Skip to main content
Scientific Reports logoLink to Scientific Reports
. 2017 Oct 23;7:13778. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-14137-x

Comparative transcriptome analysis reveals host-associated differentiation in Chilo suppressalis (Lepidoptera: Crambidae)

Haiying Zhong 1,2, Fengbo Li 1,3,, Jianming Chen 1,2,, Juefeng Zhang 1,2, Fang Li 1,2
PMCID: PMC5653757  PMID: 29062034

Abstract

The striped stem borer, Chilo suppressalis Walker (Lepidoptera: Crambidae), is one of the most serious rice pests. Besides attacking rice, it also feeds on an economically important vegetable crop, water-oat Zizania latifolia. The species feeding on water-oat has higher growth and survival rate than those on rice, suggesting their success in adaptation to the new host plant. However, little is known about the molecular mechanisms of host plant adaptation. Here we investigated the midgut transcriptome responses of C. suppressalis larvae reared on rice and water-oat. A total of 1,633 differentially expressed genes were identified, with a greater number up-regulated on the more delicious new host. The up-regulation of most digestive and detoxification-related genes may be the result of adaptation to the changes in nutritional requirements and toxic chemicals during host shift. In contrast, down-regulation of ribosomal genes may be related to their better development performance when feeding on the new host. In conclusion, our results suggest that transcriptional regulation of genes related to digestion, detoxification and ribosome may play an important role in adaptation of C. suppressalis to a new host plant.

Introduction

The striped stem borer, Chilo suppressalis Walker (Lepidoptera: Crambidae), is one of the most serious rice pests in Asia, southern Europe, and northern Africa14. C. suppressalis larvae feed within rice stems, and cause severe yield losses and economic damage annually, particularly in China because of the prevalence of rice cultivation48. As the center of rice domestication9, China has been cultivating rice since 7,000 years ago10. In many geographic regions of the country, rice was usually planted in a mosaic fashion or under a crop rotation system with 'Jiaobai', which is also called water-oat (Zizania latifolia). Water-oat was domesticated as a vegetable crop from wild Z. latifolia approximately 2,000 years ago5,11. In recent years, water-oat is widely cultivated in China because of its nutritional and economic importance11. Water-oat shares a large number of cultivation areas with rice, thus offering C. suppressalis an opportunity for host shift from rice to water-oat. Although C. suppressalis also attack other plants, only those feeding on either rice or water-oat can complete their life cycles1214, suggesting their adaptation to the new host plant. However, the mechanisms of host plant adaptation in C. suppressalis are still incompletely understood.

C. suppressalis feeding on water-oat have higher larval survival rates, shorter larval developmental periods, and higher pupal weight than those on rice12,1519, implying that water-oat is a more suitable host plant for growth and survival of C. suppressalis compared with rice. Rice and water-oat are closely related in systematics, but they may possess a different biochemical composition and different secondary metabolic products11. Because of adaptation to these two host plants, C. suppressalis also showed other variation in ecology and biology, such as the seasonal peak of emergence12,15,20, courtship and mating behaviors19,2124, and overwintering biology18,2527. Despite these ecological and biological variations revealed after host shift, the molecular mechanisms underlying host plant adaptation remain unclear.

Previous studies have demonstrated that identifying transcriptional changes associated with host shifts is an important step in understanding the molecular mechanisms of insect adaptation to host plants2833. Transcriptional regulations associated with insects feeding on alternative host plants were commonly detected in differentially expressed genes related to digestion, detoxification, and ribosome3337. However, few studies have examined such mechanisms in C. suppressalis. In this study, we investigated transcriptional variation in the C. suppressalis larval midgut, the most important organ involved in nutrient acquisition and detoxification in adaptation of insects to host plants38. A comparative transcriptome analysis between C. suppressalis feeding on rice and that on water-oat was performed to identify differentially expressed genes related to host plant adaptation. This study presents the first exploration of transcriptional changes underlying C. suppressalis adaptation to a new host plant.

Methods

Specimen collection and rearing

C. suppressalis are able to transfer from a rice field to a water-oat field, and vice versa19,24, so it is difficult to distinguish the water-oat population (JCS) from the rice population (RCS) of C. suppressalis in the adjacent fields19. To obtain representative JCS and RCS samples, C. suppressalis larvae were collected from the water-oat field in Lishui and the rice field in Yuyao, Zhejiang, China in 2015, where rice and water-oat are exclusively planted. The two fields are approximately 300 kilometers apart. The C. suppressalis larvae from the water-oat (also called ‘Jiaobai’) field were reared with fresh water-oat stems, while those from the rice field were reared on rice seedlings. All larvae and plants were kept in an insectarium at 28 ± 1 °C, with a photoperiod of 16 h: 8 h (light/dark), and a relative humidity > 80%. Both the JCS and RCS populations were maintained in the laboratory for three generations before dissection. Midguts of 150 larvae each population were dissected on the second day of the 4th instar and food debris removed. Each 50 midguts were used as one sample. Three replicate samples were taken for each population, immediately frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −80 °C for RNA isolation.

