Next Article in Journal
Complementary Contribution of Wild Bumblebees and Managed Honeybee to the Pollination Niche of an Introduced Blueberry Crop
Previous Article in Journal
Characterization of Anopheles stephensi Odorant Receptor 8, an Abundant Component of the Mouthpart Chemosensory Transcriptome
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

The Effect of Gut Bacteria on the Physiology of Red Palm Weevil, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus Olivier and Their Potential for the Control of This Pest

1
State Key Laboratory of Ecological Pest Control for Fujian and Taiwan Crops, Fuzhou 350002, China
2
Fujian Provincial Key Laboratory of Insect Ecology, College of Plant Protection, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350002, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Submission received: 30 May 2021 / Revised: 22 June 2021 / Accepted: 25 June 2021 / Published: 30 June 2021

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Red palm weevil (RPW), Rynchophorus ferrugineus Olivier, is a destructive pest that often seriously infests palm plants. Because of the negative environmental effect and pesticide resistance caused by insecticide applications, it is important to develop novel green control strategies for this pest. The intestinal tracts of RPW are often colonized by multiple bacterial species that have promoting effects on the growth, development and immunity of RPW larvae. This review summarized the current understanding on the crosstalk between RPW larvae and their gut microbiota and pointed out the great potential of the development of microbial resource-based management methods for this pest.

Abstract

Red Palm Weevil (RPW), Rhynchophorus ferrugineus Olivier, is a notorious pest, which infests palm trees and has caused great economic losses worldwide. At present, insecticide applications are still the main way to control this pest. However, pesticide resistance has been detected in the field populations of RPW. Thus, future management strategies based on the novel association biological control need be developed. Recent studies have shown that the intestinal tract of RPW is often colonized by multiple microbial species as mammals and model insects, and gut bacteria have been found to promote the growth, development and immune activity of RPW larvae by modulating nutrient metabolism. Furthermore, two peptidoglycan recognition proteins (PGRPs), PGRP-LB and PGRP-S1, can act as the negative regulators to modulate the intestinal immunity to maintain the homeostasis of gut bacteria in RPW larvae. Here, we summarized the current knowledge on the gut bacterial composition of RPW and their impact on the physiological traits of RPW larvae. In contrast with metazoans, it is much easier to make genetic engineered microbes to produce some active molecules against pests. From this perspective, because of the profound effects of gut bacteria on host phenotypes, it is promising to dissect the molecular mechanisms behind their effect on host physiology and facilitate the development of microbial resource-based management methods for pest control.

1. Introduction

Red Palm Weevil (RPW), Rhynchophorus ferrugineus Olivier, is a tremendously destructive pest for palm trees, including coconut Coccus nucifera L., date palm Phoenix dactylifera L. and coconut (Cocos nucifera L.) as well as urban palmscapes (e.g., those dominated by Canary Islands date palms (Phoenix canariensis Chabaud)) [1,2]. The female adults often lay eggs in wounds, cracks and crevices on the tree trunks, and then the larvae, the most damaging life stage, move into the interior of the palm trunk to construct tunnels and large cavities, with the production of the wet fermenting frass inside the galleries, and eventually lead to frond disfigurement and palm death [3,4,5]. Furthermore, RPW adults have the capacity to fly for a very long distance [6,7]. So far, RPW has been found in South Asia, the Middle East, the Mediterranean region [3,8], China [9], the Caribbean [10] and Malaysia [11], and has caused great economic loss, including expenses for removal of dead palms, lowered property values, degradation of recreational areas and urban wildlife habitats and potentially the harm and expenses associated with prophylactic pesticide applications to protect palms from weevils [12]. RPW has caused extensive economic damage in Egypt and the Gulf region [13,14], while the Mediterranean region has lost EUR 483 million [15]. In India, the removal costs for avenue C. nucifera have been estimated to be USD 80–100 per tree (J.R. Faleiro pers. obs.) [12]. Pest severity is exacerbated because RPW feeding larvae are concealed, which makes early detection and control difficult [12]. Therefore, how to effectively control the infestation of RPW is still a major worldwide challenge at present.
Currently, exclusionary quarantines, pheromone traps and bio-control agents are employed to control RPW. However, insecticide applications are still the most effective way to protect palms against attack by palm weevils [12,16,17]. For example, these insecticides, containing organophosphates, carbamates, neonicotinoids and phenylpyrazoles, have been sprayed onto foliage, used as crown or soil drenches, used to dress wounds or injected into trunks or soil at the base of a trunk [12,18,19]. Unfortunately, resistance to synthetic insecticides such as chlorpyrifos, imidacloprid and lambda-cyhalothrin has been determined in the field populations of RPW [20]. Compared with the usage of chemical pesticides, biocontrol agents have the following advantages: low toxicity, target specificity and sustainability [21]. In this context, the employment of natural enemies is an important alternative to manage these notorious insect pests [9]. Two species of entomopathogenic pathogens, Metarhizium anisopliae [22] and Beauveria bassiana [23,24], the entomopathogenic nematode Steinernema carpocapsae [25,26] as well as several bacterial species such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Serratia marcescens and Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) have been shown to be lethal to RPW insects [9,27]. For instance, laboratory bioassays revealed that RPW larvae exhibited lower boring activity, and a gradual decrease in feeding behavior following exposure to Bt [9]. However, the field trials performed so far on these biological agents have showed limited efficacy [12,28,29]. Therefore, new association biological control can be exploited for the development of novel management strategies [12]. Recently, it has been uncovered that the pathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana can interact with the gut microbiota to promote the death of mosquitos [30]. The infection of Bt disrupted the gut integrity of Spodoptera littoralis Boisd, and then caused the translocation of gut bacteria, especially Serratia and Clostridium, into hemocoel to accelerate the death of this pest [31]. Consequently, these data suggest that the associated microbes of insects have the great potential to drive the development of novel microbes-based pest management strategies [16,32].

