclusion

Positive relationship between

parasitism&

larval immunityPlastic response

Selective response

Acknowledgments

A. BalourdetIngenieer

D. ThiéryResearcher

Y. MoretResearcher

J.P. TroussardIngenieer

M.-L. FelixTrainee

J. MoreauLecturer

E. DesvignesTrainee

S. MotreuilIngenieer

Thank you for your attention

Conclusion

Parasitoïds

Grape varieties

Larvae- Immunity -

In lab and in vineyards

Immunity modulation by ≠ selective pressure

PO-PPO activities


Immune measures

Induced defense

Antimicrobial activiy

Constitutive defenses


Grape varieties

Haemocyte concentration (x103 haemocytes/µL)

gw pg pn

ALSACE

CB

pg pn rg

TK

a

ab b

se

CC

AQUITAINE

cf cs m pg y

DGF

y

VI

BO

mr pn y

CHAMPAGNE

MER

mr pn

OE

ar m y

DB

PACA

ci gr

PR

a

b

gy

CBG

RHONEALPES

gy

CBS

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

23 26 5 32 28 27 18 5 7 6 9 16 12 23 31 25 10 8 27 13 30 26 28 22 15

Antimicrobial activity

gw pg pn pg pn rg se cf cs m pg y y mr pn y mr pn ar m y ci gr gy gy

Grape varieties

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percentage of individual with an antimicrobial activity

CB TK CC DGF VI MER OE DB PR CBG CBS

a

ab

ba

b

ac

b

abc

ALSACE AQUITAINE BO CHAMPAGNE PACARHONEALPES

23 26 5 32 28 27 18 5 7 6 9 16 12 23 31 25 10 8 27 13 30 26 28 22 15

Parasitism

Grape varieties

Para

sitis

m

RHONEALPES

gw pg pn pg pn rg se cf cs m pg y y mr pn y mr pn ar m y ci gr gy gy

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

ALSACE AQUITAINE BO CHAMPAGNE PACA

CB TK CC DGF VI MER OE DB PR CBG CBS

ab

b

a

ab

b

aa

b

38 23 20 81 30 14 193 8 8 18 10 6 17 123 94 83 13 10 112 33 333 36 166 84 18


Haemocytes

PO-PPO activities

Antimicrobial activity

P PO P PO

P PO

P PO

P PO

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4


Para

sitis

m

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0



Involvement of immune system in tritrophic interactions

1st year 2nd year

Sampling in natural populations

May 2011

Vogelweith et al. 2013. Naturwissenschaften

which processes shape grapevine moth immune response against parasitism? plastic or selective...

Documents