RNA isolation, library construction and sequencing

Total RNA was isolated from the midgut tissues using TRIzol Reagent (Invitrogen, USA) following the manufacturer’s instructions. DNA contaminations were removed from the RNA samples by RNase-free DNase I (New England Biolabs, MA, USA). The purity and quantity of total RNA was assessed by a NanoPhotometer® spectrophotometer (IMPLEN, CA, USA) and a Qubit® 2.0 Flurometer (Life Technologies, CA, USA), respectively. RNA integrity was checked using the RNA Nano 6000 Assay Kit of the Agilent Bioanalyzer 2100 system (Agilent Technologies, CA, USA). The total high-quality RNA isolated from three independent biological replicate samples for each C. suppressalis population was used individually to construct cDNA libraries. The transcriptome libraries were generated using NEBNext® Ultra™ RNA Library Prep Kit for Illumina® (NEB, USA) according to manufacturer’s recommendations and index codes were added to attribute sequences to each sample. Briefly, the poly-A tailed mRNA were purified with poly-T oligo-attached magnetic beads and fragmented to obtain RNA fragments. Double-stranded cDNA was synthesized from the fragmented RNA. In order to select the cDNA fragments of preferentially 150 bp in length, the library fragments were purified with AMPure XP system (Beckman Coulter, Beverly, USA). Clustering of the index-coded samples was performed on a cBot Cluster Generation System using TruSeq PE Cluster Kit v3-cBot-HS (Illumina) following the manufacturer’s instructions. After clustering, each library was sequenced using Illumina Hiseq. 2000 platform and 150-bp paired-end reads were generated.

Transcriptome assembly and annotation

Raw sequences were deposited in the NCBI Short Read Archive (SRA) database (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Traces/sra/). Raw reads in FASTQ format were first filtered by removing reads containing adapter sequences and low-quality reads that contain > 10% poly-N or > 50% of bases whose Qphred quality scores ≤ 20. At the same time, Q20, Q30, GC-content and sequence duplication level of the clean data were calculated. Only the clean data with high quality were used for downstream analyses. Transcriptome assembly was accomplished using Trinity software39 with min_kmer_cov set to 2 by default and all other parameters set default. Gene function was annotated by homology searches against the NCBI non-redundant protein (Nr) database, NCBI nucleotide (Nt) database, Swiss-Prot protein database, euKaryotic Orthologous Groups (KOG), Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG), Gene Ontology (GO), and Protein family (Pfam) database.

Differential gene expression analysis

Gene expression levels for each sample were estimated by RSEM program40. Gene expression was measured in the expected number of Fragments Per Kilobase of transcript sequence per Million base pairs sequenced (FPKM). Differential expression analysis of the two C. suppressalis populations was performed using DESeq.41, which provides statistical routines for determining differential expression in digital gene expression data using a model based on the negative binomial distribution. The resulting p-values were adjusted using the Benjamini and Hochberg’s approach for controlling the false discovery rate. Genes with an adjusted p-value < 0.05 detected by DESeq were assigned as differentially expressed. Then GO enrichment analysis of the differentially expressed genes (DEGs) was implemented by GOseq.42, while KOBAS43 software was used to test the statistical enrichment of DEGs in KEGG pathways.

qRT-PCR analysis

To confirm the results of transcriptome comparisons, real-time quantitative PCR (qRT-PCR) was performed on randomly selected DEGs using a LightCycler 480 II system (Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim, Germany) with LightCycler 480 SYBR Green I Master Mix (Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim, Germany). The amplifications were carried out in a total volume of 20.0 μL and included 10.0 μL of 2X SYBR Green MasterMix reagent, 2.0 μL of cDNA and 0.1 μL of each primer (100.0 μM). The thermal cycling profile was an initial denaturation at 95 °C for 10 min followed by 45 cycles of denaturation at 95 °C for 15 s and annealing/extension at 60 °C for 30 s. The primers for qRT-PCR are listed in Supplementary Table S7. All reactions were conducted in triplicate and included negative controls with no template. The actinA1 gene was used for normalization in subsequent analysis. The relative expression was analysed using the R = 2−ΔΔCT method44.

Results

Transcriptome sequencing

Insect midgut plays key roles in nutrient digestion and detoxification. The midguts of the 4th-instar larvae reared on rice and water-oat were isolated and used for total RNA isolation. Three biologically independent replicates for each treatment were used for constructing cDNA libraries. Each library was sequenced on the Illumina HiSeq. 2000 platform using paired-end150 bp reads. We sequenced six transcriptome libraries, which were from C. suppressalis population reared on rice (RCS1, RCS2, and RCS3) and those reared on water-oat (JCS1, JCS2, and JCS3). High-throughput sequencing resulted in a mean of 71,706,401 reads for each library (Table 1). After data filtering, we obtained 64–82 million clean reads comprised of 9–12 billion nucleotides (9–12 GB) and the sequencing quality was high with Q30 ratio larger than 93% for all the samples. All the data have been deposited at NCBI SRA database (SRP097007).

Table 1.

Summary of the transcriptome sequencing data from the JCS and RCS samples.

