Mi‐mediated aphid resistance in tomato: tissue localization and impact on the feeding behavior of two potato aphid clones with differing levels of virulence

The Mi‐1.2 gene in tomato, Solanum lycopersicum L. (Solanaceae), confers resistance against several herbivores, including the potato aphid, Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thomas) (Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha: Aphididae) and the sweetpotato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) (Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha: Aleyrodidae). Previous studies on the tissue localization of resistance have given varying results; whitefly resistance was attributed to factors localized in the mesophyll or epidermis, whereas aphid resistance was attributed to factors localized in the phloem. Our study utilizes the direct current electrical penetration graph (DC‐EPG) technique to compare aphid feeding behavior on resistant (Mi‐1.2+) and susceptible (Mi‐1.2?) tomato plants. This study also compares the impact of resistance on the feeding behavior of two aphid clones that vary in their virulence, or their ability to survive and reproduce on resistant plants. Previous work had shown that the avirulent WU11 clone is almost completely inhibited by resistance, whereas the semi‐virulent WU12 clone can colonize resistant hosts. Here, DC‐EPG analysis shows that both aphid clones take longer to initiate cell sampling and to establish a confirmed sieve element phase on resistant plants than on susceptible hosts, and have shorter ingestion periods on resistant plants. However, the magnitude of these deterrent effects is far less for the semi‐virulent clone than for the avirulent aphids. In particular, the WU12 clone is less sensitive to factors that limit sieve element ingestion, showing shorter non‐probe duration and rapidly establishing sustained phloem ingestion on resistant plants when compared to the WU11 clone. We conclude that, in addition to previously described factors in the phloem that inhibit ingestion, Mi‐mediated aphid resistance also involves factors (possibly in the mesophyll and/or epidermis) that delay initiation of phloem salivation, and that act in the intercellular spaces to deter the first cell sampling. Furthermore, the relative effectiveness of these components of resistance differs among insect populations.