2. Gut Bacterial Compositions and Their Effects on the Physiology of Red Palm Weevil

As vertebrates, the gut of insects is usually colonized by diverse groups of microbes, which are generally known as gut microbiota, including bacteria, archaea, viruses, fungi and other protists. Among them, bacteria are the most predominant microbes, often referred to as gut bacteria [33,34,35]. It is difficult to generalize about gut bacteria of insects because of their vast ecological and taxonomic diversity [34]. The bacteria in the insect gut are usually Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes, Actinomycetes, Spirochetes and Verrucomicrobia [35,36,37]. Increasing evidence has found that insects have established mutual relationships with their intestinal bacteria [38]. For example, insects provide a stable survival environment and essential nutrients for gut bacteria, which in turn is involved in many physiological processes of insect hosts, including growth and development [39,40,41], metabolism [42], essential nutrient provisions [43], immunity and gut homeostasis [34,44,45]. Recently, gut microbiome has been found to play the essential role in nutrient allocation, mobilization and metabolism of Nasonia vitripennis Walker [46]. In Dendrotonus ponderosae Hopkins, Dendrotonus valens LeConte and Ips grandicollis Eichhoff, symbiotic gut bacteria can provide essential nutrients and be involved in digestion and detoxification of plant compounds [47]. Furthermore, increasing evidence supports that gut bacteria also influence the physiological fitness of the host through some specific metabolites [48]. Acetic acid, a metabolite produced by gut bacteria, can accelerate the growth rate of Drosophila melanogaster by upregulating the expression of insulin receptor and insulin-like peptide genes in the insulin/insulin-like growth factor signaling (IIS) [49,50]. Additionally, the gut bacterium, Citrobacter sp., can improve the resistance of Bactrocera dorsalis to the organophosphate insecticide, trichlorphon [51]. Consequently, gut bacteria profoundly affect the development, health and pesticide resistance of insect hosts.
Indeed, the intestine of RPW is also often inhabited by many bacterial species, showing important effects on host nutrition metabolism and development. The gut bacteria of RPW are mainly composed of Enterobacteriaceae, Lactobacillaceae, Streptococcaceae and Entomoplasmataceae. Some bacterial species, with the capacity to hydrolyze cellulose and hemicelluloses, can degrade polysaccharides to modulate the nutrition metabolism of RPW [42,52,53]. When the gut bacteria of RPW larvae were fully removed, the development rate from eggs to prepupa was dramatically prolonged, the body weight was reduced, and the contents of protein, glucose and triglyceride in the hemolymph were significantly decreased as well (Figure 1) [41,42]. These data suggest that gut bacteria can promote the growth and development of RPW larvae. In addition, several bacterial species can regulate the nutrient metabolism of RPW larvae. The sole introduction of Lactococcus lacti and Enterobacter cloacae to germfree RPW larvae can improve the content of protein, glucose and triglyceride in the hemolymph, respectively [41]. However, the molecular mechanisms underlying these processes are still unknown. Until now, it has been well defined that insect gut bacteria can be affected by the following factors, such as diet, environmental conditions and developmental stages. The disruption of gut microbiome homeostasis can dramatically impair the physiological fitness of some insect species [35,42,54,55,56,57]. For instance, the exposure of Apis mellifera L. to glyphosate and antibiotics can perturb its gut bacterial community structure, and then elevate their mortality upon the challenge of the opportunistic pathogen [58,59]. Recently, the ingestion of dsRNAs by the willow leaf beetle, Plagiodera versicolora Laicharting, results in dramatic alterations in the gut bacterial composition to accelerate its death [60]. Thus, these reports indicate it is promising to develop novel green pest control methods based on the disruption of gut bacterial homeostasis in insect pests [57].

