Casas / Simpson Advances in Insect Physiology

1. Auflage 2010
ISBN: 978-0-12-381388-6
Verlag: Elsevier Science & Techn.
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: 6 - ePub Watermark

E-Book, Englisch, Band Volume 39, 232 Seiten

Reihe: Advances in Insect Physiology

Advances in Insect Physiology publishes volumes containing important, comprehensive and in-depth reviews on all aspects of insect physiology. It is an essential reference source for invertebrate physiologists and neurobiologists, entomologists, zoologists and insect biochemists. First published in 1963, the serial is now edited by Steven Simpson and Jerome Casas to provide an international perspective. - Contributions from the leading researchers in entomology - Discusses physiological diversity in insects - Includes in-depth reviews with valuable information for a variety of entomology disciplines

Autoren/Hrsg.

Casas, Jerome

Simpson, Stephen

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1;Front Cover;1
2;Advances in Insect Physiology;4
3;Copyright Page;5
4;Contents;6
5;Contributors;8
6;Chapter 1: Laboratory Populations as a Resource for Understanding the Relationship Between Genotypes and Phenotypes: A Global Case Study in Locusts;12
6.1;1 Introduction ;13
6.2;2 Locust lab colonies as a case study ;16
6.3;3 The genotypic and phenotypic consequences of lab rearing;21
6.4;4 The specific case of rearing locusts to study phase polyphenism;29
6.5;5 The application of laboratory population genetics;32
6.6;6 How might selection affect our conclusions?;39
6.7;7. Conclusion;40
6.8;Glossary;40
6.9;Most definitions adapted from Frankham et al. (2002) and Hedrick (2005a);40
6.10;Acknowledgments;43
6.11;References;43
7;Chapter 2: The Physiology of Wound Healing by the Medicinal Maggot, Lucilia sericata;50
7.1;1 Introduction;50
7.2;2 Background and history;51
7.3;3 Chronic wounds;55
7.4;4 The science of maggot action;59
7.5;5 Clinical implications: The role and use of the medicinal maggot;80
7.6;6 Concluding remarks;84
7.7;Acknowledgments;86
7.8;References;86
8;Chapter 3: The Genetic Architecture of Honeybee Breeding;94
8.1;1 Introduction;94
8.2;2 The social and genetic architecture of a honeybee colony;95
8.3;3 Biological properties of honeybees that facilitate breeding;105
8.4;4 Biological properties of honeybees that hinder breeding;108
8.5;5 Methods to address the difficulties in honeybee breeding;111
8.6;6 Minimizing inbreeding and loss of brood viability;116
8.7;7 Success stories;118
8.8;8 Concluding remarks;119
8.9;References;119
9;Chapter 4: Plasmodium-Mosquito Interactions: ATale of Roadblocks and Detours;130
9.1;1 Introduction;130
9.2;2 The Plasmodium life cycle in the mosquito;131
9.3;3 Mosquito immune response to Plasmodium;146
9.4;4 The role of commensal bacteria on Plasmodium midgut invasion;147
9.5;5 Vector-parasite co-evolution;149
9.6;6 Concluding remarks;150
9.7;References;150
10;Chapter 5: Chemistry of Cuticular Sclerotization;162
10.1;1 Introduction;163
10.2;2 Cuticular components;163
10.3;3 Non-covalent crosslinking versus covalent crosslinking;168
10.4;4 Quinone tanning;169
10.5;5 Quinone methide sclerotization;173
10.6;6 1,2-Dehydro-N-acyldopamines;182
10.7;7 Radical coupling;188
10.8;8 Colourless cuticle;190
10.9;9 Origin of ketocatechols in the cuticular hydrolyzate;192
10.10;10 Fate of hydroxylated quinonoid compounds;193
10.11;11 The difference between NADA and NBAD;195
10.12;12 Comparative biochemistry of melanogenesis and sclerotization;196
10.13;13 Metabolon formation;201
10.14;14 Possible sequence of reactions;202
10.15;15 Dehydro dopyl derivatives;203
10.16;16 Conclusions;208
10.17;Acknowledgments;209
10.18;References;209
11;Index;222
12;Color Plates;228