Sample Raw Reads Clean reads Clean bases Error(%) Q20(%) Q30(%) GC(%)
JCS1 67702014 65610300 9.84 G 0.01 97.28 93.40 45.41
JCS2 68008986 65834344 9.88 G 0.01 97.17 93.18 45.36
JCS3 66544762 64466234 9.67 G 0.01 97.28 93.40 45.58
RCS1 85366504 82708936 12.41 G 0.01 97.27 93.40 44.41
RCS2 73258546 70946782 10.64 G 0.01 97.30 93.46 44.86
RCS3 69357594 67178592 10.08 G 0.01 97.35 93.54 44.82

De novo assembly of the transcriptome

We pooled all the high-quality clean reads from six libraries and de novo assembled them using Trinity software with the default parameters. A total of 416,745,188 clean reads were randomly assembled to produce 177, 596 contigs with a N50 of 1702 bp and a mean length of 848 bp. The contigs were further assembled into 126,323 unigenes with a N50 of 1103 bp, a mean length of 639 bp, a minimum length of 201 bp and a maximum length of 34,432 bp (Table 2). There were 40,795 (22.97%) contigs and 18,125 (14.34%) unigenes more than 1000 bp. The detailed length distribution of contigs and unigenes was shown in Supplementary Fig. S1.

Table 2.

Assembly statistics for the midgut tissue transcriptome of Chilo suppressalis.

Min Length Mean Length Median Length Max Length N50 N90 Total
Transcripts 201 848 386 34432 1702 291 177596
Unigenes 201 639 316 34432 1103 247 126323

Functional annotation

After transcriptome de novo assembly for the C. suppressalis midgut tissue samples, the unigenes were used for functional annotation. Of the 126,323 unigenes, 43,570 (34.49%) had at least one significant hit against at least one of the seven databases, which include Nr, Nt, Pfam, Swiss-Prot, KOG, KEGG, and GO (Table 3 and Fig. S2). A total of 32,788 unigenes (25.95% of all the unigenes) had significant hits against the Nr database. Among these unigenes, approximately 16,361 showed top matches with unigenes from silkworm Bombyx mori (23.4%), followed by monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus (13.5%) and diamondback moth Plutella xylostella (13.0%) (Fig. S3). This result was consisted with the evolutionary relationship as C. suppressalis is a representative of lepidopterans.

Table 3.

Summary statistics of function annotation.

Number of Unigenes Percentage (%)
Annotated in Nr 32788 25.95
Annotated in Nt 17954 14.21
Annotated in KEGG 13374 10.58
Annotated in Swiss-Prot 22266 17.62
Annotated in Pfam 24047 19.03
Annotated in GO 24385 19.3
Annotated in KOG 14959 11.84
Annotated in all Databases 5200 4.11
Annotated in at least one Database 43570 34.49
Total Unigenes 126323 100

GO annotation was performed based on the Nr and Pfam annotation results using Blast2GO45. A total of 24,385 unigenes (19.30%) were assigned to GO terms (Table 3). As shown in Fig. 1, the unigenes were categorized into 55 GO terms, including 25 (45.45%) biological process terms, 20 (36.36%) cellular component terms and 10 (18.18%) molecular function terms. For the biological process category, cellular process (13,687) was the most predominant term, followed by metabolic process term (12,176) and single-organism process term (10,182). In the cellular component category, cell (7,849) and cell part terms (7,849) were the predominant terms and followed by organelle term (5,497) and macromolecular complex term (5,147). Within the molecular function category, binding (13,148) was the most abundant term, followed by catalytic activity term (9,198) and transporter activity term (1,721).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Gene Ontology (GO) classification of transcripts of midgut tissue samples. Go categories, shown in the x-axis, are assigned into three main ontologies: biological process, cellular component, and molecular function. The y-axis indicates the number of unigenes in each category.

Further, the unigene sequences of C. suppressalis were searched against the KOG database for functional prediction and classification. A total of 14,959 unigenes (11.84% of all the unigenes) were assigned into 26 different KOG categories (Fig. 2). Among the KOG categories, the largest group was the “general function prediction only” (3,177 unigenes, 21.23%), followed by “signal transduction mechanisms” (1,829 unigenes, 12.22%), “posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones” (1,680 unigenes, 11.23%), and “translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis” (1,228 unigenes, 8.20%) (Fig. 2) (see Supplementary Table S1). Only a few unigenes were assigned to “nuclear structure” (0.50%), “cell motility” (0.16%), and “unamed protein” (less than 0.01%), which represent the smallest groups.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

euKaryotic Ortholog Groups (KOG) classification of unigenes.

To identify the biological pathway in C. suppressalis transcriptome, all unigenes were mapped to the KEGG database. As a result, a total of 13,374 unigenes were classified into 230 KEGG pathways (Table S2). Among these KEGG pathways, the top 50 pathways with the largest group of unigenes are shown in Supplementary Table S3.

ORF prediction

Based on the BLASTx results compared with Nr and Swiss-Prot databases, the Open Reading Frame (ORF) was predicted from the annotated unigenes, with an average ORF length of 784 bp ranging from 27 bp to 32,973 bp (Fig. 3a). For the unigenes from which no ORF was successfully detected within the 2 databases, the estscan software was used to identify potential ORF. A total of 15,057 unigenes were predicted containing ORF, with an average length of 178 bp ranging from 51 bp to 9,252 bp (Fig. 3b).

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Length distribution of ORF prediction. (a) Length distribution of ORF predicted in the Nr and Swiss-Prot databases, (b) Length distribution of ORF predicted using the estscan software.

