Next Article in Journal
Production of Reactive Oxygen (ROS) and Nitrogen (RNS) Species in Macrophages J774A.1 Activated by the Interaction between Two Escherichia coli Pathotypes and Two Probiotic Commercial Strains
Previous Article in Journal
Aerotolerant Thiosulfate-Reducing Bacterium Fusibacter sp. Strain WBS Isolated from Littoral Bottom Sediments of the White Sea—Biochemical and Genome Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Microorganisms
Volume 11
Issue 7
10.3390/microorganisms11071643
microorganisms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Electrophysiological and Behavioral Responses of Virgin Female Bactrocera tryoni to Microbial Volatiles from Enterobacteriaceae

by
Anaïs K. Tallon
1,*,
Lee-Anne Manning
2 and
Flore Mas
2
1
Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Aquaculture, University of Mississippi State, Starkville, MS 39762, USA
2
The New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Ltd., Canterbury Agriculture & Science Centre, 74 Gerald St, Lincoln 7608, New Zealand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2023, 11(7), 1643; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11071643
Submission received: 18 May 2023 / Revised: 18 June 2023 / Accepted: 19 June 2023 / Published: 23 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Food Microbiology)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The Queensland fruit fly (Bactrocera tryoni) is a major polyphagous pest widespread in Australia and several Pacific Islands. Bacteria present on the host plant phyllosphere supply proteins, essential for egg development and female sexual maturity. We investigated the role of microbial volatile organic compounds (MVOCs) emitted by Enterobacteriaceae commonly found on the host plant and in the fly gut in attracting virgin females. Bacteria were cultured on artificial media and natural fruits, at various pH, and MVOCs were collected using different headspace volatile absorbent materials. The olfactory responses of virgin females to bacterial MVOCs were assessed via electrophysiology and behavioral assays. The production of MVOCs was strongly influenced qualitatively by the bacterial strain and the type of media, and it semi-quantitatively varied with pH and time. MVOCs emitted by Klebsiella oxytoca invoked the strongest antennal response and were the most attractive. Among the identified compounds triggering an olfactory response, D-limonene and 2-nonanone were both significantly behaviorally attractive, whereas phenol, nonanal, isoamyl alcohol, and some pyrazines appeared to be repulsive. This study deepens our understanding of the chemical ecology between fruit flies and their bacterial symbionts and paves the way for novel synthetic lures based on specifically MVOCs targeting virgin females.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

New Zealand is one of the last countries free of fruit flies (Tephritidae). However, its proximity to Australia, where the Queensland fruit fly (QFF), Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) (Diptera: Tephritidae) is widely present [1], represents a constant threat to New Zealand biosecurity. Originating from tropical and subtropical coastal Queensland, Australia, QFF has now spread to more temperate areas of southern Australia and established in several Pacific Islands and is regularly intercepted in New Zealand [1]. This fruit fly species is one of the most destructive crop pests worldwide due to great dispersal capacities, a generalist diet, and the ability to establish outside of its native range [2], which leads to considerable economic losses and draconian quarantine restrictions. Moreover, host plants of QFF include, but are not restricted to, apple and kiwifruit, which represent the main exported fruit crops of New Zealand [3]. Furthermore, the withdrawal of the organophosphate insecticides fenthion and dimethoate has left a major gap in pest suppression tools, and it has further increased the risk of incursion of QFF in the country.
While male QFF can be controlled with strong attractants, for example, para-pheromones such as cue-lure (4-p-acetoxyphenyl-butan-2-one) or raspberry ketone (4-4-hydroxyphenyl-butan-2-one) [4], females remain relatively difficult to regulate in the wild [1,5]. Yet, female QFF, which sustain the population, are the ones that cause the most economic damage via egg laying in fruits [1,6]. Even though food-based attractants (e.g., fruit or protein-like yeast hydrolysates) can be mixed with insecticides and used in traps or sprays to target both immature sexes [7], these food baits display relatively low persistence. In addition, their efficacy is highly dependent on the size of the population and weather conditions [1]. As such, in the absence of a strong female-specific synthetic attractant, pest management alternatives are urgently needed.
Bacteria present on the host plant phyllosphere constitute the main source of proteins for female fruit flies [8], which is necessary for egg development and to reach sexual maturity [9,10,11,12]. Most bacteria identified from fruit fly digestive organs belong to the family Enterobacteriaceae, which constitute the dominant microbiome taxa associated with fruit fly infested fruits and plants [13,14,15,16]. Enterobacteriaceae, which are not obligate endosymbionts, are acquired by the insect from its environment while foraging for food on leaves and fruit surfaces [13,16]. Although previous chemical and behavioral studies have linked bacterial symbionts with attraction of fruit fly species, such as the Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata), the Mexican fruit fly (Anastrepha ludens), and the olive fruit fly (Bactrocera oleae) [17,18,19,20,21], the role of bacterial symbionts in the biology of B. tryoni remains poorly understood.
Olfaction is essential for insects to locate potential food, mates, or search for suitable habitats, and oviposition sites [22]. Recent studies of plant–insect interactions have revealed that the attractiveness of the host plant to an insect is not only driven by the volatiles produced by the host plant but may also be influenced by microbial volatile organic compounds (MVOCs) present on the plant [22,23]. Yet, despite recent descriptive studies of the microbiome associated with B. tryoni [16,24], pest management efforts have been focused on using generic yeast hydrolysate or autolysate as sources of attractant, and not bacterial symbionts.
In this study, we investigated the olfactory responses of virgin QFF to four symbiotic bacteria strains belonging to the family Enterobacteriaceae, commonly found in association with QFF. MVOCs emitted from these bacteria were collected under different media and conditions using two different headspace volatile collection methods. Chemical profiles were identified through gas-chromatography coupled with mass-spectrometry (GC/MS), and responses of female QFF to MVOCs were assessed via electrophysiological and behavioral assays.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Bacteria

Four species belonging to the family Enterobacteriaceae were selected based on previously reported QFF gut bacteria [13]. In the absence of QFF in New Zealand, bacterial cultures were obtained from collaborators abroad and international collections. Among the family Enterobacteriaceae: Citrobacter freundii (CF) was provided by the South Australian Research Development Institute (South Australian Research and Development InstituteSARDI, Adelaide, Australia), Enterobacter cloacae (EC) and Enterobacter (syn. Pantoea) agglomerans (PA) were both obtained from the International Collection of Micro-Organisms maintained at Manaaki Whenua-Landcare Research (Lincoln, New Zealand), and Klebsiella oxytoca (KO) was imported from the Institut Agronomique néo-Calédonien (IAC, Port-Laguere, New Caledonia). In our experiments, only one strain of each bacterium was tested. Hereafter, we use their abbreviated names throughout the text, tables, and figures.

2.2. Media

Artificial media commonly used with Enterobacteriaceae are tryptone soya agar (TSA) or tryptone soya broth (TSB), which were both sourced from Oxoid Basingstoke, Hampshire, England. Bacteria were first grown for 24 h on TSA at 29 °C ± 1 °C. Consequently, a loop of a colony was added to 100 mL of TSB in a 250 mL mason jar (Tablefair®, Auckland, New Zealand) and incubated on a rotary shaker at 30 °C and 100 rpm for 18 h. A standard concentration of 5 × 108 cells/mL (determined via spectrophotometry) was used for inoculation on broth media. The pH of cultures was measured using an electronic pH meter. The control TSB had a pH of 6.84, and the addition of bacteria increased the pH to 7.74. In addition, we tested the effect of pH on MVOCs production by the bacteria, as pH was previously reported to significantly influence the type of compounds released by food baits, and it consequently impacts the attraction of female QFF [18,25,26]. Given that the selected Enterobacteriaceae can be found both on host plants and within the gut of fruit fly (i.e., bacteria experience different pH conditions), the pH of the media containing the four inoculated bacteria was adjusted to 3, 5, 7, 9, and 12, using 12.4 M (38%) hydrochloric acid or 10 M (40%) sodium hydroxide solution in a dropwise manner until reaching the appropriate pH [26]. The pH was re-checked 24 h after adjustment and before the SPME collection commenced.
Fruits were also inoculated with bacteria to investigate the interaction between bacterium species and natural substrates. Mature green kiwifruit cv. ‘Hayward’ (Actinidia deliciosa), apples cv. ‘Royal Gala’ (Malus domestica), and oranges cv. ‘Navel’ (Citrus sinensis), purchased at the local supermarket, were surface sterilized by immersion in 85% ethanol for 2 min and then washed with distilled water for 2 min. Fruits were then left under UV light (100–400 nm) for 2 h, before being inoculated with CF, EC, KO, and PA. Each fruit was inoculated five times with 10 μL of the same bacterial solution (5 × 108 cells/mL), 3 mm in depth, using a needle to mimic insect oviposition (Murphy et al. 1994). Control fruits were inoculated with 10 μL of distilled water only. Incubating conditions were the same as used for bacterial growth (i.e., 29 °C ± 1 °C). To confirm bacteria growth on fruits, a slice (ca. 1 cm²) of the flesh from the inoculation site was macerated with TSB and streaked onto TSA after the volatile collection and bacterial growth were assessed.