3. The Role of Immune-Related Factors in Maintaining the Homeostasis of Gut Bacteria in Red Palm Weevil

The gut is the primary interface of material exchange between hosts and the external environment [61]. During feeding, a variety of bacteria can move into the gut with food, but not all of them are beneficial to the insects [35]. Therefore, the following question is very vital for insect health: how does the insect intestine discriminate between beneficial symbiotic and pathogenic bacteria quickly and accurately to achieve a sophisticated balance between tolerating symbiotic bacteria and eliminating the pathogens? Most gut bacteria release peptidoglycan (PGN), which is an important antigen for insects to recognize the invaded microbes and activate immunity [35,62,63]. It is well known that PGN is often recognized by peptidoglycan recognition proteins (PGRPs), the key immune receptors, to activate the immune responses of insects [64]. Previous investigations have identified several PGRPs in RPW, such as RfPGRP-L2, RfPGRP-L1, RfPGRP-LB and RfPGRP-S2, which are involved in the regulation of gut bacterial homeostasis in different ways [60,65,66,67]. For instance, RfPGRP-L2 and RfPGRP-L1 modulate the proliferation of intestinal bacteria by mediating the expression of antimicrobial peptide genes in gut epithelia cells [61,67]. Both RfPGRP-LB and RfPGRP-S1 act as negative regulators of RPW gut immunity to avoid the excessive activation of intestinal immunity by degrading PGN (Figure 2) [61,65,66,67]. However, whether these different PGRP members cooperate to modulate the homeostasis of gut bacteria needs further investigation. In addition, two innate immune signaling pathways were also found to perform different roles in the regulation of RPW gut bacteria homeostasis. Although both the RfRelish-mediated-IMD-like pathway and RfSpätzle–mediated-Toll-like pathway mediate the production of antimicrobial peptides to confer protection and maintain the homeostasis of gut microbiota, the IMD-like pathway plays the dominant role [68,69]. In sum, these data suggest that RPW has the tune mechanisms to maintain appropriate intestinal immune intensity to maintain the homeostasis of gut microbiota.
Gut bacteria also mediate the resistance of their hosts to various pathogenic bacteria, parasites and other attacks [28]. Accumulating evidence showed that the axenic insects are more susceptible to pathogens and parasites in contrast with the conventionally reared ones [70,71]. Interestingly, the germfree RPW larvae exhibited impaired PO activity and a clearing ability to remove the invaded bacteria in hemocoel. It also died at a significantly higher rate upon facing the challenge of Serratia marcescens. Moreover, the transcript abundance of several pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) and antimicrobial peptides was significantly decreased in RPW germfree larvae [33]. Therefore, these data indicated that gut bacteria of RPW could enhance its immunocompetence by stimulating the expression of the important immunity-related genes, suggesting that gut bacteria have an immunostimulatory effect for their host and confer protection against pathogens.

4. The Promising Application of Gut Bacteria in the Pest Control

Insects are the most diverse and widely distributed group of animals on the earth. Many of them are pests or disease vectors, which has caused huge economic losses for agriculture and even posed serious threats to human health. Although insecticide applications have significantly dampened the occurrence of insect pests, the negative effects caused by chemical pesticides has forced humans to seek economic, efficient and sustainable pest management methods [28]. Therefore, impeding the infestation and spread of notorious insect pests efficiently and economically is still a major challenge [28,35,38]. Due to the profound effects of the associated microbes on insect hosts, Microbial Resource Management (MRM), which involves manipulating and exploiting microbiota for the management of insect-related problems, has been proposed [51,72]. Sterile insect technology (SIT) has been verified as an effective way to decrease the field population size of some insect pests by making and releasing sterile male individuals [35]. However, the mating competitiveness of the sterilized Ceratitis capitate Wiedemann males made by gama irradiation was significantly impaired [73]. Interestingly, it was found that the alterations in gut microbiota are the dominant reason for the impaired mating competitiveness of sterilized C. captate males. The introduction of gut bacterium, Klebsiella oxytoca, could rescue their mating competitiveness [74]. Therefore, this example suggests that it is feasible to solve the insect pest-associated problems by the manipulation of their gut bacteria.
It is much easier to complete genetic modifications in gut bacteria in contrast with insects. Consequently, genetic engineering has been employed to modify the symbiotic microbes to produce antipathogen effectors (termed paratransgenesis). That is, the dominant gut bacterial species can be modified by genetic engineering as the vector to produce some effective molecules to impair the physiology of insect pests [28,38]. For example, two symbiotic bacteria, Pantoea agglomerans and Serrratia bacterium strain AS1, have been successfully engineered by genetic modifications to secrete five different antimalarial peptides to disrupt the development of Plasmodium falciparum in the guts of Anopheles mosquitoes [75,76]. Moreover, termites can be killed by the introduction of a genetically engineered yeast with the capacity to produce a protozoacidal lytic peptide that can cause the death of protozoa in their gut [77]. Recently, gut bacteria have been demonstrated to show a synergistic role to accelerate the mortality of insect pests, which was caused by the pathogenic fungi [30], bacterium [78] and the ingestion of dsRNA [50]. These reports suggest that it is promising to deal with the insect pests-related problems by the manipulation and exploitation of their associated microbes. A central question for the usage of gut bacteria to reduce the infestation of insect pests is how to introduce the bacteria, and how to ensure their persistence in their field populations [79]. In RPW larva, two dominant gut bacterial species, Lactococcus lacti and Enterobacter cloacae, play major roles in the regulation of nutrition metabolism [41]. Interestingly, these two bacterial species have also been found in RPW larval frass and palm trunk tissue [80]. In addition, genetically engineered bacteria can be introduced into the RPW larvae through the bacterial inoculation into the healthy palm trunk. This evidence indicates that L. lacti and E. cloacae are promising candidates for paratransgenesis in this pest. Understanding of the diversity and functionality of the intestinal microbiome is the most important foundation for the exploitation of an MRM approach. Therefore, the deep dissection on the molecular mechanisms underlying the crosstalk between gut bacteria and their insect hosts will accelerate the development of gut bacteria-based pest management strategies.