Comparative analysis of the midgut transcriptome

To understand the molecular mechanisms of host plant adaptation in C. suppressalis, we performed a comparative analysis of six midgut transcriptomes. Based on the adjusted p-value < 0.05, we identified 1,633 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in JCS compared with RCS, which include 932 up-regulated genes and 701 down-regulated genes (Fig. S4). These DEGs, listed in the Supplementary Table S4, were mainly involved in midgut physiological functions such as digestion, detoxification, transport, and metabolism. The commonly reported detoxification-related DEGs, such as P450s, GSTs, UGTs, and CEs, were able to be detected. All of them were mainly up-regulated. The overall pattern of midgut gene expression between JCS and RCS, presented in the hierarchical clustering heatmap (Fig. 4), further showed that a large number of genes were regulated in adaptation to a new host plant.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

A hierarchical clustering of DEGs based on log10 (FPKM+1) values in RCS and JCS. The red bands indicate high gene expression levels, and the blue bands indicate low gene expression levels.

To analyze functions of the DEGs in the midgut, GO term enrichment analysis was performed using the software Blast2GO. The result shows the strongest changes in adaptation to a new host were in the metabolic process (615 DEGs) and organic substance metabolic process (513 DEGs) of biological process categories, followed by the catalytic activity (479 DEGs) and hydrolase activity (264 DEGs) of molecular function categories (Fig. 5). Enriched GO terms in the midgut were mainly involved in digestive, detoxifying, and metabolism-related functions (Table S5). Within the GO terms, most DEGs were up-regulated (Fig. S5a,b), suggesting that a large number of genes were mainly up-regulated in adaptation to a novel host plant in C. suppressalis. Then we performed GO term enrichment analysis for the up-regulated and down-regulated DEGs, respectively. The results shows that there are more DEGs up-regulated especially in the molecular function category (Fig. S5b). In the cellular component category, however, no DEG up-regulated was detected, while some DEGs related to ribosome were obviously down-regulated (Fig. S5c). The results imply that down-regulation of DEGs related to ribosome may contribute to the host plant adaptation in C. suppressalis.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

GO enrichment analysis of the differentially expressed unigenes.

To obtain more insight into the possible functions of the DEGs, the KEGG pathway analysis were carried out using KOBAS 2.0. The result shows that the DEGs in the JCS midgut were involved in 20 KEGG pathways (Table S6). The pathways related to digestion, detoxification, nutrient metabolism, and growth were over-represented (Fig. 6). For example, the significantly enriched digestion pathways mainly included “Carbohydrate digestion and absorption” and “Fat digestion and absorption”. The significantly enriched detoxification pathways mainly included “Drug metabolism-cytochrome P450”, “Metabolism of xenobiotics by cytochrome P450”, and “Glutathione metabolism” (Table S6). The similar pathways were found over-represented in the up-regulated DEGs (Fig. S6a), but the down-regulated DEGs were significantly enriched to a different pathway related to “Ribosome” (Fig. S6b), suggesting that the “Ribosome” pathway may play a key role in the host plant adaptation in C. suppressalis.

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Scatterplot of enriched KEGG pathways for DEGs. The enrichment factor indicates the ratio of the DEG number to the total gene number in a certain pathway. The color and size of dots indicate the range of q-value and gene number, respectively.

To validate the DEGs identified by comparative transcriptomic analysis, we randomly selected 34 genes for qRT-PCR. Among them, 21 were digestive, detoxifying, and ribosome-related genes. As shown in Fig. 7, the qRT-PCR expression patterns of 31 out of 34 randomly selected DEGs were in agreement with the results of the transcriptome analysis.

Figure 7.

Figure 7

Comparison of gene expression patterns obtained by RNA-Seq and qRT-PCR. Log-fold changes are expressed as the ratio of gene expression after normalization to actinA1.

Discussion

Differences in nutritional value between host plants might require herbivorous insects to express different digestive enzymes33,46,47. We anticipated that digestion-related genes of C. suppressalis might be regulated in adaptation to different plant hosts. In this study, a total of 83 digestion-related genes were differentially expressed in C. suppressalis larvae in adaptation to a novel host plant (Table 4; Supplementary Table S4 in detail). Among these DEGs, 79 were up-regulated, whereas only four down-regulated. Ge et al. reported previously that the expression of three digestive cysteine protease genes in C. suppressalis was significantly affected by the host plant type48. Although only one DEG (c60073_g1) belonging to cysteine protease family was identified in our study, it was significantly up-regulated in C. suppressalis larvae feeding on water-oat in comparison with those feeding on rice. This result is consistent with the previous study48. Another DEG (c53074_g1) in the digestive gene list was found to be the same as the serine protease inhibitor gene CS003, which had been identified in C. suppressalis midgut49. It’s worth noting that both CS003 and c53074_g1 showed similar down-regulated expression in C. suppressalis larvae feeding on water-oat compared with those feeding on rice, although quantitative gene expression assays were performed using qRT-PCR in the earlier study and RNA-Seq in this study. We also identified a large number of serine proteases, which are recognized as key enzymes allowing larvae to adapt to different diets33,35,50, and observed their differential expression regulation in response to different diets. These findings further emphasize the role of digestive genes (such as cysteine proteases, serine protease inhibitors, and serine proteases) in host plant adaptation. In addition, another 54 genes that correspond to carboxypeptidase, aminopeptidase, dipeptidase, α-amylase, α-glucosidase and lipase (Table 4) are also worthy to be investigated in the future. These digestion-related genes might play important roles in adaptation of C. suppressalis to a novel host plant.

