| Title |
Genetic variation in the effect of a facultative symbiont on host-plant use by pea aphids
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Oecologia, April 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00442-007-0730-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Julia Ferrari, Claire L. Scarborough, H. Charles J. Godfray |
| Abstract |
Ecological specialisation on different host plants occurs frequently among phytophagous insects and is normally assumed to have a genetic basis. However, insects often carry microbial symbionts, which may play a role in the evolution of specialisation. The bacterium Regiella insecticola is a facultative symbiont of pea aphids (Acyrthosiphon pisum) where it is found most frequently in aphid clones feeding on Trifolium giving rise to the hypothesis that it may improve aphid performance on this plant. A study in which R. insecticola was eliminated from a single naturally infected aphid clone supported the hypothesis, but a second involving two aphid clones did not find the same effect. We created a series of new pea aphid-R. insecticola associations by injecting different strains of bacteria into five aphid clones uninfected by symbionts. For all aphid clones, the bacteria decreased the rate at which aphids accepted Vicia faba as a food plant and reduced performance on this plant. Their effect on aphids given Trifolium pratense was more complex: R. insecticola negatively affected acceptance by all aphid clones, had no effect on the performance of four aphid clones, but increased performance of a fifth, thus demonstrating genetic variation in the effect of R. insecticola on pea aphid host use. We discuss how these results may explain the distribution and frequency of this symbiont across different aphid populations. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Finland | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 118 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 38 | 29% |
| Researcher | 29 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 8% |
| Professor | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 13% |
| Unknown | 13 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 89 | 68% |
| Environmental Science | 8 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | <1% |
| Unspecified | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | 3% |
| Unknown | 21 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 June 2020.
All research outputs
#3,749,638
of 22,694,633 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#746
of 4,202 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,888
of 76,265 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#3
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,694,633 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,202 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 76,265 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.