Skip to main content
. 2019 Jan 30;179(4):1822–1833. doi: 10.1104/pp.18.00837

Figure 6.

Figure 6.

Analysis of the importance of loliolide in herbivore resistance using Arabidopsis. A, D, E, F, and H, F. occidentalis females were inoculated on the leaves of wild-type (Col-0) or the indicated mutant plants floated on a solution containing 300 μM loliolide or 0.1% methanol as a control, and the numbers of laid eggs were counted 3 d after the inoculation. Values for (A), (D), (E), (F), and (H) are the mean ± sd (n = 10–19 replicates). B and G, Endogenous loliolide contents in the leaves of wild-type, szl1-1 (B), and coi1-1 (G) plants. Values for (B) and (G) are the mean ± sd (n = five to six plants). C, Photographs taken 14 d after the inoculation of wild-type and szl1-1 plants with F. occidentalis. I, Time course of loliolide accumulation after wounding of wild-type Col-0 plants. J and K, Endogenous loliolide contents in the leaves of wild-type and coi1-1 plants 0 and 24 h after wounding (J) or inoculation with F. occidentalis (K). For (I) n = 10 replicates for each time point, (J) n = 8 replicates, and (K) n = 5 replicates, values are the mean ± sd. Different letters indicate significant differences among treatments (for A, B, D, E, F, and H, P < 0.05, t test; for G, P > 0.05; t test; for I, J, and K, P < 0.05, Tukey-Kramer HSD test). LL, loliolide; WT, wild type.