Table 4.

Summary of candidate differentially expressed genes related to digestion, detoxification and ribosome in Chilo suppressalis gut transcriptome.

Classification Candidate genes Number of DEGs
Total Up Down
Digestion Serine protease 27 25 2
Serine protease inhibitor 1 0 1
Lipase 12 11 1
Carboxypeptidase 16 16 0
Cystein protease 1 1 0
Aminopeptidase 15 15 0
Dipeptidase 4 4 0
α-amylase 5 5 0
α-glucosidase 2 2 0
Detoxification P450s 16 16 0
CEs 13 13 0
GSTs 7 6 1
UGTs 2 1 1
ABC transporters 5 1 4
Ribosome Ribosomal protein 42 0 42

Besides nutritional requirements, phytophagous insects need to cope with toxic chemicals from their host plants. Their ability to detoxify these chemicals may determine their host range. The detoxification process is generally divided into three phases involving in a set of detoxification-related enzymes and xenobiotic transporters30,3335,37,47. Phase I enzymes, including cytochrome P450 proteins (P450s) and carboxylesterases (CEs), participate in direct metabolism of xenobiotics, while phase II enzymes, including glutathione S-transferases (GSTs) and UDP-glycosyltransferases (UGTs), transform allelochemicals into water-soluble compounds for excretion by ATP binding cassette (ABC) transporters or sequestration during phase III. RNA-Seq has proved to be an effective approach to identify detoxification genes related to host plant adaptation3033,35,47. In this study, we used RNA-Seq to identify 42 DEGs related to detoxification (Table 4). Among these DEGs, all the phase I enzymes (P450s and CEs) and most of phase II enzymes (GSTs and UGTs) were up-regulated in C. suppressalis larvae feeding on water-oat compared with those feeding on rice, suggesting that these genes might have important roles in detoxification during host plant adaptation. In contrast, only one member of ABC transporters, subfamily A, was up-regulated, whereas the other ABC transporters including subfamilies B and C were mainly down-regulated, highlighting the potential role of ABC transporters in detoxification. Similar results were observed in other insects, where members of subfamilies B and C, involved in detoxification and multidrug resistance, were differentially regulated in adaptation to a host plant29,37,51. These results, together with higher larval survival rates19, suggest that C. suppressalis may succeed in feeding on water-oat by detoxifying toxic chemicals in which the upregulation of the phase I and II enzymes and the downregulation of ABC transporters could play an important role.

In the present study, the most prominent change in gene expression of C. suppressalis in adaptation to a novel host plant is in the ribosome. The results of GO and KEGG enrichment analysis indicated that DEGs related to ribosome were specifically over-represented and all down-regulated in C. suppressalis larvae feeding on water-oat, suggesting the role of genes coding ribosomal proteins in host plant adaptation. Ribosomes are highly conserved molecular machines whose gene expression has traditionally been considered to be stable and function mainly in protein translation. However, recent studies have reported that some ribosomal genes were differentially regulated in response to different host plants in many insect species, such as tobacco budworm Heliothis virescens 52, cotton bollworm Helicoverpa armigera 28, whitefly Bemisia tabaci 53, butterfly Polygonia calbum 35, and ladybird Cryptolaemus montrouzieri 54. Of particular interest is the upregulation of these ribosomal genes when insects fed on unsuitable diets28,35,5254. C. suppressalis feeding on water-oat had higher survival rate, shorter larval developmental periods, larger bodied larvae, pupae and adults, as compared with those feeding on rice12,15,1719, implying that water-oat may be a more suitable diet for C. suppressalis. Thus this well explains why ribosomal genes were down-regulated in C. suppressalis larvae feeding on water-oat. These differential regulations in insects have been considered to counteract ribosome-inactivating proteins (RIPs) in plants, which involved in insecticidal activity35,55. No RIPs has been reported in water oat, but a genome-wide survey has identified 31 RIPs in rice56. In the future, a similar genome-wide identification of RIPs in water-oat will facilitate our better understanding of the molecular mechanisms in insect adaptation to a host plant.

Besides host plant, environmental factors or natural genetic variation might affect gene expression patterns observed owing to our sampling strategy. A large number of studies, however, have demonstrated that C. suppressalis diverged into rice population (RCS) and water-oat population (JCS) because of adaptation to different host plants12,18,19,2427. Our investigations also suggest that the biological differences between RCS and JCS were affected mainly by host plant16,unpublisheddata. Especially, previous studies have showed that there is high genetic similarity among C. suppressalis populations in different distribution areas5760. Additionally, similar sampling strategies have been documented in previous reports19,6164. We thus think that the different gene expression patterns observed in our study may be caused mainly by host plant.

In conclusion, RNA-seq analysis provided an initial step toward improving our understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying C. suppressalis adaptation to a new host plant at the transcriptome level. The present study revealed a large number of DEGs involving in host plant adaptation of C. suppressalis. Our next study will testify if the differential gene expression is truly associated with characters of host plants (such as nutrient), and verify the exact functions of these genes individually.