2.3. MVOCs Collection and Identification

Two different headspace volatile collection methods, using different absorbent materials, were performed to maximize the chance of capturing a maximum of MVOCs. Dynamic headspace collection was performed using an air pump to actively push/pull air through a sorbent (i.e., Tenax®-GR), which was solvent eluted to produce an extract that can be stored and later used for chemical analysis and bioassay. In contrast, passive headspace collection using solid phase micro-extraction (SPME) consisted of a fiber that passively adsorbs molecules and requires thermal desorption promptly after collection. SPME avoids solvent use, enables the detection of smaller volatiles that are generally hidden by the solvent peak, and generally allows a shorter collection time (minutes compared to hours). SPME was performed for 1 h to collect and compare MVOCs emitted from bacterial cultures grown on different media (artificial and fruits), and at different pH concentrations. In contrast, Tenax® was used to collect bacterial headspace for 24 h, and the solvent-extracts were used later for electrophysiology and behavioral assays. All headspace collections were conducted in Mason jars with bacterial cultures growing either on TSB or fruits. For each bacterial culture, three replicates and a media control were collected via each aforementioned method. All collections were performed under BSL2 laboratory conditions for human risk pathogens at The New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Limited (PFR) in Lincoln, New Zealand.
Tenax® filters used for dynamic headspace collection were adsorbent filters made from 60 mg of Tenax®-GR 35/60 (Grace Davison Discovery Sciences, Epping, Australia) packed in a glass tube between two plugs of silane treated glass wool (Grace Davison Discovery Science, Chicago, IL, USA). Air was drawn in from the environment, passed through a charcoal filter, distributed over the culture, and adsorbed onto the Tenax® filter at a rate of 500 mL/min. In between each collection, the charcoal filters were heated at 150 °C overnight while Tenax® filters were conditioned at 250 °C for 3 h under a nitrogen flow. After 24 h of volatile collection, the Tenax® filters were eluted with 1 mL of hexane (Sigma-Aldrich, Saint Louis, MO, USA, 95% purity). Two hundred microliters of each extract were concentrated down to circa 80 μL under a gentle flow of argon and used for chemical analysis. Pooled Tenax® extracts of each bacterium were made by mixing 100 µL of each of the three replicates. A pooled control was made by mixing 100 µL of each fourth replicate from each bacterial control containing the media only (e.g., TSB). The pooled bacterial Tenax® extracts were used for electroantennogram (EAG) and behavioral choice assays with QFF. All the bacterial Tenax® extracts were from cultures grown at pH 7 (±0.5). Differences in the proportions of MVOCs emitted from kiwifruit, apples, and oranges, inoculated with either CF, EC, KO, or PA, were assessed at 24 h post-inoculation. Over time variations of chemical profiles, measured at 24 h, 72 h, and 5 days post-inoculation, were assessed for inoculated kiwifruit.
The SPME fiber selected in our experiments was a grey Stableflex/SS 2 cm SPME (50/30 μm DVB/CAR/PDMS, SUPELCO, Sigma-Aldrich, Saint Louis, MO, USA). The SPME fiber was directly inserted inside the Mason jar and exposed to the headspace of the culture a few centimeters above it for 1 h. Before each use, the SPME fiber was conditioned as recommended by the manufacturer (i.e., 270 °C for 30 min). MVOCs were collected from each bacterium at pH 3, 5, 7, 9, and 12, as well as mixtures of all bacteria adjusted to each pH, using SPME. Differences in chemical profiles of inoculated fruits with bacteria were also assessed with SPME at 24 h post-inoculation and compared with their Tenax® counterparts.

2.4. Chemical Analysis

Chemical analyses of bacterial Tenax® extracts and SPME samples were performed on a gas chromatograph (GC, 7890B, Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) coupled to a mass-spectrometer (MS, 5977A, Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA). The general GC operating conditions were split-less injections for 0.6 min using helium carrier gas at 1.6 mL/min. The GC column was non-polar (DB-5 ms, Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) with the following dimensions: 30 m × 0.25 mm i.d. × 0.25 μm film thickness. The temperature program started at 40 °C (2 min hold) and was increased by 4 °C/min to 280 °C followed by a 10 min hold. The injector temperature for the column was 250 °C. The transfer line was maintained at 250 °C. The MS system was operated in electron impact mode at 70 eV. Automatic integration of each peak was performed with Masshunter software (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA), which provided a list of compounds (i.e., peak) for each sample. Identification of compounds was then performed by matching the spectra of each peak with the NIST Mass Spectral Database library (Ver 2.2, 2014). In addition, Kovats retention indices (KI or RI) for each compound were calculated by running an external alkanes series using the aforementioned GC/MS method. Finally, identification of peaks-of-interest was confirmed with synthetic standards purchased from Sigma-Aldrich and marked as bold in Table 1.

2.5. Queensland Fruit Fly (QFF)

Factory-reared B. tryoni pupae were provided by the Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute from the Department of Primary Industries (EMAI-DPI), located in Camden, New South Wales, Australia, and were used in electrophysiological (EAG) and behavioral (i.e., cage assay) experiments in Australia at Macquarie University Centre for Fruit fly Biosecurity innovation, Sydney. The same pupae were exported under quarantine to New Zealand with a permit from the Ministry of Primary Industries and approval from the Environmental Protection Authority to work on a new organism in containment (NOC100167). However, we had to use sterile insects in New Zealand. Therefore, pupae, which were provided by the EMAI-DPI, were first irradiated at 70–75 Gy using Gamma radiation (Cobalt-60) at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation before being shipped to New Zealand. The irradiated insects were only used for electroantennogram detection (EAD) to identify bioactive compounds. Finally, complementary behavioral experiments (i.e., y-tube olfactometer) were carried out in New Caledonia with QFF reared at the Institut Agronomique néo-Calédonien (IAC), at the Station de Recherches Fruitières de Pocquereux, La Foa, New Caledonia, to test the identified bioactive compounds. All flies were raised under similar laboratory conditions, at 25 °C ± 1 °C and 70% ± 10% humidity and a photoperiod of 12 h light:12 h dark (light from 0600 to 1800 h) and a dusk and dawn of half an hour to induce mating behavior. Given that sexually immature females are expected to search actively for protein sources to mature and develop eggs, we used 3–4-day-old virgin females, fed only with water and sugar ad libitum [10].

2.6. Electrophysiological Assays

The electroantennogram (EAG) responses of virgin females to Tenax® bacterial extracts were measured in Australia. In New Zealand, using GC coupled with an electroantennogram detector (GC/EAD), we separated and identified the bioactive MVOCs using SPME collection samples from the mixed bacteria grown under different pH concentrations. For both techniques (i.e., EAG and GC/EAD), each fly was anaesthetized at −20 °C for 2 min or by using carbon dioxide gas. The head was then removed and mounted between two recording electrodes in a salt-free hypoallergenic gel (Spectra 360, Parker Laboratories Inc., Fairfield, NJ, USA) and placed under a constant charcoal-filtered flow of humidified air (400 mL/min). For the EAG, the presentation of odorant samples was made manually in front of the antennae by inserting in the airflow a Pasteur pipette containing 10 µL of the bacterial Tenax® extract applied on a filter paper and puffed for 0.5 s. Prior recording, the stimulus pipettes were kept for 10 min in a fume hood to facilitate solvent evaporation. For each sample, air was puffed (for 0.5 s at 1.5 L/min) through the Pasteur pipettes, which were inserted into a glass tube, located at 10 cm from the antennal preparation. A constant airflow was maintained to compensate for the air-puff. The samples were presented at 30 s intervals between stimuli to allow the olfactory receptor neurons to return to a basic activity rate as previously described [27]. The four bacterial Tenax® extracts were tested in concentrated form, as well as in a series of dilutions (10-1 and 10-2) prepared and tested for a dose–response. All odorant stimuli were delivered from the lowest to the highest concentrations. Ten replicates were run for each bacterium and dilution. The EAG responses of female QFF to bacterial Tenax® extracts were recorded with a high-input impedance preamplifier and analyzed with the recording software AutoSpike (version 3.9, Syntech, Hilversum, The Netherlands).
For GC/EAD, the SPME fiber passively collected MVOCs for 1 h at 29 °C before desorption in the GC injection port. The SPME samples were presented to the insect antennae via an Agilent GC equipped with a 30 m by 0.32 mm i.d. by 0.25 µm HP5 capillary column (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) using an FID coupled to an electro-antennographic detector (EAD) acquisition controller (IDAC 4, Syntech, Hilversum, The Netherlands). The fiber was desorbed for 5 min in the injection port, which was held at 250 °C. The samples were subsequently passed through the column at 1 mL/min with helium carrier gas, which was split between the insect antennae and the FID. The injector of the GC was set at 250 °C and run in split-less mode; the detector was set at 300 °C, and the GC oven temperature programmed from 60 °C, held for 1 min, then increased to 250 °C at 20 °C/min and held for 10 min. The EAD exit port temperature was maintained at 250 °C, and the antennal preparation was placed in a charcoal-filtered and humidified air system (400 mL/min). The recording software AutoSpike (Version 3.9, Syntech, Hilversum, The Netherlands) was used to record the antennal response and FID response. Kovats retention indexes (KI) were calculated for the antennally active compounds, and the samples were run by GC/MS for identification.

2.7. Behavioral Assays

Cage assays were performed in Australia to first assess the attraction of virgin female QFF to the whole bacterial Tenax® extracts. Experiments were run between 9 am and 4 pm in a controlled temperature room at 25 °C with 65–75% relative humidity with 18 fresh air changes every hour. Thirty females were set up in small mesh cages (30 × 30 × 30 cm) with sugar and water ad libitum for 24 h prior to the start of the experiment to allow acclimation. After 24 h, two 20 mL vials lined inside with Tanglefoot® glue were hung from the ceiling of each cage on either side of the middle of the cage. Each vial contained a piece of filter paper (approx. 2.5 mm × 3 mm) with 10 µL of undiluted Tenax® extract from either a bacterium or the control solvent (n-hexane, Sigma-Aldrich, 95% purity). The position of the bacterial extract in the cage was randomly assigned daily across all replicates between the right and the left side. The number of female QFF caught in each of these two traps was assessed after 24 h. Ten replicates of each of the four bacteria included 30 females per cage and were tested consecutively after four days, leading to a total of 1200 tested females.
Y-tube olfactometer assays were performed in New Caledonia with synthetic compounds selected based on identified bioactive compounds following the method described in [6]. One fly was introduced in the entrance of each olfactometer and allowed to acclimate for 5 min. One microliter (i.e., 1 mg) of a pure synthetic odorant was applied to a piece of filter paper (Whatman, Sigma-Aldrich, Darmstadt, Germany) 30 mm × 7.5 mm, placed inside a Pasteur pipette, and connected upwind to one end of the Y arm. On the other arm of the Y-tube, another Pasteur pipette was set up with filter paper containing no odor. The arm of the Y-tube that was used for the odor was alternated between each run. Each compound was tested in a set of five runs, giving a total of 20 virgin females tested for each compound. After acclimatation, the doors from the entrance were lifted, and flies were given 15 min to make a choice between both arms of the Y-tube. Flies were considered to have made a choice when they crossed the door of one of the end arms, and were manually enclosed in it. The side of their choice was recorded, as well as the time of their choice. If the fly had not made a choice by the end of the 15 min, this was recorded as no choice. This experiment was carried out in New Caledonia with laboratory-reared flies, as described above. Behavioral tests were performed from 8 am until 4 pm, under constant light and temperature conditions (25 °C +/− 1 °C). Olfactometers were rinsed at the end of every day with bleach and water and left to dry overnight.