Leseproben

Chapter 1 Laboratory Populations as a Resource for Understanding the Relationship Between Genotypes and Phenotypes
A Global Case Study in Locusts
Karine Berthier*,1; Marie-Pierre Chapuis*,†,1; Stephen J. Simpson*; Hans-Jörg Ferenz‡; Chérif M. Habib Kane§; Le Kang¶; Angela Lange||; Swidbert R. Ott**; Mohammed A. Babah Ebbe§; Kees W. Rodenburg††; Stephen M. Rogers**; Baldwin Torto‡‡; Jozef Vanden Broeck§§; Joop J.A. van Loon¶¶; Gregory A. Sword*    *School of Biological Sciences, The University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
†Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement, Acridologie, TA A-50/D, Montpellier, France
‡Department of Animal Physiology, Institute of Zoology, Martin Luther University, Halle-Wittenberg, Germany
§Centre National de Lutte Antiacridienne de Mauritanie, Nouakchott, Mauritania
¶State Key Laboratory of Integrated Management of Pest Insects and Rodents, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
||Department of Biology, University of Toronto, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
**Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
††Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Biology Department and Institute of Biomembranes, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
‡‡International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology, Nairobi, Kenya
§§Research Group of Molecular Developmental Physiology and Signal Transduction, Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium
¶¶Laboratory of Entomology, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands
1Contributed equally to this work. Publisher Summary
The expression of phenotypic plasticity is widespread in insects. One of the most extraordinary and economically devastating examples of phenotypic plasticity is found in locusts. In contrast to typical grasshoppers, locust species express an extreme form of density-dependent phenotypic plasticity known as “phase polyphenism.” Environmental factors such as temperature, photoperiod, resource availability and population density, are known to affect the development of a myriad of phenotypic traits that have consequences for individual performance, ecology, life-history, fitness and subsequent evolution. Given their diversity of responses and amenability to experimental manipulation and rearing in the lab, insects continue to play an important role as model organisms in empirical analyses of the fundamental relationships between genotypes and phenotypes in animals. Critical conclusions and recommendations from the analysis of recent laboratory stocks, findings that are broadly applicable across taxa to any research program rearing organisms in the lab, are also given in the chapter. 1 Introduction
We are in the midst of the third revolution in evolutionary biology. First, there was Charles Darwin's founding theory of natural selection, then the melding of natural selection with genetics (the Neo-Darwinian synthesis), and relatively recently has come the realisation that, rather than relying solely on random genetic mutation, adaptive phenotypes can arise during development as a result of plastic interactions between genes and the environment (DeWitt and Scheiner, 2004; Jablonka and Lamb, 2006; McClearn, 2006; Pigliucci, 2005; Pigliucci and Preston, 2004; Richards et al., 2006; Schlichting and Pigliucci, 1998; West-Eberhard, 2003) (see Glossary for definitions of terms in bold throughout this chapter). The expression of such phenotypic plasticity is widespread in insects. Environmental cues such as temperature, photoperiod, resource availability and population density, to name just a few, are known to affect the development of a myriad of phenotypic traits which have consequences for individual performance, ecology, life-history, fitness and subsequent evolution (Whitman and Ananthakrishnan, 2009). Given their diversity of responses and amenability to experimental manipulation and rearing in the lab, insects will undoubtedly continue to play an important role as model organisms in empirical analyses of the fundamental relationships between genotypes and phenotypes in animals. Although technological advances increasingly enable researchers to dissect the genetic basis of complex phenotypic traits across taxa (Bouck and Vision, 2007; van Straalen and Roelofs, 2006), the generality of findings can be limited. In some cases, this important issue may have more to do with the origins and maintenance of organisms in the laboratory rather than their actual biology in the field. By necessity, molecular genetics and other research programmes are often dependent upon establishing captive populations to ensure a constant supply of organisms and the ability to manipulate or control environmental factors during development. However, the establishment and maintenance of captive populations involves a succession of bottlenecks in effective population size, which is expected to strongly impact upon genetic variation; possibly even that involved in the expression of the specific phenotypes under investigation. Thus, the extrapolation of findings about the mechanistic basis of traits from one lab culture to another, not to mention from lab to natural field populations, can be confounded by genetic differences between the organisms under study. 1.1 Laboratory colonies and the importance of population genetics
There is already evidence to suspect that genetic consequences of lab rearing have affected several lines of research addressing both basic and applied questions across animal taxa. For instance, genetic drift resulting from the domestication process has been proposed as a plausible explanation for conflicting experimental results in the zebra finch, a widely used model organism in behavioural research (see Forstmeier et al., 2007). Similarly, the depletion of genetic variation due to drift effects in lab strains of the trematode parasite, Schistosoma mansoni, has been implicated as an important factor that could mislead efficiency trials for candidate vaccines to be used against natural populations (Stohler et al., 2004). Although examples of such complications have not yet come to light in insects to our knowledge, there are compelling reasons for caution. For example, among locusts, there is evidence for the differential evolution of traits associated with density-dependent phase polyphenism between different culture strains within a laboratory as well as between closely related populations in the field (see Table 1). Thus, the danger clearly exists for potentially misinterpreting laboratory genetic artefacts as meaningful biological differences in analyses of locust phenotypes, and this risk should apply across species for any studies that involve rearing insects in the lab. Table 1 Summary of density-dependent differences reported in experiments comparing phase traits between different field populations and/or laboratory strains of locust L. migratoria Island versus mainland field populations Propensity to swarm when crowded Uvarov (1966, p. 372) L. migratoria Greek versus Nigerian field populations Morphometry, development time Schmidt and Albütz (1996) L. migratoria Malagasy versus French field populations Parental effects on behaviour and morphometry Chapuis et al. (2008b) L. migratoria Israeli field population versus West African lab strain Morphometry, sensillum number, behaviour Heifetz et al. (1994) L. migratoria Okinawa albino lab strain versus West African lab strain Morphometry Yerushalmi et al. (2001) Behaviour Hoste et al. (2002a, 2003) Responsiveness to [His7]-corazonin Grach et al. (2004) Mature crowded male yellowing Hasegawa and Tanaka (1994) S. gregaria S.g. gregaria versus South African S.g. flaviventris field populations Morphometry, behaviour, etc. Uvarov (1966, pp. 363–364 and 374–375) Botha (1967) Uvarov (1977, p. 522) S. gregaria Oxford lab strain versus Leuven lab strain Rate of behavioural change when...