Electronic supplementary material

41598_2017_14137_MOESM1_ESM.doc (1.3MB, doc)

Supplementary Information (Figures S1-S6, Tables S1-S7)

Table S1 (184KB, xls)
Table S2 (278KB, xls)
Table S3 (22KB, xls)
Table S4 (1.3MB, xls)
Table S5 (790.5KB, xls)
Table S6 (95KB, xls)
Table S7 (30KB, xls)

Acknowledgements

This work is financially supported by the Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. LY16C140006), Zhejiang Provincial Postdoctor Foundation (Grant No. BSH1502055), Zhejiang Provincial Key Science & Technology Specific Project (Grant No. 2015C02050), Public Welfare Technology Applied Research Project of Zhejiang Province (Grant No. 2016C32100), and the Young Scientists Fund of Zhejiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences.

Author Contributions

J.C. conceived the study; H.Z., F.L. and J.C. designed the experiments; H.Z. performed the experiments and prepared the manuscript; F.L. analyzed the data and drafted the manuscript; H.Z., F.L. and J.C. discussed the results and revised the manuscript; J.Z. and F.L. participated in collecting and rearing the striped stem borers. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Footnotes

Electronic supplementary material

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at 10.1038/s41598-017-14137-x.

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Fengbo Li, Email: fengboli@gmail.com.

Jianming Chen, Email: jianmchen63@163.com.