2.8. Statistical Analysis

All the statistical analyses were performed with R statistical software, version 4.2.2. [28]. From the GC/MS results, relative proportions of each compound identified with each method, emitted by each bacterium cultivated on the TSB medium, were calculated based on the peak area of each volatile. The peak area of individual compounds was identified and recorded from the GC trace in one sample and divided by the total area of all compounds identified in the sample (see Supplementary Materials Figures S1 and S2 for representative GC traces). Overall scent composition of samples was compared between the two methods (i.e., Tenax® vs. SPME) by inspecting the relative proportion results reported in tables. We used non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) and analysis of similarity (ANOSIM), from the R package named vegan [29], to determine variations in the MVOC profiles of the samples. Both qualitative (presence/absence) and semi-quantitative differences in the chemical profiles were evaluated among the four bacteria strains, types of fruits, post-inoculation time, and pH. The SPME-GC/EAD responses to the mix of the four bacteria were compared among the identified bioactive compounds and at different pH with linear models including bacteria and pH as fixed effects along with their interaction.
The mean intensity and the standard deviation of EAG-responses were calculated and presented for each bacterial extract. Because the antennal sensitivity may decline during each recording session, each female was taken as a random factor in a linear-mixed effect model (LME) using packages “lme4” and “lmer” to control for variation between each female antennae replicate. The bacterial extract and the concentration, as well as their interaction, were included as fixed effects in the model. Because no effect of the concentration, nor interaction between the concentration and the bacteria strain were found, only the effect of bacteria was measured. We used Tukey-HSD to run pairwise comparisons between the bacteria.
For both behavioral assays (i.e., cage and Y-tube), we compared the total number of females making a choice (odor or control) vs. the number of females making no-choice. Among the females making a choice, we then compared the number of females choosing the odor (bacterium/synthetic compound) vs. the control odor (solvent/blank). A general linear model (GLM) with a binomial family and a log-link function was used. The number of females was chosen as potential explanatory response variable, the tested odor was considered a fixed effect, and the total number of females making a choice was used to weight the model. Multiple comparisons between the odors were performed with least-square means contrasts (package “lsmeans”). The package “ggplot2” was used to draw the plots.

3. Results

3.1. Chemical Identification and Semi-Quantification

3.1.1. Comparison of Headspace Methods

To investigate how the use of various odor collection methods can affect our representation of odor profiles, we identified and compared the chemical composition of headspace volatile collection between the Tenax® filter and SPME fiber (Table 1; Figures S1 and S2). Variations in the overall chemical composition of the tested samples were assessed using NMDS and ANOSIM, which revealed a clear association of certain compounds to each of the two methods (Table 2). Altogether, Tenax® headspace extracts collected a wider range of molecules compared to the SPME technique, which may be explained by a longer time of collection. In contrast, the SPME technique detected shorter hydrocarbon-chain volatiles such as 2-butanone, isobutyl-alcohol, acetoin, and other compounds likely concealed by the solvent peak in Tenax® extracts. With both headspace collection methods, several pyrazines were detected in all bacteria, as well as from the TSB media (Table 1). Two compounds (i.e., isoamyl alcohol and 2-phenylethanol), excluding the pyrazines, were produced by all bacteria and absent from the TSB media, and were detected with the SPME technique. Isoamyl alcohol was the major compound (i.e., highest relative proportions) detected in all the bacteria via SPME.
Several species-specific compounds were also detected solely by one method. For instance, 2-phenylethanol was detected only from CF via Tenax® extracts, whereas this compound was identified in all SPME samples (Table 1). Similarly, phenol was found only in CF with SPME. In contrast, indole was detected from all bacteria and TSB except CF, with both methods. Furthermore, all bacteria, apart from CF, produced 2-nonanone, detected using SPME. Some esters, such as ethyl octanoate and hexyl hexanoate, were detected via Tenax® headspace extracts only, and they were unique to EC. Unlike the SPME fiber, the Tenax® filters facilitated the detection of volatile compounds such as 2-coumaranone and o-cymene in CF and KO, respectively. Reciprocally, both isobutyl-alcohol and 3-hydroxy-2-butanone were detected in small quantities from PA by SPME only.

3.1.2. pH Variation

To further characterize how the chemical composition of bacteria MVOC profiles changed over time with fermentation, we assessed the impacts of pH variations with SPME. Overall, a significant effect of pH was observed on the production of MVOCs across all bacteria (F = 5.06, df = 4,73, p = 0.0012; Figure 1). Moreover, the bacteria strain also had significant effects on the production of MVOCs at various pH (F = 3.5, df= 4, 41, p = 0.024). While 2-phenylethanol was produced in larger amounts by KO and PA, indole was more abundant in KO extracts when compared to EC, and phenol was only produced by CF (Figure 1). In parallel, NMDS and ANOSIM revealed that various compounds, especially carboxylic acids, were significantly more associated with certain pH (Table 2). For instance, hexanoic acid was more produced at pH 3 (ANOSIM; R = 0.134, p = 0.016; Table 2), while pentanoic acid was produced at pH = 7 (ANOSIM; R = 0.125, p = 0.022; Table 2).

3.1.3. Inoculated Fruits

Variations in MVOC profiles were also measured from different inoculated fruits. Overall, 42.33% of the variation in the chemical composition is explained by the chosen potential explanatory variables (i.e., bacteria strain, collection methods, type of fruits, and post-inoculation time). MVOCs were detected in apples, kiwifruit, and oranges at 24 h post-inoculation, using both Tenax® and SPME. Multivariate analysis revealed a clear separation between Tenax® and SPME extracts collected at 24 h post-inoculation in apples, kiwifruit, and oranges (ANOSIM; R = 0.19, p = 2e-04; Figure 2). A total of seven compounds were significantly associated with Tenax® (i.e., two alcohols, one aldehyde, one aromatic, two hydrocarbons, and two terpenes; Table 3). In line with the previously mentioned variations associated with detection methods, eight compounds, which included indole and 2-phenylethanol, were significantly associated with SPME (Table 3).
A clear separation was also highlighted between the MVOC profiles of the different types of fruits (ANOSIM; R = 0.5, p = 1e-04; Figure 2). Chemical profiles from apples were more similar to kiwifruit, while oranges displayed a different MVOC profile (Figure 2). A total of 40 compounds appeared to explain the difference in odor profiles between the different types of fruits (Table 2). While the chemical profiles of apples were mainly dominated by esters and alcohol, kiwifruit were associated with aromatics, esters and hydrocarbons, and oranges with esters and terpenes (Figure 3; Table 3). It should be noted that nonanal and ethyl butanoate were specific to the chemical profile of kiwifruit, while 2-phenylethanol and ethyl octanoate were specific to oranges (Table 3). In contrast, no compound was significantly associated with any of the bacteria strains inoculated on fruit media (p > 0.05).
Moreover, changes in chemical profiles were also investigated over time, by collecting MVOCs in kiwifruit at 24 h, 72 h, and 5 days post-inoculation, using Tenax®. Variations in the overall chemical composition of kiwifruit samples were assessed using NMDS and ANOSIM, revealing a clear separation between incubation times (ANOSIM; R = 0.385, p = 0.007). A positive correlation was found between the proportions of esters emitted from kiwifruit and the incubation time of bacteria. In contrast, as the number of esters increased over time, fewer hydrocarbons were detected (Figure 3). Furthermore, a total of six compounds were specific to 72 h post-inoculation, while only D-limonene was significantly more associated with 24 h post-inoculation (Table 3). Among the four bioactive compounds identified via SPME-GC/EAD, indole was the one most strongly associated with both the SPME collection method and kiwifruit at 5 days post-inoculation (Table 3). However, no differences in the MVOC profile of kiwifruit were detected between the four bacteria strains (ANOSIM; R = 0.08464, p > 0.05).

3.2. Electrophysiological Responses

3.2.1. EAG

Olfactory responses of virgin females to whole bacterial Tenax® extracts were measured through EAG. The response amplitude varied slightly among bacterial strains (F = 2.45, df = 4, 90, p = 0.053), while concentration did not have any effect (F = 0.51, df = 2, 90, p = 0.60), nor their interaction (F = 1.49, df = 8, 90, p = 0.17). Nonetheless, KO was found to trigger significantly stronger antennal responses than the TSB control (t = 2.73, p = 0.008 and t = 1.98, p = 0.05, respectively, Figure 4).

3.2.2. SPME-GC/EAD

Several compounds (Table 1 and Figure S3), among which 2-phenylethanol, indole, isoamyl alcohol, phenol, and pyrazine 2-ethyl-5methyl generated consistent electrophysiological responses from virgin QFF females at the five different pH concentrations (Figure 5). The antennal responses to each of these bioactive compounds were different (F = 3.57, df = 15, p < 0.001). However, the variation in the amplitude of antennal responses for each of these compounds at various pH was not consistent with no significant effect of pH (F = 1.194, df = 4, 111, p = 0.32) nor in interaction with each compound (F = 0.7, df = 12, 111, p = 0.74).

3.3. Behavioral Responses

3.3.1. Cage Assays

When virgin females were offered to choose between bacterial extracts and a control odor (i.e., hexane), a low number (<25%) of flies made a choice within 24 h (Figure 6). Among the proportion of females that made a choice, no preference was found between the bacterial extracts or the control (Chi-square = 77.57, p = 0.08). Nonetheless, females displayed a preference towards KO bacteria when compared to CF (z = −3.524, p = 0.0024).

3.3.2. Y-Tube Olfactometers

Overall, significantly more females made a choice between either EAD-active synthetic compounds and the control solvent compared to no-choice (Chi-square = 58.504, p < 0.001). Among the females that made a choice, virgin females preferred the control compared to 2-ethyl-3-methyl pyrazine (p = 0.003), 2-methyl pyrazine (p < 0.001), isoamyl alcohol (p = 0.047), nonanal (p < 0.001), and phenol (p < 0.001). In contrast, virgin females preferred 2-nonanone (p < 0.001) and D-limonene (p = 0.046) over the control (Figure 7).