5. Conclusions

As mammals, the insect’s intestine is often colonized by a community of commensal microbes, known as the gut microbiota. It has been well determined that the interactions between gut bacteria and their insect hosts profoundly affect the physiological fitness of insects, including reproduction, development, growth, immunity and behaviour. Furthermore, the maintaining of gut bacterial homeostasis is vital for insect health. In contrast with animal hosts, it is much easier to make the transgenic gut bacteria by genetic modifications. Thus, it is promising to develop the novel management strategies by genetically modifying the specific gut bacterium to dampen the occurrence of notorious insect pests.

Author Contributions

Z.-H.S. conceived the ideas in the article. Z.-H.S., Q.-X.L., Z.-P.S., H.-H.L., S.-P.L., B.M., Y.Z. and Y.-M.H. contributed to the writing and revising of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant number: 31470656), National Key Research and Development Project of China (Grant number: 2017YFC1200605), Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province (Grant number: 2018J01705) and the Special Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University (Grant number: CXZX2019002G).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful the cordial invitation from Sandra Vacas, the editor of special issue on the management of true weevils (Curculionidae), to prepare this paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Wattanpongsiri, A. A Revision of the Genera Rhynchophorus and Dynamis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Ph.D. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA, August 1965. [Google Scholar]
  2. Murphy, S.T.; Briscoe, B.R. The red palm weevil as an alien invasive: Biology and the prospects for biological control as a component of IPM. Biocontrol News Inf. 1999, 20, 35–46. [Google Scholar]
  3. Gutierrez, A.; Ruiz, V.; Molto, E.; Tapia, G.; del Mar Tellez, M. Development of a bioacoustic sensor for the early detection of red palm weevil (Rhynchophorus ferrugineus Olivier). Crop. Prot. 2010, 29, 671–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Knutelski, S.; Awad, M.; Łukasz, N.; Bukowski, M.; Śmiałek, J.; Suder, P.; Dubin, G.; Mak, P. Isolation, Identification, and bioinformatic analysis of antibacterial proteins and peptides from immunized hemolymph of red palm weevil Rhynchophorus ferrugineus. Biomolecules 2021, 11, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ju, R.-T.; Wang, F.; Wan, F.-H.; Li, B. Effect of host plants on development and reproduction of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (Olivier) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Pest. Sci. 2011, 84, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hou, Y.M.; Wu, Z.J.; Wang, C.F. The Status and Harm of Invasive Insects in Fujian, China, in Biological Invasions: Problems and Countermeasures; Xie, L.H., You, M.S., Hou, Y.M., Eds.; Science Press: Beijing, China, 2011; pp. 111–114. [Google Scholar]
  7. Han, Z.; Zhou, J.; Zhong, F.; Huang, Q.L. Research progress on damage and control of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus. Guangdong Agric. Sci. 2013, 40, 68–71. [Google Scholar]
  8. Llacer, E.; Negre, M.; Jacas, J.A. Evaluation of an oil dispersion formulation of imidacloprid as a drench against Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (Coleoptera, Curculionidae) in young palm trees. Pest. Manag. Sci. 2012, 68, 878–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Pu, Y.C.; Ma, T.L.; Hou, Y.M.; Sun, M. An entomopathogenic bacterium strain, Bacillus thuringiensis, as a biological control agent against the red palm weevil, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Pest. Manag. Sci. 2017, 73, 1494–1502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Fiaboe, K.K.M.; Peterson, A.T.; Kairo, M.T.K.; Roda, A.L. Predicting the potential worldwide distribution of the red palm weevil Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (Olivier) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) using ecological niche modeling. Florida Entomol. 2012, 95, 659–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Fong, J.; Siti, N.; Wahizatul, A.A. Virulence evaluation of entomopathogenic fungi against the red palm weevil, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (Coleoptera: Dryopthoridae). Malays. Appl. Biol. J. 2018, 47, 25–30. [Google Scholar]
  12. Milosavljevic, I.; El-Shafie, H.A.F.; Faleiro, J.R.; Hoddle, C.D.; Lewis, M.; Hoddle, M.S. Palmageddon: The wasting of ornamental palms by invasive palm weevils, Rhynchophorus spp. J. Pest. Sci. 2019, 92, 143–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. El-Juhany, L.I. Degradation of date palm trees and date production in Arab countries: Causes and potential rehabilitation. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2020, 4, 3998–4010. [Google Scholar]
  14. El-Sabea, A.M.; Faleiro, J.; Abo-El-Saad, M.M. The threat of red palm weevil Rhynchophorus ferrugineus to date plantations of the Gulf region in the Middle-East: An economic perspective. Outlooks Pest. Manag. 2009, 20, 131–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Aldobai, S.; Ferry, M. Proposed multidisciplinary and multi-regional strategy for the management of red palm weevil. In Proceedings of the Scientific Consultation and High-Level Meeting on Red Palm Weevil Management, Rome, Italy, 29–31 March 2017; FAO and CIHEAM: Rome, Italy, 2017; pp. 29–31. [Google Scholar]
  16. Faleiro, J.R. A review of the issues and management of the red palm weevil Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (Coleoptera: Rhynchophoridae) in coconut and date palm during the last one hundred years. Int. J. Trop. Insect. Sci. 2006, 26, 135–154. [Google Scholar]
  17. Pu, Y.C.; Hou, Y.M. Isolation and identification of bacterial strains with insecticidal activities from Rhynchophorus ferrugineus Oliver (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Appl. Entomol. 2016, 140, 617–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hussain, A.; Rizwan-ul-Haq, M.; Al-Jabr, A.M.; Al-Ayied, H.Y. Managing invasive populations of red palm weevil: A worldwide perspective. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2013, 11, 456–463. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hoddle, M.S.; Hoddle, C.D. How far can the palm weevil, Rhynchophorus vulneratus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), fly? J. Econ. Entomol. 2016, 109, 629–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ahmed, R.; Freed, S. Biochemical resistance mechanisms against chlorpyrifos, imidacloprid and lambda-cyhalothrin in Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (Olivier) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Crop. Prot. 2021, 143, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Roh, J.Y.; Choi, J.Y.; Li, M.S.; Jin, B.R.; Je, Y.H. Bacillus thuringiensis as a specific, safe, and effective tool for insect pest control. J. Microbiol. Biotech. 2007, 17, 547–559. [Google Scholar]
  22. Zhang, J.; Qin, W.Q.; Yan, W.; Peng, Z.Q. Detection of pathogenicity of Meatarhiziums against Rhynchophorus ferrugineus in laboratory. Chin. J. Trop. Crop. 2012, 33, 899–905. [Google Scholar]
  23. Hussain, A.; Rizwan-ul-Haq, M.; Al-Ayedh, H.; Ahmed, S.; Al-Jabr, A.M. Effect of Beauveria bassiana infection on the feeding performance and antioxidant defence of red palm weevil, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus. BioControl 2015, 60, 849–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Jalinas, J.; Güerri-Agulló, B.; Mankin, R.W.; López-Follana, R.; Lopez-Llorca, L.V. Acoustic Assessment of Beauveria bassiana (Hypocreales: Clavicipitaceae) Effects on Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (Coleoptera: Dryophthoridae) larval activity and mortality. J. Econ. Entomol. 2015, 108, 444–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Llácer, E.; Martínez de Altube, M.M.; Jacas, J.A. Evaluation of the efficacy of Steinernema carpocapsae in a chitosan formulation against the red palm weevil, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus, in Phoenix canariensis. BioControl 2009, 54, 559–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Mastore, M.; Arizza, V.; Manachini, B.; Brivio, M.F. Modulation of immune responses of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (Insecta: Coleoptera) induced by the entomopathogenic nematode Steinernema carpocapsae (Nematoda: Rhabditida). Insect Sci. 2015, 22, 748–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Banerjee, A.; Dangar, T.K. Pseudomonas aeruginosa, a facultative pathogen of red palm weevil, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus. World J. Microb. Biot. 1995, 11, 618–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wei, G.; Bai, L.; Qu, S.; Wang, S.B. Insect microbiome and their potential application in the insect pest and vector-borne disease control. Acta Microbiol. Sin. 2018, 58, 1090–1102. [Google Scholar]
  29. Mazza, G.; Francardi, V.; Simoni, S.; Benvenuti, C.; Cervo, R.; Faleiro, J.R.; Llácer, E.; Longo, S.; Nannelli, R.; Tarasco, E.; et al. An overview on the natural enemies of Rhynchophorus palm weevils, with focus on R. ferrugineus. Biol. Control 2014, 77, 83–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wei, G.; Lai, Y.; Wang, G.; Chen, H.; Li, F.; Wang, S. Insect pathogenic fungus interacts with the gut microbiota to accelerate mosquito mortality. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 5994–5999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Caccia, S.; Di Lelio, I.; La Storia, A.; Marinelli, A.; Varricchio, P.; Franzetti, E.; Banyuls, N.; Tettamanti, G.; Casartelli, M.; Giordana, B.; et al. Midgut microbiota and host immunocompetence underlie Bacillus thuringiensis killing mechanism. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2017, 113, 9486–9491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Liao, Q.L.; Guo, Y.J.; Zhou, J.S.; Wan, Y.; Carballar-Lejarazu, R.; Sheng, L.J.; Zou, S.Q. Characterization of bacterial communities associated with Rhynchophorus ferrugineus Olivier (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and its host Phoenix sylvestris. Curr. Microbiol. 2020, 77, 3321–3329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Muhammad, A.; Habineza, P.; Ji, T.; Hou, Y.; Shi, Z. Intestinal microbiota confer protection by priming the immune system of red palm weevil Rhynchophorus ferrugineus Olivier (Coleoptera: Dryophthoridae). Front. Physiol. 2019, 10, 1303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Engel, P.; Moran, N.A. The gut microbiota of insects-diversity in structure and function. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2013, 37, 699–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Shi, Z.H.; Hou, Y.M. Current understanding on the mechanism of the interactions between insects and gut microbiota and its implications in the pest control. J. Environ. Entomol. 2020, 42, 798–805. [Google Scholar]
  36. Colman, D.R.; Toolson, E.C.; Takacs-Vesbach, C.D. Do diet and taxonomy influence insect gut bacterial communities? Mol. Ecol. 2012, 21, 5124–5137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wang, W.X.; Zhu, T.H.; Lai, F.X. Research advances in symbiotic microorganisms in insects and their function. Acta Entomol. Sin. 2021, 64, 121–140. [Google Scholar]
  38. Wang, S.B.; Qu, S. Insect symbionts and their potential application in pest and vector -borne disease control. Bull. Chin. Acad. Sci. 2017, 8, 863–872. [Google Scholar]
  39. Blatch, S.A.; Meyer, K.W.; Harrison, J.F. Effects of dietary folic acid level and symbiotic folate production on fitness and development in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. Fly 2010, 4, 312–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Wong, A.C.; Dobson, A.J.; Douglas, A.E. Gut microbiota dictates the metabolic response of Drosophila to diet. J. Exp. Biol. 2014, 217, 1894–1901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Habineza, P.; Muhammad, A.; Ji, T.L.; Xiao, R.; Yin, X.Y.; Hou, Y.M.; Shi, Z.H. The promoting effect of gut microbiota on growth and development of red palm weevil, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (Olivier) (Coleoptera: Dryophthoridae) by modulating its nutritional metabolism. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Muhammad, A.; Fang, Y.; Hou, Y.; Shi, Z. The Gut entomotype of red palm weevil Rhynchophorus ferrugineus Olivier (Coleoptera: Dryophthoridae) and their effect on host nutrition metabolism. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 2291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Jing, T.Z.; Qi, F.H.; Wang, Z.Y. Most dominant roles of insect gut bacteria: Digestion, detoxification, or essential nutrient provision? Microbiome 2020, 8, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Lee, K.A.; Kim, S.H.; Kim, E.K.; Ha, E.M.; You, H.; Kim, B.; Kim, M.J.; Kwon, Y.; Ryu, J.H.; Lee, W.J. Bacterial-derived uracil as a modulator of mucosal immunity and gut-microbe homeostasis in Drosophila. Cell 2013, 153, 797–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Douglas, A.E. Multiorganismal insects: Diversity and function of resident microorganisms. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2015, 60, 17–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Dittmer, J.; Brucker, R.M. When your host shuts down: Larval diapause impacts host-microbiome interactions in Nasonia vitripennis. Microbiome 2021, 9, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Adams, A.S.; Currie, C.R.; Cardoza, Y.; Klepzig, K.D.; Raffa, K.F. Effects of symbiotic bacteria and tree chemistry on the growth and reproduction of bark beetle fungal symbionts. Can. J. For. Res. 2009, 39, 1133–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Silva, Y.P.; Bernardi, A.; Frozza, R.L. The role of short-chain fatty acids from gut microbiota in gut-brain communication. Front. Endocrinol. 2020, 11, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Shin, S.C.; Kim, S.H.; You, H.; Kim, B.; Kim, A.C.; Lee, K.A.; Yoon, J.H.; Ryu, J.H.; Lee, W.J. Drosophila microbiome modulates host developmental and metabolic homeostasis via insulin signaling. Science 2011, 334, 670–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Zheng, H.; Powell, J.E.; Steele, M.I.; Dietrich, C.; Moran, N.A. Honeybee gut microbiota promotes host weight gain via bacterial metabolism and hormonal signaling. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 4775–4780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Cheng, D.; Guo, Z.; Riegler, M.; Xi, Z.; Liang, G.; Xu, Y. Gut symbiont enhances insecticide resistance in a significant pest, the oriental fruit fly Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel). Microbiome 2017, 5, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Jia, S.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, G.; Yin, A.; Zhang, S.; Li, F.; Wang, L.; Zhao, D.; Yun, Q.; Tala; et al. Seasonally variable intestinal metagenomes of the red palm weevil (Rhynchophorus ferrugineus). Environ. Microbiol. 2013, 15, 3020–3029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Montagna, M.; Chouaia, B.; Mazza, G.; Prosdocimi, E.M.; Crotti, E.; Mereghetti, V. Effects of the diet on the microbiota of the red palm weevil (Coleoptera: Dryophthoridae). PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0117439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. David, L.A.; Maurice, C.F.; Carmody, R.N.; Gootenberg, D.B.; Button, J.E.; Wolfe, B.E.; Ling, A.V.; Devlin, A.S.; Varma, Y.; Fischbach, M.A.; et al. Diet rapidly and reproducibly alters the human gut microbiome. Nature 2014, 505, 559–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Yun, J.H.; Roh, S.W.; Whon, T.W.; Jung, M.J.; Kim, M.S.; Park, D.S.; Yoon, C.; Nam, Y.D.; Kim, Y.J.; Choi, J.H.; et al. Insect gut bacterial diversity determined by environmental habitat, diet, developmental stage, and phylogeny of host. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2014, 80, 5254–5264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Bascuñán, P.; Niño-Garcia, J.P.; Galeano-Castañeda, Y.; Serre, D.; Correa, M.M. Factors shaping the gut bacterial community assembly in two main Colombian malaria vectors. Microbiome 2018, 6, 148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Crotti, E.; Balloi, A.; Hamdi, C.; Sansonno, L.; Marzorati, M.; Gonella, E.; Favia, G.; Cherif, A.; Bandi, C.; Alma, A.; et al. Microbial symbionts: A resource for the management of insect-related problems. Microb. Biotechnol. 2012, 5, 307–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. Motta, E.V.S.; Raymann, K.; Moran, N.A. Glyphosate perturbs the gut microbiota of honey bees. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 10305–10310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  59. Raymann, K.; Shaffer, Z.; Moran, N.A. Antibiotic exposure perturbs the gut microbiota and elevates mortality in honeybees. PLoS Biol. 2017, 15, e2001861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Xu, L.; Xu, S.; Sun, L.; Zhang, Y.; Luo, J.; Bock, R.; Zhang, J. Synergistic action of the gut microbiota in environmental RNA interference in a leaf beetle. Microbiome 2021, 9, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Xiao, R.; Wang, X.H.; Li, X.W.; Liu, H.H.; Lu, S.P.; Hou, Y.M.; Shi, Z.H. Function of the cytoplasmic peptidoglycan recognition protein RfPGRP-L2 in maintaining the homeostasis of gut microbiota in Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (Coleoptera: Dryophthoridae). Acta. Entomol. Sin. 2021, 64, 348–362. [Google Scholar]
  62. Chu, H.; Mazmanian, S.K. Innate immune recognition of the microbiota promotes host-microbial symbiosis. Nat. Immunol. 2013, 14, 668–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Royet, J.; Dziarski, R. Peptidoglycan recognition proteins: Pleiotropic sensors and effectors of antimicrobial defences. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2007, 5, 264–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Royet, J.; Gupta, D.; Dziarski, R. Peptidoglycan recognition proteins: Modulators of the microbiome and inflammation. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2011, 11, 837–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Dawadi, B.; Wang, X.; Xiao, R.; Muhammad, A.; Hou, Y.; Shi, Z. PGRP-LB homolog acts as a negative modulator of immunity in maintaining the gut-microbe symbiosis of red palm weevil, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus Olivier. Dev. Comp. Immunol. 2018, 86, 65–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Wang, X.H. PGRP-S1 Downregulates the Intestinal Immunity to Maintain the Homeostasis of Gut Microbiota in Rhynchophorus ferrugineus Olivier. Master’s Thesis, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou, China, April 2018. [Google Scholar]
  67. Li, X.W. Functional Analysis of a Transmembrane Peptidoglycan Recognition Protein RfPGRP-L1 in the Maintainence of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus-Gut Microbiota Symbiosis. Master’s Thesis, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou, China, April 2019. [Google Scholar]
  68. Xiao, R.; Wang, X.; Xie, E.; Ji, T.; Li, X.; Muhammad, A.; Yin, X.; Hou, Y.; Shi, Z. An IMD-like pathway mediates the intestinal immunity to modulate the homeostasis of gut microbiota in Rhynchophorus ferrugineus Olivier (Coleoptera: Dryophthoridae). Dev. Comp. Immunol. 2019, 97, 20–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Muhammad, A.; Habineza, P.; Wang, X.; Xiao, R.; Ji, T.; Hou, Y.; Shi, Z. Spätzle Homolog-Mediated Toll-Like Pathway Regulates Innate Immune Responses to Maintain the Homeostasis of Gut Microbiota in the Red Palm Weevil, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus Olivier (Coleoptera: Dryophthoridae). Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Dillon, R.J.; Vennard, C.T.; Buckling, A.; Charnley, A.K. Diversity of locust gut bacteria protects against pathogen nvasion. Ecol. Lett. 2005, 8, 1291–1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Dong, Y.; Manfredini, F.; Dimopoulos, G. Implication of the mosquito midgut microbiota in the defense against malaria parasites. PLoS Pathog. 