References

  • 1.Jiang MX, Cheng JA. Interactions between the striped stem borer Chilo suppressalis (Walk.) (Lep., Pyralidae) larvae and rice plants in response to nitrogen fertilization. J. Pest Sci. 2003;76:124–128. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Alfaro C, Navarro-Llopis V, Primo J. Optimization of pheromone dispenser density for managing the rice striped stem borer, Chilo suppressalis (Walker), by mating disruption. Crop Prot. 2009;28:567–572. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2009.02.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Zibaee A, Sendi J, Alinia F, Ghadamyari M, Etebari K. Diazinon resistance in different selected strains of Chilo suppressalis Walker (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), rice striped stem borer, in the north of Iran. J. Econ. Entomol. 2009;102:1189–1196. doi: 10.1603/029.102.0343. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Chen M, Shelton A, Ye GY. Insect-resistant genetically modified rice in China: from research to commercialization. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2011;56:81–101. doi: 10.1146/annurev-ento-120709-144810. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Guo HB, Li SM, Peng J, Ke WD. Zizania latifolia Turcz. cultivated in China. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2007;54:1211–1217. doi: 10.1007/s10722-006-9102-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Hou M, Han Y, Lin W. Influence of soil moisture on supercooling capacity and associated physiological parameters of overwintering larvae of rice stem borer. Entomol. Sci. 2009;12:155–161. doi: 10.1111/j.1479-8298.2009.00316.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.He, Y. et al. Regression analysis of dynamics of insecticide resistance in field populations of Chilo suppressalis (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) during 2002–2011 in China. J. Econ. Entomol. 106, 1832–1837 (2013).  [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 8.Wang YN, et al. Comparison of three transgenic Bt rice lines for insecticidal protein expression and resistance against a target pest, Chilo suppressalis (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) Insect Sci. 2016;23:78–87. doi: 10.1111/1744-7917.12178. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Huang X, et al. A map of rice genome variation reveals the origin of cultivated rice. Nature. 2012;490:497–501. doi: 10.1038/nature11532. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Zong Y, et al. Fire and flood management of coastal swamp enabled first rice paddy cultivation in east China. Nature. 2007;449:459–463. doi: 10.1038/nature06135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Guo L, et al. A host plant genome (Zizania latifolia) after a century-long endophyte infection. Plant J. 2015;83:600–609. doi: 10.1111/tpj.12912. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Maki Y, Yamashita M. Ecological difference of rice stem borer, Chilo suppressalis Walker in the various host plants. Bull. Hyogo. Pref. Agric. Exp. Sta. 1956;3:47–50. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Takasaki T, Noda M, Murata Z. Ecology of rice stem borer moth, Chilo suppressalis. I. Seasonal prevalence of rice stem borer moth feeding on the water-oats. Proc. Kyusyu Plant Prot. Soc. 1969;15:118–121. doi: 10.4241/kyubyochu.15.118. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Jiang WH, et al. 2015. Study on host plants for reproduction of Chilo suppressalis. J. Asia Pac. Entomol. 2015;18:591–595. doi: 10.1016/j.aspen.2015.07.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Tsuchida K, Ichihashi H. Estimation of monitoring range of sex pheromone trap for the rice stem borer moth, Chilo suppressalis (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) by male head width variation in relation to two host plants, rice and water oats. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 1995;30:407–414. doi: 10.1303/aez.30.407. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Chen J, et al. Biological performances of the striped stem borer, Chilo suppressalis Walker fed on Jiaobai, Zizania laduciflora and rice plants. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis. 2003;15:139–143. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Matsukura K, Hoshizaki S, Ishikawa Y, Tatsuki S. Morphometric differences between rice and water-oats population of the striped stem borer moth, Chilo suppressalis (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) Appl. Entomol. Zool. 2006;41:529–535. doi: 10.1303/aez.2006.529. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ding N, et al. A comparison of the larval overwintering biology of the striped stem borer, Chilo suppressalis (Lepidoptera: Crambidae), in rice and water-oat fields. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 2013;48:147–153. doi: 10.1007/s13355-013-0164-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Quan WL, et al. Do differences in life-history traits and the timing of peak mating activity between host-associated populations of Chilo suppressalis have a genetic basis? Ecol. Evol. 2016;6:4478–4487. doi: 10.1002/ece3.2227. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Matsukura K, Hoshizaki S, Ishikawa Y, Tatsuki S. Differences in timing of the emergence of the overwintering generation between rice and water-oats populations of the striped stem borer moth, Chilo suppressalis (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) Appl. Entomol. Zool. 2009;44:485–489. doi: 10.1303/aez.2009.485. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Konno Y, Tanaka F. Mating time of the rice-feeding and water-oat-feeding strains of the rice stem borer, Chilo suppressalis Walker (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Jpn. J. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 1996;40:245–247. doi: 10.1303/jjaez.40.245. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Samudra IM, Emura K, Hoshizaki S, Ishikawa Y, Tatsuki S. Temporal difference in mating behavior between rice- and water-oats-populations of the striped stem borer, Chilo suppressalis (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) Appl. Entomol. Zool. 2002;37:257–262. doi: 10.1303/aez.2002.257. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Ishiguro N, Yoshida K, Tsuchida K. Genetic differences between rice and water-oat feeders in the rice stem borer, Chilo suppressalis (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) Appl. Entomol. Zool. 2006;41:585–593. doi: 10.1303/aez.2006.585. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ueno H, Furukawa S, Tsuchida K. Difference in the time of mating activity between host-associated populations of the rice stem borer, Chilo suppressalis (Walker) Entomol. Sci. 2006;9:255–259. doi: 10.1111/j.1479-8298.2006.00171.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Xu H, Bo W, et al. Study on the biology of over-wintered striped stem borer, Chilo suppressalis (Walker) Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis. 2001;13:157–160. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Xiao H, Xue F, Liu Y, Zhu X. Comparison of photoperiodic response between rice- and water-oat-populations of Chilo suppressalis (Walker) Acta Entomologica Sinica. 2005;48:749–753. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Han Y, Hao L, Hou M. Comparison of overwintered bionomics of Chilo suppressalis larvae from paddy-rice field with those from water-oat field in north China. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture. 2009;17:541–544. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1011.2009.00541. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Celorio-Mancera MP, Heckel DG, Vogel H. Transcriptional analysis of physiological pathways in a generalist herbivore: responses to different host plants and plant structures by the cotton bollworm. Helicoverpa armigera. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2012;144:123–133. doi: 10.1111/j.1570-7458.2012.01249.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Dermauw W, et al. A link between host plant adaptation and pesticide resistance in the polyphagous spider mite Tetranychus urticae. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2013;110:E113–E122. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1213214110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Hoang K, Matzkin LM, Bono JM. Transcriptional variation associated with cactus host plant adaptation in Drosophila mettleri populations. Mol. Ecol. 2015;24:5186–5199. doi: 10.1111/mec.13388. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ragland GJ, et al. Differences in performance and transcriptome-wide gene expression associated with Rhagoletis (Diptera: Tephritidae) larvae feeding in alternate host fruit environments. Mol. Ecol. 2015;24:2759–2776. doi: 10.1111/mec.13191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Wybouw N, et al. Adaptation of a polyphagous herbivore to a novel host plant extensively shapes the transcriptome of herbivore and host. Mol. Ecol. 2015;24:4647–63. doi: 10.1111/mec.13330. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Yu QY, Fang SM, Zhang Z, Jiggins CD. The transcriptome response of Heliconius melpomene larvae to a novel host plant. Mol. Ecol. 2016;25:4850–4865. doi: 10.1111/mec.13826. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Matzkin LM. Population transcriptomics of cactus host shifts in Drosophila mojavensis. Mol. Ecol. 2012;21:2428–39. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05549.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Celorio-Mancera MP, et al. Mechanisms of macroevolution: polyphagous plasticity in butterfly larvae revealed by RNA-Seq. Mol. Ecol. 2013;22:4884–95. doi: 10.1111/mec.12440. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Vogel, H., Musser, R. O. & Celorio-Mancera, M. P. Transcriptome responses in herbivorous insects towards host plant and toxin feeding. In: Voelckel, C. & Jander, G. editors. Annual plant reviews volume 47: plant insect interactions. Chichester: West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; p. 197–234 (2014).