4. Discussion

Here, we present original results of the MVOCs emitted by Enterobacteriaceae commonly associated with QFF and provide evidence of olfactory and behavioral modulation in virgin females.
While previous MVOC-related studies generally used SPME fibers and were carried out with bacteria associated with A. ludens and/or Rhagoletis pomonella [18,26,30,31,32,33], we used and compared the efficiency of two different headspace collection methods, SPME and Tenax®. Given that both methods are composed of different adsorbent materials, their efficiency at collecting MVOCs was complementary and used for different bioassays (i.e., solvent Tenax® extracts for behavioral assays and SPME extracts for electrophysiology). In line with previous studies, Tenax® filters adsorbed a larger range of compounds and exhibited a higher sensitivity, while SPME was more efficient at trapping short-chain hydrocarbons [34,35]. Given that certain compounds (e.g., short-chain and volatile molecules) may have had a breakthrough volume based on our Tenax® collection parameters, and because some MVOCs (e.g., 2,5-dimethyl-pyrazine and 3ethyl-2,5-dimethyl-pyrazine) were identified by both methods, while others were detected by only one method, our study highlights the importance of using and comparing various headspace collection methods when investigating MVOCs.
Overall, the chemical composition of the bacterial extracts revealed the presence, in high abundance, of various aldehydes, alcohols, esters, terpenes, and pyrazines, as previously shown [36,37]. Terpenes, esters, aldehydes, and alcohols are the most common chemical classes identified among the wide array of plant volatiles [38] and food lures used against Tephritid flies and detected by the fly antennae [39]. Pyrazines, which are attractive to A. ludens and produced by the bacteria K. pneumonia and CF [18], were also found, among amides, in the male rectal gland of B. cucurbitae, as well as in orchids attractive to males [40]. Although amides were suggested to be involved in the response to sex-specific pheromones in QFF [41], the role of pyrazines remains unclear. In this study, while bacteria were not necessarily responsible for the production of all the detected pyrazines, a wider diversity of these compounds was found in bacteria, when compared to the control media, supporting the findings that bacteria can synthesize certain pyrazines [42].
While most compounds were found across the four studied bacteria, which advocates for the existence of common biosynthetic pathways across Enterobacteriaceae, our chemical analyses also revealed species-specific MVOC production. Although it is still unknown whether Tephritidae flies seek particular bacteria species or strains based on specific MVOC profiles, females were more attracted to indole and 2-phenylethanol, which were detected in all bacteria but CF, than phenol, which was identified in CF extracts only. We showed that the production of MVOCs also depended on the pH of the culture medium, as previously reported [43,44]. For instance, phenol was more abundant in acidic growth media, while KO produced more 2-phenylethanol and indole when cultured in neutral and alkaline pH. Similarly, we reported that chemical profiles were specific to the nature of the growing medium. For instance, esters prevailed in apples, while hydrocarbons and terpenes were mostly present in kiwis and oranges, respectively. While we did not find strong microbially induced specific fruit volatile profiles, the overall abundance of volatiles (i.e., esters, terpenes, alcohol, and aromatics, which were previously described in other fruits commonly attractive to Tephritidae fruit flies [45,46,47]) was enhanced with incubation time with Enterobactereriacea. For instance, a positive correlation was found between the proportion of compounds emitted by kiwifruit and the incubation time (e.g., more D-limonene was produced at 24 h post-inoculation). Given that such fruit volatiles were previously shown to be behaviorally attractive to QFF [6,48,49], we can suppose that the presence of Enterobacteriaceae participates in the fruit attraction. Altogether, our results corroborate the findings that chemical profiles of MVOCs are influenced by the presence of different sources of precursors in the culture media and pH [18,22,25,37,50,51], and they could provide an explanation for the polyphagous capacity of female QFF to exploit several host-plants and adapt to various environmental conditions.
Because female fruit flies may exhibit a delay in sexual maturation and reduced sexual performance and lifespan if they are unable to acquire sufficient protein [10], virgin females are expected to actively search for bacteria as a source of protein. In our study, females exhibited the greatest antennal responses to extracts of KO and EC, which is in line with a previous study showing that KO was the most attractive among several culturable bacterial symbionts of B. zonata [52]. Moreover, KO extracts attracted relatively more QFF females compared to CF, similarly to B. cucurbitae females, for which KO was more attractive than CF in field experiments [44]. It is noteworthy that CF was previously shown to produce large amounts of ammonia [22], a compound negatively correlated with QFF attraction to Providencia rettgeri [51] and other fly species [53,54]. We suggest that the weak attraction to CF in our study may be due to the lack of detection of this compound, as a result of extreme volatility, such as demonstrated in other fruit fly species [55]. While ammonia could not be measured by GC/MS in our study, we acknowledge the existence of kits that enable easy, fast, and reliable detection of ammonia production (e.g., Ammonia Assay Kit, Megazyme, Neogen®), and could help understand whether ammonia might be involved in the differential behavioral activity observed between CF and KO.
Among the most abundant volatiles detected in our bacterial extracts, several alcohols (2-phenylethanol, isoamyl alcohol, and phenol), one aromatic (indole), and various pyrazines, triggered antennal responses from virgin females. No differences in the number of attracted A. ludens between the solvent and 2-phenylethanol, isoamyl alcohol (syn. 3-methyl butanol) or phenol were previously found [22], while, in another study, negative correlations were found between the production of indole, 2,5-dimethylpyrazine, and 2-phenylethanol by EC, and fly attraction [56]. In contrast, we found that the proportion of EAD-active indole increased with longer incubation times in kiwifruit. While mature fruits were previously described as the most prone to risk of oviposition from fruit flies [57], we suggest that mature fruits may also be at risk from immature fruit flies searching for protein source. From our Y-tube choice assays with synthetic compounds, we found neither a strong attraction nor repulsion to indole nor 2-phenylethanol (at the concentration tested), but phenol, as well as isoamyl alcohol, 2-methyl pyrazine, 2-ethyl 3-methyl pyrazine, and nonanal, appeared to be repellent to virgin female QFF. Moreover, the monoterpene D-limonene, which was the second most abundant compound detected in EC- and KO-inoculated fruits, triggered a strong attraction of virgin females. While the most attractive bacterium in our cage assays (i.e., KO) seemed to produce a repellent compound (i.e., isoamyl alcohol), this may be explained by the fact that behavioral assays were conducted with bacterial Tenax® extracts, which did not contain isoamyl alcohol, although isoamyl alcohol was detected in KO through SPME.
The low degree of behavioral response observed in the cages, reflected by the high proportion of flies not choosing between the bacterial extracts and the control within 24 h, may be explained by the origin of the bacterial strains or the pH at which those extracts were collected. Even though the Enterobacteriaceae species used in this study were previously described to be present in QFF [13,16], they were not sourced directly from the QFF’s gut, which could have influenced the production of MVOCs and, consequently, behavioral attraction [56]. Furthermore, the lack of behavioral attraction to the bacterial extracts may be linked to the origin of the tested flies, which were factory mass-reared and fed with a standard diet based on yeast extract rather than bacteria [58]. As such, behavioral assays with natural QFF populations and screening several strains of live bacteria should be considered.
Most bacteria display optimum growth rates at slightly acidic-neutral pH, but Enterobacteriacea are also found in the midgut of B. tryoni, at a pH of 1.4–2.0 [59,60]. During oviposition, the transfer of gut bacteria along eggs as previously described, from a confined acidic environment to a more neutral external environment (i.e., oviposition sites such as fruits [13,61], may trigger an increase in MVOC production. Thus, we suggest that the presence of naturally occurring KO on host-plants, associated with higher release rates of 2-phenylethanol and indole at alkaline pH, may be linked to greater attractiveness to female QFF. Similar findings were reported in C. capitata, where an elevation of pH, from acidic to neutral, was correlated with increased release rates of ammonia, resulting in higher bait efficiency [53,62]. Changes in the production of MVOCs by the bacteria transferred to the oviposition site, may provide a new source of chemical information (e.g., timing of oviposition) [13,63], potentially affecting female attraction. Yet, even though female QFF have been observed to reuse previous oviposition sites [64,65], there is still no evidence of MVOCs used as markers of time and quality of oviposition site by this species. Given that only virgin females were used in our study, we cannot confirm that the variation in MVOCs with pH conditions play a specific role in oviposition site selection by mated females. However, future oviposition assays using the MVOCs and bacteria tested in this study should be considered. We also strongly advocate for further comparisons of behavioral modulation between virgin and mated females as a result of mating-induced switches in olfactory preferences previously demonstrated in flies [6,66]. For instance, small alcohol molecules, such as isoamyl alcohol, were recently found to enhance the capture of mated female QFF in the field [46], while we described this compound as repulsive to virgin females.

5. Conclusions

By using two different headspace collection methods, we were able to show that the composition of MVOCs produced by bacteria varies according to the bacterial species, the type of media (artificial TSB vs. natural fruit), the pH, and incubation time. Here, we highlighted that the modulation of QFF electrophysiology (EAG) and behavior (cage assay) resulted from a complex interplay between changes in the relative proportions of MVOCs associated with pH, media, and incubation time. Through our results from GC/EAD and Y-tube olfactometer assays, we identified 2-nonanone and D-limonene, and phenol, isoamyl alcohol, and nonanal as candidate compounds for future “attractive” and “repulsive” lures, respectively, for virgin QFF. The elaboration of new female synthetic lures based on these MVOCs will be further tested in the field with natural QFF populations. Our work provides a better understanding of the chemical ecology of fruit flies, which is key to designing novel behaviorally disruptive tools to control QFF.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/microorganisms11071643/s1, Table S1. Raw EAG response measurements (mV) from sexually immature female Bactrocera tryoni to Tenax® extracts from each bacterium (Control tryptone soya broth (TSB) media; CF: Citrobacter freundii; EC: Enterobacter cloacae; KO: Klebsiella oxytoca; PA: Enterobacter (syn. Pantoea) agglomerans); Table S2. Mean relative proportions of microbial volatile organic compounds (MVOCs) identified for each bacterium grown at pH3, pH5, PH7, pH9, and pH12, and collected via 24 h headspace collection with solid phase micro-extraction (SPME) fiber. The MVOCs highlighted in grey were used in dual choice behavioral assays with individual compounds. (CF: Citrobacter freundii; EC: Enterobacter cloacae; KO: Klebsiella oxytoca; PA: Enterobacter (syn. Pantoea) agglomerans and tryptone soya broth (TSB) media). * KI: Kovats retention index; ** RT: retention time (in min); Table S3. Mean relative proportions (peak area) of microbial volatile organic compounds (MVOCs) identified for each bacterium grown on tryptone soya broth (TSB) and inoculated on three types of fruits: apple, kiwifruit, and orange. Volatiles were collected via Tenax® for 24 h, 3 days, and 5 days, and thermally desorbed. (CF: Citrobacter freundii; EC: Enterobacter cloacae; KO: Klebsiella oxytoca; PA: Enterobacter (syn. Pantoea) agglomerans; TSB media). Figure S1. Representative chromatograph profiles of four bacterial species grown on tryptone soya broth (TSB), collected on Tenax® for 24 h and solvent-extracted. From top to bottom: CF-Citrobacter freundii; EC-Enterobacter cloacae; KO-Klebsiella oxytoca; PA- Enterobacter (sy. Pantoea) agglomerans and TSB media. Figure S2. Representative chromatograph profiles of four bacterial species grown on tryptone soya broth (TSB), collected with solid phase micro-extraction (SPME) fibre for 1 h and thermally desorbed. From top to bottom: CF-Citrobacter freundii; EC-Enterobacter cloacae; KO-Klebsiella oxytoca; PA- Enterobacter (syn. Pantoea) agglomerans and TSB media. Figure S3. Olfactory responses from solid phase micro-extraction (SPME) - Gas-chromatograph coupled with electroantennographic detection (SPME-GC/EAD) of virgin females to microbial volatile organic compounds produced by a mix of four Enterobactericeae bacteria adjusted to pH 3,5,7,9 and 12.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.K.T. and F.M.; methodology, A.K.T. and F.M.; validation, A.K.T., L.-A.M. and F.M.; formal analysis, A.K.T. and F.M.; investigation, A.K.T., L.-A.M. and F.M.; resources, A.K.T., L.-A.M. and F.M.; data curation, A.K.T. and F.M.; writing, A.K.T. and F.M.—original draft preparation, A.K.T.; writing—review and editing, A.K.T., L.-A.M. and F.M.; visualization, A.K.T., L.-A.M. and F.M.; supervision, F.M.; project administration, F.M.; funding acquisition, F.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by Better Border Biosecurity (Project E17.27, www.B3nz.org, accessed 15 June 2023), with co-investment by Horticulture Innovation Australia (grant HG13034). The travel was supported by a grant from the Pacific Funds provided by the French Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs (VETTAELI project).