2009, 5, e1000423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Verstraete, W. Microbial ecology and environmental biotechnology. ISME J. 2007, 1, 4–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Lux, S.A.; Vilardi, J.C.; Liedo, P. Effects of irradiation on the courtship behavior of medfly (Diptera: Tephritidae) mass reared for the sterile insect technique. Florida Entomol. 2002, 85, 102–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ben Ami, E.; Yuval, B.; Jurkevitch, E. Manipulation of the microbiota of mass-reared Mediterranean fruit flies Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) improves sterile male sexual performance. ISME J. 2010, 4, 28–37. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  75. Wang, S.; Ghosh, A.K.; Bongio, N.; Stebbings, K.A.; Lampe, D.J.; Jacobs-Lorena, M. Fighting malaria with engineered symbiotic bacteria from vector mosquitoes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 12734–12739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  76. Wang, S.; Dos-Santos, A.L.A.; Huang, W.; Liu, K.C.; Oshaghi, M.A.; Wei, G.; Agre, P.; Jacobs-Lorena, M. Driving mosquito refractoriness to Plasmodium falciparum with engineered symbiotic bacteria. Science 2017, 357, 1399–1402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Sethi, A.; Delatte, J.; Foil, L.; Husseneder, C. Protozoacidal Trojan-Horse: Use of a ligand-lytic peptide for selective destruction of symbiotic protozoa within termite guts. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e106199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  78. Xu, L.T.; Deng, J.D.; Zhou, F.Y.; Cheng, C.H.; Zhang, L.W.; Zhang, J.; Lu, M. Gut microbiota in an invasive bark beetle infected by a pathogenic fungus accelerates beetle mortality. J. Pest. Sci. 2019, 92, 343–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Gao, H.; Cui, C.; Wang, L.; Jacobs-Lorena, M.; Wang, S. Mosquito microbiota and implications for disease control. Trends Parasitol. 2020, 36, 98–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Butera, G.; Ferraro, C.; Colazza, S.; Alonzo, G.; Quatrini, P. The culturable bacterial community of frass produced by larvae of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus Olivier (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in the Canary island date palm. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2012, 54, 530–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Gut bacteria promote the growth and development of RPW larvae via the modulation of nutrient metabolism. (A) The conventionally reared (CR) larvae have higher content of protein, glucose and triglyceride in the hemolymph; (B) the body weight, the content of protein, glucose and triglyceride in the hemolymph of germfree (GF) larvae were significantly decreased [41,42].
Figure 1. Gut bacteria promote the growth and development of RPW larvae via the modulation of nutrient metabolism. (A) The conventionally reared (CR) larvae have higher content of protein, glucose and triglyceride in the hemolymph; (B) the body weight, the content of protein, glucose and triglyceride in the hemolymph of germfree (GF) larvae were significantly decreased [41,42].
Insects 12 00594 g001
Figure 2. The role of RPW gut immunity in the regulation of intestinal bacterial homeostasis. Several PGRPs in RPW have been confirmed to be involved in the regulation of gut bacterial homeostasis via the different ways [61,65,66,67]. PGN: Peptidoglycan. AMP: Antimicrobial peptides. ①: Peptidoglycan degradation. ②: The activation of AMP synthesis.
Figure 2. The role of RPW gut immunity in the regulation of intestinal bacterial homeostasis. Several PGRPs in RPW have been confirmed to be involved in the regulation of gut bacterial homeostasis via the different ways [61,65,66,67]. PGN: Peptidoglycan. AMP: Antimicrobial peptides. ①: Peptidoglycan degradation. ②: The activation of AMP synthesis.
Insects 12 00594 g002
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Liu, Q.-X.; Su, Z.-P.; Liu, H.-H.; Lu, S.-P.; Ma, B.; Zhao, Y.; Hou, Y.-M.; Shi, Z.-H. The Effect of Gut Bacteria on the Physiology of Red Palm Weevil, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus Olivier and Their Potential for the Control of This Pest. Insects 2021, 12, 594. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/insects12070594

AMA Style

Liu Q-X, Su Z-P, Liu H-H, Lu S-P, Ma B, Zhao Y, Hou Y-M, Shi Z-H. The Effect of Gut Bacteria on the Physiology of Red Palm Weevil, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus Olivier and Their Potential for the Control of This Pest. Insects. 2021; 12(7):594. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/insects12070594

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liu, Qian-Xia, Zhi-Ping Su, Hui-Hui Liu, Sheng-Ping Lu, Bing Ma, Yue Zhao, You-Ming Hou, and Zhang-Hong Shi. 2021. "The Effect of Gut Bacteria on the Physiology of Red Palm Weevil, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus Olivier and Their Potential for the Control of This Pest" Insects 12, no. 7: 594. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/insects12070594

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop