Advertisement

Phloem pp 449-457 | Cite as

Measurement of Electropotential Waves in Intact Sieve Elements Using Aphids as Bioelectrodes

  • Alexandra C. U. FurchEmail author
  • Matthias R. Zimmermann
  • Torsten Will
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 2014)

Abstract

Electropotential waves (EPWs) are thought to transmit sudden and profound physiological changes between plant organs. The recording of EPWs can be performed via extracellular or intracellular probes. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. Since the phloem is responsible for long distance transport of the most forms of EPWs, the direct measurement in sieve elements is preferable. The conductance using glass microelectrodes inserted into free lying sieve elements is described in Chapter  34. In this chapter the measurement of EPWs by using aphids as bioelectrodes is described in detail.

The electrical penetration graph technique (EPG) takes advantage of the flexible mouthparts (stylet) of aphids, which specifically penetrate into sieve elements. The use of aphids as bioelectrodes enables multiple electrode recordings and long-distance observations of EPWs. Importantly, this method allows for noninvasive, intracellular measurements.

Key words

Aphid Bioelectrode EPW EPG Intact plants Membrane potential Sieve elements Phloem signaling 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (grant FU969/2-1 to ACUF and MRZ).

References

  1. 1.
    Stankovic B, Witters DL, Zawadzki T, Davies E (1998) Action potentials and variation potentials in sunflower: an analysis of their relationships and distinguishing characteristics. Physiol Plant 103:51–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stahlberg R, Stephens NR, Cleland RE, Van Volkenburgh E (2006) Shade-induced action potentials in Helianthus annuus L. originate primarily from the epicotyl. Plant Signal Behav 1:15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Furch ACU, Hafke JB, Schulz A, van Bel AJE (2007) Ca2+-mediated remote control of reversible sieve tube occlusion in Vicia faba. J Exp Bot 58:2827–2838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grams TEE, Lautner S, Felle HH, Matyssek R, Fromm J (2009) Heat-induced electrical signals affect cytoplasmic and apoplasmic pH as well as photosynthesis during propagation through the maize leaf. Plant Cell Environ 32:319–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zimmermann MR, Mithöfer A (2013) Electrical long-distance signalling in plants. In: Baluska F (ed) Long-distance systemic signalling and communication in plants. Springer, Berlin, pp 291–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Will T, van Bel AJE (2006) Physical and chemical interactions between aphids and plants. J Exp Bot 57:729–7377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Will T, Vilcinskas A (2015) The structural sheath protein of aphids is required for phloem feeding. Insect Biochem Mol Biol 57:34–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibmb.2014.12.005CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tjallingii WF (1978) Electronic recording of penetration behaviour by aphids. Entomol Exp Appl 24:721–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tjallingii WF (1988) Electrical recording of stylet penetration activities. In: Minks AK, Harrewijn P (eds) Aphids, their biological, natural enemies and control, vol 2B. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 95–108Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Backus EA, Bennett WH (2009) The AC–DC correlation monitor: new EPG design with flexible input resistors to detect both R and EMF components for any piercing–sucking hemipteran. J Insect Physiol 55:869–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Walker GP (2000) A beginner’s guide to electronic monitoring of homopteran probing behaviour. In: Walker GP, Backus EA (eds) Principles and applications of electronic monitoring and other techniques in the study of homopteran feeding behaviour. Thomas Say Publications in Entomology, Entomological Society of America, Lanham, pp 14–40Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    McLean DL, Kinsey MG (1964) A technique for electronically recording aphid feeding and salivation. Nature 202:1358–1359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McLean DL, Kinsey MG (1965) Identification of electrically recorded curve patterns associated with aphid salivation and ingestion. Nature 205:1130–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tjallingii WF (1985) Membrane potentials as an indication for plant cell penetration by aphid stylets. Entomol Exp Appl 38:187–193.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.1985.tb03517.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tjallingii WF, Garzo E, Fereres A (2010) New structure in cell puncture activities by aphid stylets: a dual-mode EPG study. Entomol Exp Appl 135:193–207.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.2010.00983.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Salvador-Recatalà V, Tjallingii WF, Farmer EE (2014) Real-time, in vivo intracellular recordings of caterpillar-induced depolarization waves in sieve elements using aphid electrodes. New Phytol 203:674–684.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12807CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Furch ACU, Will T, Zimmermann MR, Hafke JB, van Bel AJE (2010) Remote-controlled stop of phloem mass flow by biphasic occlusion in Cucurbita maxima. J Exp Bot 61:3697–3708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mondal HA (2017) Shaping the understanding of saliva-derived effectors towards aphid colony proliferation in host plant. J Plant Biol 60:103–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Will T, Furch ACU, Zimmermann MR (2013) How phloem-feeding insects face the challenge of phloem-located defenses. Front Plant Sci 4:336.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2013.00336CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zimmermann MR, Mithöfer A, Will T, Felle HH, Furch ACU (2016) Herbivore-triggered electrophysiological reactions: candidates for systemic signals in higher plants and the challenge of their identification. Plant Physiol 170:2407–2419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Paulmann MK, Kunert G, Zimmermann MR, Theis N, Ludwig A, Meichsner D, Oelmüller R, Gershenzon J, Habekuß A, Ordon F, Furch ACU, Will T (2018) Barley yellow dwarf virus infection leads to higher chemical defence signals and lower electrophysiological reactions in susceptible compared to tolerant barley genotypes. Front Plant Sci 9:145.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.00145CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    van Helden M, Tjallingii WF (2000) Experimental design and analysis in EPG experiments with emphasis on plant resistance research. In: Walker GP, Backus EA (eds) Principles and applications of electronic monitoring and other techniques in the study of homopteran feeding behaviour. Thomas Say Publications in Entomology, Entomological Society of America, Lanham, pp 144–172Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexandra C. U. Furch
    • 1
    Email author
  • Matthias R. Zimmermann
    • 1
  • Torsten Will
    • 2
  1. 1.Matthias Schleiden Institute of Genetics, Bioinformatics and Molecular Botany, Faculty of Biological ScienceFriedrich-Schiller-University JenaJenaGermany
  2. 2.Julius Kuehn-Institute (JKI), Federal Research Centre for Cultivated PlantsInstitute for Resistance Research and Stress ToleranceQuedlinburgGermany

Personalised recommendations