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available within the article supplementary materials. All R scripts used in for all data analyses are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We thank Phil Taylor and his team of The Centre for Fruit Fly Biosecurity Innovation at Macquarie University (Sydney, Australia) for providing access to the laboratory facilities to carry out behavioral and electrophysiological assays. We also thank Christian Mille and his team (Sylvie Cazeres, José Brinon, Rose-mai M’Boueri from the Laboratoire d’entomologie appliquée) for hosting us at the Institute for Agriculture of New Caledonia and providing a laboratory-reared colony of Bactrocera tryoni. Kirsty Boyd-Wilson provided training to work under PC2 conditions with microbial cultures at The New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Limited.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Clarke, A.R.; Powell, K.S.; Weldon, C.W.; Taylor, P.W. The ecology of Bactrocera tryoni (Diptera: Tephritidae): What do we know to assist pest management? Ann. Appl. Biol. 2011, 158, 26–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Vargas, R.I.; Piñero, J.C.; Leblanc, L. An overview of pest species of Bactrocera fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) and the integration of biopesticides with other biological approaches for their management with a focus on the Pacific region. Insects 2015, 6, 297–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Follett, P.A.; Jamieson, L.; Hamilton, L.; Wall, M. New associations and host status: Infestability of kiwifruit by the fruit fly species Bactrocera dorsalis, Zeugodacus cucurbitae, and Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae). Crop Protect. 2019, 115, 113–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Reynolds, O.; Osborne, T.; Crisp, P.; Barchia, I. Specialized pheromone and lure application technology as an alternative male annihilation technique to manage Bactrocera tryoni (Diptera: Tephritidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2016, 109, 1254–1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Tan, K.H.; Nishida, R.; Jang, E.B.; Shelly, T.E. Pheromones, male lures, and trapping of tephritid fruit flies. In Trapping and the Detection, Control, and Regulation of Tephritid Fruit Flies; Shelly, T.E., Epsky, N.D., Jang, E.B., Reyes-Flores, J., Vargas, R., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 15–74. [Google Scholar]
  6. Mas, F.; Manning, L.-A.; Singlet, M.; Butler, R.; Mille, C.; Suckling, D.M. Electrophysiological and behavioral responses of Queensland fruit fly females to fruit odors. J. Chem. Ecol. 2020, 46, 176–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Dalby-Ball, G.; Meats, A. Influence of the odour of fruit, yeast and cue-lure on the flight activity of the Queensland fruit fly, Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Aust. J. Entomol. 2000, 39, 195–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bateman, M.A. The ecology of fruit flies. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1972, 17, 493–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Drew, R.; Lloyd, A. Bacteria associated with fruit flies and their host plants. In Fruit Flies: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control; Robinson, A.S., Hooper, G.H.S., Eds.; Elsevier Science Publishers: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1989; Volume 3A, pp. 131–140. [Google Scholar]
  10. Perez-Staples, D.; Prabhu, V.; Taylor, P.W. Post-teneral protein feeding enhances sexual performance of Queensland fruit flies. Physiol. Entomol. 2007, 32, 225–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Prabhu, V.; Perez-Staples, D.; Taylor, P.W. Protein: Carbohydrate ratios promoting sexual activity and longevity of male Queensland fruit flies. J. Appl. Entomol. 2008, 132, 575–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Fanson, B.G.; Taylor, P.W. Additive and interactive effects of nutrient classes on longevity, reproduction, and diet consumption in the Queensland fruit fly (Bactrocera tryoni). J. Insect Physiol. 2012, 58, 327–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lloyd, A.C.; Drew, R.A.I.; Teakle, D.S.; Hayward, A.C. Bacteria associated with some Dacus species (Diptera: Tephritidae) and their host fruit in Queensland. Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 1986, 39, 361–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Daser, U.; Brandl, R. Microbial gut floras of eight species of tephritids. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 1992, 45, 155–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Majumder, R.; Sutcliffe, B.; Taylor, P.W.; Chapman, T.A. Microbiome of the Queensland Fruit Fly through Metamorphosis. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Morrow, J.L.; Frommer, M.; Shearman, D.C.; Riegler, M. The microbiome of field-caught and laboratory-adapted Australian tephritid fruit fly species with different host plant use and specialisation. Microb. Ecol. 2015, 70, 498–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Majumder, R.; Sutcliffe, B.; Taylor, P.W.; Chapman, T.A. Next-Generation Sequencing reveals relationship between the larval microbiome and food substrate in the polyphagous Queensland fruit fly. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 14292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Robacker, D.C.; Garcia, J.A. Responses of laboratory-strain Mexican fruit flies, Anastrepha ludens, to combinations of fermenting fruit odor and male-produced pheromone in laboratory bioassays. J. Chem. Ecol. 1990, 16, 2027–2038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Jose, P.A.; Ben-Yosef, M.; Jurkevitch, E.; Yuval, B. Symbiotic bacteria affect oviposition behavior in the olive fruit fly Bactrocera oleae. J. Insect Physiol. 2019, 117, 103917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lauzon, C.R. Symbiotic relationships of tephritids. In Insect Symbiosis; Bourtzis, K., Miller, T.A., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2003; Volume 2, pp. 115–129. [Google Scholar]
  21. Lauzon, C.R.; McCombs, S.D.; Potter, S.E.; Peabody, N.C. Establishment and vertical passage of Enterobacter (Pantoea) agglomerans and Klebsiella pneumoniae through all life stages of the Mediterranean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 2009, 102, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Robacker, D.C.; Bartelt, R.J. Chemicals attractive to Mexican fruit fly from Klebsiella pneumoniae and Citrobacter freundii. Cultures sampled by Solid-Phase Microextraction. J. Chem. Ecol. 1997, 23, 2897–2915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Davis, T.S.; Crippen, T.L.; Hofstetter, R.W.; Tomberlin, J.K. Microbial volatile emissions as insect semiochemicals. J. Chem. Ecol. 2013, 39, 840–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Witzgall, P.; Proffit, M.; Rozpedowska, E.; Becher, P.G.; Andreadis, S.; Coracini, M.; Lindblom, T.U.; Ream, L.J.; Hagman, A.; Bengtsson, M.; et al. “This is not an apple”-yeast mutualism in codling moth. J. Chem. Ecol. 2012, 38, 949–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Bateman, M.A.; Morton, T.C. The importance of ammonia in proteinaceous attractants for fruit flies (Family: Tephritidae). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 1981, 32, 883–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Robacker, D.; Martinez, A.J.; Garcia, J.A.; Bartelt, R.J. Volatiles attractive to the Mexican fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) from eleven bacteria taxa. Fla. Entomol. 1998, 81, 497–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Murphy, K.M.; Teakle, D.S.; Macrae, I.C. Kinetics of colonization of adult queensland fruit-flies (Bactrocera tryoni) by dinitrogen-fixing alimentary-tract bacteria. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1994, 60, 2508–2517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2018.
  29. Oksanen, J. Vegan: Ecological diversity. R Proj. 2013, 368, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  30. Epsky, N.D.; Kendra, P.E.; Schnell, E.Q. History and development of food-based attractants. In Trapping and the Detection, Control, and Regulation of Tephritid Fruit Flies; Shelly, T.E., Epsky, N.D., Jang, E.B., Reyes-Flores, J., Vargas, R., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 75–118. [Google Scholar]
  31. Lauzon, C.R.; Sjogren, R.E.; Wright, S.E.; Prokopy, R.J. Attraction of Rhagoletis pomonella (Diptera: Tephritidae) flies to odor of bacteria: Apparent confinement to specialized members of enterobacteriaceae. Environ. Entomol. 1998, 27, 853–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lee, C.-J.; DeMilo, A.B.; Moreno, D.S.; Martinez, A.J. Analysis of the volatile components of a bacterial fermentation attractive to the mexican fruit fly (Anastrepha ludens). J. Agric. Food Chem. 1995, 43, 1348–1351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. DeMilo, A.B.; Lee, C.-J.; Moreno, D.S.; Martinez, A.J. Identification of volatiles derived from Citrobacter freundii fermentation of a trypticase soy broth. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1996, 44, 607–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Franchina, F.A.; Purcaro, G.; Burklund, A.; Beccaria, M.; Hill, J.E. Evaluation of different adsorbent materials for the untargeted and targeted bacterial VOC analysis using GC× GC-MS. Anal. Chim. Acta 2019, 1066, 146–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Noushini, S.; Park, S.J.; Jamie, I.; Jamie, J.; Taylor, P. Sampling technique biases in the analysis of fruit fly volatiles: A case study of Queensland fruit fly. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Epsky, N.D.; Heath, R.R.; Dueben, B.D.; Lauzon, C.R.; Proveaux, A.T.; MacCollom, G.B. Attraction of 3-methyl-1-butanol and ammonia identified from Enterobacter agglomerans to Anastrepha suspensa. J. Chem. Ecol. 1998, 24, 1867–1880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Robacker, D.C.; Lauzon, C.R.; Patt, J.; Margara, F.; Sacchetti, P. Attraction of Mexican fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) to bacteria: Effects of culturing medium on odour volatiles. J. Appl. Entomol. 2009, 133, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Vivaldo, G.; Masi, E.; Taiti, C.; Caldarelli, G.; Mancuso, S. The network of plants volatile organic compounds. Sci. Reps 2017, 7, 11050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Biasazin, T.D.; Chernet, H.T.; Herrera, S.L.; Bengtsson, M.; Karlsson, M.F.; Lemmen-Lechelt, J.K.; Dekker, T. Detection of volatile constituents from food lures by tephritid fruit flies. Insects 2018, 9, 119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. Nishida, R.; Tan, K.H.; Takashi, S.; Fukami, H. Volatile components of male rectal glands of the melon fly Dacus cucubitae Coquillett: Diptera: Tephritidae. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 1990, 25, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. El-Sayed, A.M.; Venkatesham, U.; Unelius, C.R.; Sporle, A.; Pérez, J.; Taylor, P.W.; Suckling, D.M. Chemical composition of the rectal gland and volatiles released by female Queensland fruit fly, Bactrocera tryoni (Diptera: Tephritidae). Environ. Entomol. 2019, 48, 807–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Rajini, K.; Aparna, P.; Sasikala, C.; Ramana, C.V. Microbial metabolism of pyrazines. Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 2011, 37, 99–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Robacker, D.C.; Warfield, W.C.; Albach, R.F. Partial characterization and HPLC isolation of bacteria-produced attractants for the Mexican fruit fly, Anastrepha ludens. J. Chem. Ecol. 1993, 19, 543–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hadapad, A.B.; Prabhakar, C.S.; Chandekar, S.C.; Tripathi, J.; Hire, R.S. Diversity of bacterial communities in the midgut of Bactrocera cucurbitae (Diptera: Tephritidae) populations and their potential use as attractants. Pest Manag. Sci. 2015, 72, 1222–1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Kim, H.; Kim, Y.; Roh, G.H.; Kim, Y.H. Comparison of preference for chemicals associated with fruit fermentation between Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila suzukii and between virgin and mated D. melanogaster. Insects 2023, 14, 382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Henneken, J.; Farnier, K.; Cunningham, J.P. A synthetic blend of fruit and live yeast odours shows promise for trapping mated female Queensland fruit fly, Bactrocera tryoni, in the field. J. Chem. Ecol. 2022, 48, 817–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Malo, E.A.; Cruz-López, L.; Toledo, J.; Del Mazo, A.; Virgen, A.; Rojas, J.C. Behavioral and electrophysiological responses of the Mexican fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) to guava volatiles. Fla. Entomol. 2005, 88, 364–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Biasazin, T.D.; Larsson Herrera, S.; Kimbokota, F.; Dekker, T. Translating olfactomes into attractants: Shared volatiles provide attractive bridges for polyphagy in fruit flies. Ecol. Lett. 2019, 22, 108–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Jaleel, W.; Saeed, R.; Shabbir, M.Z.; Azad, R.; Ali, S.; Sial, M.U.; Aljedani, D.M.; Ghramh, H.A.; Khan, K.A.; Wang, D. Olfactory response of two different Bactrocera fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) on banana, guava, and mango fruits. J. King Saud Univ. Sci. 2021, 33, 101455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Robacker, D.C.; Lauzon, C.R. Purine metabolizing capability of Enterobacter agglomerans affects volatiles production and attractiveness to Mexican fruit fly. J. Chem. Ecol. 2002, 28, 1549–1563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Drew, R.A.I.; Fay, H.A.C. Comparison of the roles of ammonia and bacteria in the attraction of Dacus tryoni (Froggatt) (Queensland fruit fly) to proteinaceous suspensions. J. Plant Prot. Trop. 1988, 5, 127–130. [Google Scholar]
  52. Naaz, N.; Choudhary, J.S.; Prabhakar, C.S.; Moanaro; Maurya, S. Identification and evaluation of cultivable gut bacteria associated with peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Diptera: Tephritidae). Phytoparasitica 2016, 44, 165–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mazor, M.; Gothilf, S.; Galun, R. The role of ammonia in the attraction of females of the Mediterranean fruit fly to protein hydrolysate baits. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 1987, 43, 25–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. El-Metwally, M. Enhancing the attraction efficiency of GF-120 for the Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wied.) by adding some ammonium compounds. J. Plant Prot. Pathol. 2018, 9, 51–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Mishra, M.; Sharma, K.; Subramanian, S. Characterization of culturable gut bacterial isolates from wild population of melon fruit fly (Bactrocera cucurbitae) and assessing their attractancy potential for sustainable pest management. Phytoparasitica 2018, 46, 583–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Robacker, D.C.; Lauzon, C.R.; He, X. Volatiles production and attractiveness to the Mexican fruit fly of Enterobacter agglomerans isolated from apple maggot and Mexican fruit flies. J. Chem. Ecol. 2004, 30, 1329–1347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Cunningham, J.P.; Carlsson, M.A.; Villa, T.F.; Dekker, T.; Clarke, A.R. Do fruit ripening volatiles enable resource specialism in polyphagous fruit flies? J. Chem. Ecol. 2016, 42, 931–940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Davies, L.R.; Schou, M.F.; Kristensen, T.N.; Loeschcke, V. Linking developmental diet to adult foraging choice in Drosophila melanogaster. J. Exp. Biol. 2018, 221, jeb175554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Thaochan, N.; Drew, R.A.I.; Hughes, J.M.; Vijaysegaran, S.; Chinajariyawong, A. Alimentary tract bacteria isolated and identified with API-20E and molecular cloning techniques from Australian tropical fruit flies, Bactrocera cacuminata and B. tryoni. J. Insect Sci. 2010, 10, 131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  60. Drew, R.; Courtice, A.; Teakle, D. Bacteria as a natural source of food for adult fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). Oecologia 1983, 60, 279–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Shi, Z.; Wang, L.; Zhang, H. Low diversity bacterial community and the trapping activity of metabolites from cultivable bacteria species in the female reproductive system of the oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis Hendel (Diptera: Tephritidae). Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012, 13, 6266–6278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ghanim, N.M.; El-Metwally, M.M. Relationship between Hidrogenionic Potential (pH) of Protein-based Baits and Attraction of the Mediterranean Fruit Fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann). Acta Phytopathol. Entomol. Hung. 2019, 54, 99–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lam, K.; Babor, D.; Duthie, B.; Babor, E.; Moore, M.; Gries, G. Proliferating bacterial symbionts on house fly eggs affect oviposition behaviour of adult flies. Anim. Behav. 2007, 74, 81–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Pritchard, G. The ecology of a natural population of Queensland fruit fly, Dacus tryoni II. The distribution of eggs and its relation to behaviour. Aust. J. Zool. 1969, 17, 293–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Fitt, G.P. The roles of adult and larval specialisations in limiting the occurrence of five species of Dacus (Diptera: Tephritidae) in cultivated fruits. Oecologia 1986, 69, 101–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Devescovi, F.; Hurtado, J.; Taylor, P.W. Mating-induced changes in responses of female Queensland fruit fly to male pheromones and fruit: A mechanism for mating-induced sexual inhibition. J. Insect Physiol. 2021, 129, 104195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Microorganisms 11 01643 g001 550
Figure 1. Relative peak area (i.e., total area under the compound peak over the total peak areas from all compounds within a sample) of a selection of antennally active compounds produced by four bacteria and collected by solid phase micro-extraction (SPME). CF, Citrobacter freundii; EC, Enterobacter cloacae; KO, Klebsiella oxytoca; PA, Enterobacter (syn. Pantoea) agglomerans.
Figure 1. Relative peak area (i.e., total area under the compound peak over the total peak areas from all compounds within a sample) of a selection of antennally active compounds produced by four bacteria and collected by solid phase micro-extraction (SPME). CF, Citrobacter freundii; EC, Enterobacter cloacae; KO, Klebsiella oxytoca; PA, Enterobacter (syn. Pantoea) agglomerans.
Microorganisms 11 01643 g001
Microorganisms 11 01643 g002 550
Figure 2. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) plot (stress = 0.107) of the chemical composition of three fruits (apples, kiwifruit, and oranges) and un-inoculated fruits (control). Each point represents a Tenax® (solid)- or SPME-extract sample. The color of the points encodes for the bacterial strains, and the shape encodes for the incubation time prior odor collection. CF, Citrobacter freundii; EC, Enterobacter cloacae; KO, Klebsiella oxytoca; PA, Enterobacter (syn. Pantoea) agglomerans. Centroids of the clusters of each fruit are represented by ellipses (standard deviation in gray). Volatile profiles are significantly different between fruits (ANOSIM, R = 0.5032, p = 1e-04), and the collection methods (ANOSIM; R = 0.19, p = 2e-04).
Figure 2. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) plot (stress = 0.107) of the chemical composition of three fruits (apples, kiwifruit, and oranges) and un-inoculated fruits (control). Each point represents a Tenax® (solid)- or SPME-extract sample. The color of the points encodes for the bacterial strains, and the shape encodes for the incubation time prior odor collection. CF, Citrobacter freundii; EC, Enterobacter cloacae; KO, Klebsiella oxytoca; PA, Enterobacter (syn. Pantoea) agglomerans. Centroids of the clusters of each fruit are represented by ellipses (standard deviation in gray). Volatile profiles are significantly different between fruits (ANOSIM, R = 0.5032, p = 1e-04), and the collection methods (ANOSIM; R = 0.19, p = 2e-04).
Microorganisms 11 01643 g002
Microorganisms 11 01643 g003 550
Figure 3. Relative abundance of key chemical classes in fruit samples inoculated by four bacteria strains: CF, Citrobacter freundii; EC, Enterobacter cloacae; KO, Klebsiella oxytoca; PA, Enterobacter (syn. Pantoea) agglomerans. Proportions are represented in apples, kiwifruits, and oranges, collected either via Tenax® or solid phase micro-extraction (SPME) and un-inoculated fruits (control, SPME and Tenax® combined) at 24 h post-inoculation (A), and in inoculated kiwifruits and control, collected via Tenax®, at 24 h (CF, EC, KO, PA), 72 h (CF, EC), and 5 days (CF, EC, KO, PA) post-inoculation (B).
Figure 3. Relative abundance of key chemical classes in fruit samples inoculated by four bacteria strains: CF, Citrobacter freundii; EC, Enterobacter cloacae; KO, Klebsiella oxytoca; PA, Enterobacter (syn. Pantoea) agglomerans. Proportions are represented in apples, kiwifruits, and oranges, collected either via Tenax® or solid phase micro-extraction (SPME) and un-inoculated fruits (control, SPME and Tenax® combined) at 24 h post-inoculation (A), and in inoculated kiwifruits and control, collected via Tenax®, at 24 h (CF, EC, KO, PA), 72 h (CF, EC), and 5 days (CF, EC, KO, PA) post-inoculation (B).
Microorganisms 11 01643 g003
Microorganisms 11 01643 g004 550
Figure 4. Intensity of electroantennogram (EAG) responses (mV) from virgin female Bactrocera tryoni to Tenax® extracts from each bacterium (Control: tryptone soya broth (TSB) media; CF: Citrobacter freundii; EC: Enterobacter cloacae; KO: Klebsiella oxytoca; PA: Enterobacter (syn. Pantoea) agglomerans). EAG responses of all replicates (grey) and average response (black) are shown.
Figure 4. Intensity of electroantennogram (EAG) responses (mV) from virgin female Bactrocera tryoni to Tenax® extracts from each bacterium (Control: tryptone soya broth (TSB) media; CF: Citrobacter freundii; EC: Enterobacter cloacae; KO: Klebsiella oxytoca; PA: Enterobacter (syn. Pantoea) agglomerans). EAG responses of all replicates (grey) and average response (black) are shown.
Microorganisms 11 01643 g004
Microorganisms 11 01643 g005 550
Figure 5. Gas-chromatograph coupled with electroantennographic detection (GC-EAD) responses (in µV) of irradiated virgin female Bactrocera tryoni to specific microbial volatile organic compounds produced by a mix of four bacteria at different pH levels collected by solid phase micro-extraction (SPME). Dots represent individual points, and blue lines with greyish areas represent overall mean and standard deviation.
Figure 5. Gas-chromatograph coupled with electroantennographic detection (GC-EAD) responses (in µV) of irradiated virgin female Bactrocera tryoni to specific microbial volatile organic compounds produced by a mix of four bacteria at different pH levels collected by solid phase micro-extraction (SPME). Dots represent individual points, and blue lines with greyish areas represent overall mean and standard deviation.
Microorganisms 11 01643 g005
Microorganisms 11 01643 g006 550
Figure 6. Boxplots showing the percentage in each cage of sexually immature females Bactrocera tryoni choosing between the bacterial Tenax® extracts, the control solvent or no-choice after 24 h. Four bacterial extracts were tested as follows: CF, Citrobacter freundii; EC, Enterobacter cloacae; KO, Klebsiella oxytoca; PA, Enterobacter (syn. Pantoea) agglomerans. (n = 10 for each bacterium). Black dots are outliers.
Figure 6. Boxplots showing the percentage in each cage of sexually immature females Bactrocera tryoni choosing between the bacterial Tenax® extracts, the control solvent or no-choice after 24 h. Four bacterial extracts were tested as follows: CF, Citrobacter freundii; EC, Enterobacter cloacae; KO, Klebsiella oxytoca; PA, Enterobacter (syn. Pantoea) agglomerans. (n = 10 for each bacterium). Black dots are outliers.
Microorganisms 11 01643 g006
Microorganisms 11 01643 g007 550
Figure 7. Absolute number of virgin females Bactrocera tryoni choosing between individual compounds (black bars) versus the control solvent (grey bars) in a Y-tube olfactometer. (n = 20 for each compound). Statistical significance: p ≤ 0.05 (*), p ≤ 0.01 (**), p ≤ 0.001 (***).
Figure 7. Absolute number of virgin females Bactrocera tryoni choosing between individual compounds (black bars) versus the control solvent (grey bars) in a Y-tube olfactometer. (n = 20 for each compound). Statistical significance: p ≤ 0.05 (*), p ≤ 0.01 (**), p ≤ 0.001 (***).
Microorganisms 11 01643 g007
Table
Table 1. Mean relative proportions of microbial volatile organic compounds (MVOCs) identified for each bacterium grown at pH 7 collected by 24 h headspace sample with either Tenax® filter or solid phase micro-extraction (SPME) fiber, followed by solvent extraction. The MVOCs in bold letters were identified to trigger SPME-Gas-chromatograph coupled with electroantennographic detection (GC/EAD) responses, and MVOCs highlighted in grey were tested in Y-tube olfactometer with 11 synthetic compounds. (CF: Citrobacter freundii; EC: Enterobacter cloacae; KO: Klebsiella oxytoca; PA: Enterobacter (syn. Pantoea) agglomerans and tryptone soya broth (TSB) media). * KI: Kovats retention index; ** RT: retention time (in min).
Table 1. Mean relative proportions of microbial volatile organic compounds (MVOCs) identified for each bacterium grown at pH 7 collected by 24 h headspace sample with either Tenax® filter or solid phase micro-extraction (SPME) fiber, followed by solvent extraction. The MVOCs in bold letters were identified to trigger SPME-Gas-chromatograph coupled with electroantennographic detection (GC/EAD) responses, and MVOCs highlighted in grey were tested in Y-tube olfactometer with 11 synthetic compounds. (CF: Citrobacter freundii; EC: Enterobacter cloacae; KO: Klebsiella oxytoca; PA: Enterobacter (syn. Pantoea) agglomerans and tryptone soya broth (TSB) media). * KI: Kovats retention index; ** RT: retention time (in min).
Mean RT ** (min.)Mean KI *CFECKOPATSB
CompoundsTenaxSPMETenaxSPMETenaxSPMETenaxSPMETenaxSPMETenaxSPMETenaxSPME
2-Butanone 3.35 599 0.04 0.03 0.03
Isobutyl alcohol 3.86 638 0.01
3-Hydroxy- 2-butanone, (syn. acetoin) 4.84 704 0.06
Isoamyl alcohol 5.48 731 0.36 0.3 0.46 0.48
Methyl-pyrazine 7.85 823 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04
1,2-Dimethyl-benzene8.7 <900 0.01 0.01
Isoamyl acetate (syn. 1-Butanol, 3-methyl-, acetate) 9.57 874 0.02 0.1 0.03
Nonane9.6 902 0.01 0.01 0.01
2,5-Dimethyl-pyrazine9.910.829099110.260.230.050.360.150.140.040.190.05
2,6-Dimethyl-pyrazine9.910.83911912 0.07 0.37 0.64
Benzaldehyde11.7 960 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.14
Phenol 13.43 979 0.29
2-Ethyl-3-methyl-pyrazine 14.25 1001 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.04 0.12
2-Ethyl-5-methyl-pyrazine13.114.31100010030.040.020.02 0.02 0.03
O-Cymene14.1 1026 0.01
D-Limonene14.3 1030 0.12 0.13
Phenylacetaldehyde14.8 1044 0.01 0.01 0.02
Ɣ-Terpinene15.4 1060 0.02 0.03
1-Octanol15.8 1072 0.01 0.01
3-Ethyl-2,5-dimethyl-pyrazine16.117.11107910750.090.020.070.020.040.010.070.030.060.06
2-Nonanone 17.7 1090 0 0.02 0.01 0.04
Dimethyl-2-vinylpyrazine16.9 1099 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.03
Linalool16.9 1101 0.02 0.02
Nonanal17.1 1105 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.05
2-Phenylethanol17.418.23111311040.030.02 0.07 0.04 0.09
Ethyl Octanoate20.5 1198 0.01
Dodecane20.6 1200 0.06 0.1 0.07 0.05 0.11
Decanal20.8 1206 0.02 0.01 0.01
3-Phenyl-furan21.322.6412221222 0.01 0.010.010.02 0.03
(E)-2-Dodecenal21.6 1229 0.01
2-Coumaranone21.7 1233 0.04
Neral22 1242 0.03 0.02
Citral23.1 1272 0.05 0.04
Indole23.825.1812941294 0.1 0.170.16 0.150.02
2,5-Dimethyl-3-(3-methylbutyl)-pyrazine 25.77 1311 0.01 0.02
Hexyl hexanoate26.9 1387 0.01
Tetradecane27.4 1400 0.31 0.25 0.22 0.14 0.31
Dodecanal27.7 1409 0.01
1-Dodecanol29.7 1474 0.07 0.1 0.13
Table
Table 2. List of individual compounds that are significantly associated with the different types of absorbent (i.e., Tenax® filter and solid phase micro-extraction; SPME fiber), strains of bacteria (CF, Citrobacter freundii; EC, Enterobacter cloacae; KO, Klebsiella oxytoca; PA, Enterobacter (syn. Pantoea) agglomerans), and pH. Both ANOSIM R value and p-values are reported for each compound.
Table 2. List of individual compounds that are significantly associated with the different types of absorbent (i.e., Tenax® filter and solid phase micro-extraction; SPME fiber), strains of bacteria (CF, Citrobacter freundii; EC, Enterobacter cloacae; KO, Klebsiella oxytoca; PA, Enterobacter (syn. Pantoea) agglomerans), and pH. Both ANOSIM R value and p-values are reported for each compound.
Group: SMPE Group: Bacteria Mix + PA
CompoundFunctional ClassANOSIM Statistics CompoundFunctional ClassANOSIM Statistics
R Valuep-Value R Valuep-Value
2-Ethyl-3-methyl-pyrazine Aromatic0.7390.0082 2-Phenylethanol Alcohol0.1280.0426
Group: Tenax Group: KO + PA
CompoundFunctional classANOSIM statistics CompoundFunctional classANOSIM statistics
R valuep-value R valuep-value
Benzaldehyde Aldehyde0.7150.0082 Decane, 5-methyl- Hydrocarbon0.1290.0461
3-Ethyl-2,5-dimethyl-pyrazine Aromatic0.7500.0227 Group: PA + TSB
Dimethyl-2-vinylpyrazine Aromatic0.7810.0488 CompoundFunctional classANOSIM statistics
Nonanal Aldehyde0.8320.0082 R valuep-value
Dodecane Hydrocarbon0.9220.0082 PhenylacetoneKetone0.1280.0411
Tetradecane Hydrocarbon0.9390.0082 Group: bacteria mix + EC + KO
CompoundFunctional classANOSIM statistics
Group: bacteria mix R valuep-value
CompoundFunctional classANOSIM statistics Pyrazine, 2-ethyl-3,5-dimethyl-Aromatic0.1410.0177
R valuep-value Group: KO + PA + TSB
Pentadecane Hydrocarbon0.1600.0057 CompoundFunctional classANOSIM statistics
1-Butanamine, 3-methyl- Amine0.1490.024 R valuep-value
Nonane, 2,5-dimethyl- Hydrocarbon0.1470.0248 Hexadecane Hydrocarbon0.130.037
Group: CF
CompoundFunctional classANOSIM statistics Group: pH3
R valuep-value CompoundFunctional classANOSIM statistics
Nonane, 4,5-dimethyl- Hydrocarbon0.1680.0068 R valuep-value
Group: EC Hexanoic acid Carboxylic acid0.1340.0164
CompoundFunctional classANOSIM statistics Group: pH5
R valuep-value CompoundFunctional classANOSIM statistics
Benzene, 1,2,4-trimethyl- Terpene0.1650.001 R valuep-value
Group: KO 3-Methyl-2-thiophenecarboxaldehyde Aldehyde0.1120.0324
CompoundFunctional classANOSIM statistics Group: pH7
R valuep-value CompoundFunctional classANOSIM statistics
BenzeneacetaldehydeAldehyde0.1530.0021 R valuep-value
Acetic acidCarboxylic acid0.1330.0424 Pentanoic acid Carboxylic acid0.1250.0215
Group: PA Group: pH5 + pH12
CompoundFunctional classANOSIM statistics CompoundFunctional classANOSIM statistics
R valuep-value R valuep-value
2-DodecanoneKetone0.1550.0115 Pyrazine, 2,5-dimethyl-3-(3-methylbutyl)- Aromatic0.1420.004
Group: TSB Propanoic acid Carboxylic acid0.1340.0093
CompoundFunctional classANOSIM statistics p-cresol Aromatic0.1310.0115
R valuep-value
Cyclohexanone, 5-methyl-2-(1-methylethyl)-, trans- Ketone0.1520.0108
Group: bacteria mix + CF
CompoundFunctional classANOSIM statistics
R valuep-value
Nonanal Aldehyde0.150.0121
Table
Table 3. List of individual compounds that are significantly associated with different types of fruits: apple, kiwifruit, and oranges (ANOSIM, R = 0.5032, p = 1e-04); collection methods: Tenax® filter and SPME fiber (ANOSIM; R = 0.19, p = 2e-04); and incubation times: 24 h, 72 h, and 5 days post-inoculation (ANOSIM; R = 0.385, p = 0.007). Statistical significance: p ≤ 0.05 (*), p ≤ 0.01 (**), p ≤ 0.001 (***).
Table 3. List of individual compounds that are significantly associated with different types of fruits: apple, kiwifruit, and oranges (ANOSIM, R = 0.5032, p = 1e-04); collection methods: Tenax® filter and SPME fiber (ANOSIM; R = 0.19, p = 2e-04); and incubation times: 24 h, 72 h, and 5 days post-inoculation (ANOSIM; R = 0.385, p = 0.007). Statistical significance: p ≤ 0.05 (*), p ≤ 0.01 (**), p ≤ 0.001 (***).
Group: SMPE Group: Apple
CompoundFunctional ClassANOSIM Statistics CompoundFunctional ClassANOSIM Statistics
R Valuep-Value R Valuep-Value
Indole Aromatic0.499 0.0088 ** Hexyl benzoate Ester0.7890.0001 ***
β-Pinene Terpene0.4790.0147 * Estragole Aromatic0.6950.0001 ***
Phenylethyl alcoholAlcohol0.448 0.0063 ** 2,3-Dimethyldecane Hydrocarbon0.6130.0006 ***
Caryophyllene Terpene0.4460.0155 * Hexyl 2-methylbutyrate Ester0.6060.0002 ***
D-Limonene Terpene0.4360.0362 * α-Farnesene Terpene0.603 0.0001 ***
Methyl octanoate Ester0.430.0274 * Hexyl acetate Ester0.5970.0002 ***
Naphtalene Hydrocarbon0.4270.0155 * Benzyl acetate Ester0.5190.0003 ***
Ethyl octanoate Ester0.4180.0292 * PropylheptanolAlcohol0.4260.0414 *
Group: Tenax (Z)-4-Decen-1-ol Alcohol0.4230.0414 *
CompoundFunctional classANOSIM statistics Butyloctanol Alcohol0.417 0.0414 *
R valuep-value 2-Hexyl-1-decanol Alcohol0.410.0414 *
(E)-2-Nonen-1-ol Alcohol0.598 0.0003 *** Butyl caprylate Ester0.4060.0414 *
2,2,4-Trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol diisobutyrateHydrocarbon0.5660.0001 *** Ethyl (4E)-4-decenoate Ester0.4050.0414 *
Valencen Terpene0.432 0.0056 ** Butyl Acetate Ester0.3540.0287 *
β-Selinene Terpene0.431 0.0372 * Group: Kiwifruit
Hexane, 2,4-dimethyl- Aldehyde0.421 0.0044 ** CompoundFunctional classANOSIM statistics
2-Hexyldecanol Alcohol0.4060.0132 * R valuep-value
m-Xylene Aromatic0.376 0.0412 * Nonanal Aldehyde0.560.0022 **
Ethyl butanoate Ester0.398 0.0478 *
Group: Orange
CompoundFunctional classANOSIM statistics Group: 24h post-inoculation
R valuep-value CompoundFunctional classANOSIM statistics
Ethyl octanoate Ester0.7470.0001 *** R valuep-value
Methyl octanoate Ester0.7150.0001 *** D-Limonene Terpene0.6930.0273 *
Caryophyllene Terpene0.670.0001 *** Group: 72h post-inoculation
Ethyl hexanoate Ester0.6660.0002 *** CompoundFunctional classANOSIM statistics
β-Pinene Terpene0.662 0.0001 *** R valuep-value
D-Limonene Terpene0.6090.0005 *** Indole Aromatic0.623 0.0121 *
Phenylethyl alcohol Alcohol0.5660.0014 ** Group: 5 days post-inoculation
Eugenol Aromatic0.5590.0005 *** CompoundFunctional classANOSIM statistics
Naphtalene Hydrocarbon0.5550.0002 *** R valuep-value
Limonene oxide, trans- Aromatic0.544 0.0025 ** β-Elemen Terpene0.989 0.0009 ***
Ethyl hydroxy-3-hexanoate Ester0.5280.0025 ** α-Maaliene Terpene0.9510.0009 ***
Butyl hexanoate Ester0.522 0.0008 *** 2-Hexyl-1-octanol Alcohol0.930.0025 **
Hexyl hexanoate Ester0.5080.0004 *** 2,3-Dimethyldecane Hydrocarbon0.890.0030 **
α-Maaliene Terpene0.5070.0041 ** β-Selinene Terpene0.8860.0010 ***
β-Selinene Terpene0.5060.0034 ** Ethyl benzoate Ester0.8010.0044 **
Ethyl decanoate Ester0.503 0.0025 **
Valencen Terpene0.4980.0044 **
Ethyl dodecanoate Ester0.4920.0025 **
E)-4,8-Dimethylnona-1,3,7-triene Hydrocarbon0.490.0025 **
E-Nerolidol Alcohol0.4790.0081 **
3-Carene Terpene0.4690.0087 **
Hexyl octanoate Ester0.4260.0143 *
Butyl butanoate Ester0.3910.0129 *
β-Elemen Terpene0.381 0.0185 *
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tallon, A.K.; Manning, L.-A.; Mas, F. Electrophysiological and Behavioral Responses of Virgin Female Bactrocera tryoni to Microbial Volatiles from Enterobacteriaceae. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 1643. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11071643

AMA Style

Tallon AK, Manning L-A, Mas F. Electrophysiological and Behavioral Responses of Virgin Female Bactrocera tryoni to Microbial Volatiles from Enterobacteriaceae. Microorganisms. 2023; 11(7):1643. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11071643

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tallon, Anaïs K., Lee-Anne Manning, and Flore Mas. 2023. "Electrophysiological and Behavioral Responses of Virgin Female Bactrocera tryoni to Microbial Volatiles from Enterobacteriaceae" Microorganisms 11, no. 7: 1643. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11071643

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