  • 37.Koenig C, et al. The plastic response of Manduca sexta to host and non-host plants. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2015;63:72–85. doi: 10.1016/j.ibmb.2015.06.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Howe GA, Herde M. Interaction of plant defense compounds with the insect gut: new insights from genomic and molecular analyses. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2015;9:62–68. doi: 10.1016/j.cois.2015.03.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Grabherr MG, et al. Full length transcriptome assembly from RNA-Seq data without a reference genome. Nat. Biotechnol. 2011;29:644–652. doi: 10.1038/nbt.1883. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Li B, Dewey CN. RSEM: accurate transcript quantification from RNA-Seq data with or without a reference genome. BMC Bioinformatics. 2011;12:323. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-12-323. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Anders S, Huber W. Differential expression analysis for sequence count data. Genome Biol. 2010;11:R106. doi: 10.1186/gb-2010-11-10-r106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Young MD, Wakefield MJ, Smyth GK, Oshlack A. Gene ontology analysis for RNA-seq: accounting for selection bias. Genome Biol. 2010;11:R14. doi: 10.1186/gb-2010-11-2-r14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Mao X, Cai T, Olyarchuk JG, Wei L. Automated genome annotation and pathway identification using the KEGG Orthology (KO) as a controlled vocabulary. Bioinformatics. 2005;21:3787–3793. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bti430. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Livak KJ, Schmittgen TD. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(-Delta Delta C(T)) Method. Methods. 2001;25:402–408. doi: 10.1006/meth.2001.1262. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Götz S, et al. High-throughput functional annotation and data mining with the Blast2GO suite. Nucleic Acids Research. 2008;36:3420–3435. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkn176. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Herde M, Howe GA. Host plant-specific remodeling of midgut physiology in the generalist insect herbivore Trichoplusia ni. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2014;50:58–67. doi: 10.1016/j.ibmb.2014.03.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Roy A, et al. Diet dependent metabolic responses in three generalist insect herbivores Spodoptera spp. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2016;71:91–105. doi: 10.1016/j.ibmb.2016.02.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Ge ZY, Wan PJ, Li GQ, Xia YG, Han ZJ. Characterization of cysteine protease-like genes in the striped rice stem borer. Chilo suppressalis. Genome. 2014;57:79–88. doi: 10.1139/gen-2013-0188. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Ge ZY, et al. Cloning and characterization of serpin-like genes from the striped rice stem borer. Chilo suppressalis. Genome. 2013;56:359–366. doi: 10.1139/gen-2013-0051. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Chikate YR, Tamhane VA, Joshi RS, Gupta VS, Giri AP. Differential protease activity augments polyphagy in Helicoverpa armigera. Insect Mol. Biol. 2013;22:258–272. doi: 10.1111/imb.12018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Bretschneider A, Heckel DG, Vogel H. Know your ABCs: Characterization and gene expression dynamics of ABC transporters in the polyphagous herbivore Helicoverpa armigera. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2016;72:1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ibmb.2016.03.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Govind G, et al. Unbiased transcriptional comparisons of generalist and specialist herbivores feeding on progressively defenseless Nicotiana attenuata plants. Plos One. 2010;5:e8735. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0008735. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Alon M, et al. Insights into the transcriptomics of polyphagy: Bemisia tabaci adaptability to phenylpropanoids involves coordinated expression of defense and metabolic genes. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2012;42:251–263. doi: 10.1016/j.ibmb.2011.12.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Li HS, Pan C, De Clercq P, Ślipiński A, Pang H. Variation in life history traits and transcriptome associated with adaptation to diet shifts in the ladybird Cryptolaemus montrouzieri. BMC Genomics. 2016;17:281. doi: 10.1186/s12864-016-2611-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Puri M, Kaur I, Perugini MA, Gupta RC. Ribosome-inactivating proteins: current status and biomedical applications. Drug Discov. Today. 2012;17:774–783. doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2012.03.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Jiang SY, et al. Genome-wide survey of the RIP domain family in Oryza sativa and their expression profiles under various abiotic and biotic stresses. Plant Mol. Biol. 2008;67:603–614. doi: 10.1007/s11103-008-9342-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Liu Y, Hou M, Wu Y, Liu G. Population Genetic Analysis of the Rice Stem Borer, Chilo suppressalis, in the South China. J. Integr. Agr. 2013;12:1033–1041. doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(13)60481-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Li X, Luo G, Han Z, Fang J. Molecular cloning and analysis of aspartic protease (AP) gene in Ty3/gypsy retrotransposon in different geographical populations of Chilo suppressalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in China. Acta Entomologica Sinica. 2014;57:530–537. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Han G, Luo G, Zhang Z, Wang L. Genetic diversity of different geographical populations of Chilo suppressalis in China as determined by AFLP. Chinese Journal of Applied Entomology. 2013;50:1036–1041. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Tang X, Zheng F, Lu M, Du Y. New ideas about genetic differentiation of Chilo suppressalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) populations in China based on the mtDNA cytochrome b gene. Mitochondrial DNA Parta. 2016;27:1567–1573. doi: 10.3109/19401736.2014.958670. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Schwarz D, et al. Sympatric ecological speciation meets pyrosequencing: sampling the transcriptome of the apple maggot Rhagoletis pomonella. BMC Genomics. 2009;10:633. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-10-633. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Barreto FS, Moy GW, Burton RS. Interpopulation patterns of divergence and selection across the transcriptome of the copepod Tigriopus californicus. Mol. Ecol. 2001;20:560–572. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04963.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Zimmer CT, et al. A de novo transcriptome of European pollen beetle populations and its analysis, with special reference to insecticide action and resistance. Insect Mol. Biol. 2014;23:511–526. doi: 10.1111/imb.12099. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Glaser N, et al. Differential expression of the chemosensory transcriptome in two populations of the stemborer Sesamia nonagrioides. Insect Biochem. Molec. 2015;65:28–34. doi: 10.1016/j.ibmb.2015.07.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

41598_2017_14137_MOESM1_ESM.doc (1.3MB, doc)

Supplementary Information (Figures S1-S6, Tables S1-S7)

Table S1 (184KB, xls)
Table S2 (278KB, xls)
Table S3 (22KB, xls)
Table S4 (1.3MB, xls)
Table S5 (790.5KB, xls)
Table S6 (95KB, xls)
Table S7 (30KB, xls)

Articles from Scientific Reports are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES