3 March 2017

The Insect Pathogens

ABSTRACT

Fungi are the most common disease-causing agents of insects; aside from playing a crucial role in natural ecosystems, insect-killing fungi are being used as alternatives to chemical insecticides and as resources for biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. Some common experimentally tractable genera, such as Metarhizium spp., exemplify genetic diversity and dispersal because they contain numerous intraspecific variants with distinct environmental and insect host ranges. The availability of tools for molecular genetics and multiple sequenced genomes has made these fungi ideal experimental models for answering basic questions on the genetic and genomic processes behind adaptive phenotypes. For example, comparative genomics of entomopathogenic fungi has shown they exhibit diverse reproductive modes that often determine rates and patterns of genome evolution and are linked as cause or effect with pathogenic strategies. Fungal-insect pathogens represent lifestyle adaptations that evolved numerous times, and there are significant differences in host range and pathogenic strategies between the major groups. However, typically, spores landing on the cuticle produce appressoria and infection pegs that breach the cuticle using mechanical pressure and cuticle-degrading enzymes. Once inside the insect body cavity, fungal pathogens face a potent and comprehensively studied immune defense by which the host attempts to eliminate or reduce an infection. The Fungal Kingdom stands alone in the range, extent, and complexity of their manipulation of arthropod behavior. In part, this is because most only sporulate on cadavers, so they must ensure the dying host positions itself to allow efficient transmission.

INTRODUCTION

Estimates of the number of arthropod species vary between 1,170,000 and 10 million, accounting for over 80% of all known living animal species. One arthropod subgroup, insects, is the most species-rich member of all ecological guilds in land and freshwater environments (1). As arthropods were emerging as the dominant animals they are today, fungi were also colonizing the land. Over the past 400 million years fungi and insects have coevolved a wide array of intimate interactions (2, 3). These interactions include mutualistic endosymbiosis (4); fungi as obligate food sources, such as those found in fungus-gardening ants (5); sexually and behaviorally transmitted parasites, such as Laboulbeniales (6); and the most common disease-causing agents of insects (7). Entomopathogenicity has evolved independently and repeatedly in all the major phyla of the Kingdom Fungi (3). The heterogeneity of entomopathogenic fungi probably derives from both they and their hosts having short generation times, i.e., rapidly driving new diversity with each generation, and from their occupation of a wide range of habitats, with near ubiquity in the soil and on plants. Interactions among fungi, hosts, and the environment are therefore diverse and dynamic, which complicates comparisons between different fungi infecting different insects since their interactions may be necessarily disparate. Historically, this quandary was dealt with by intensively studying the host pathogen interactions of a couple of experimentally tractable fungal species, and then extrapolating these results to distantly related species. Consequently, most of what we know about the biochemical and molecular basis of interactions between fungi and insects has been determined with the experimentally tractable hypocrealean ascomycete genera Metarhizium (family Clavicipitaceae) and Beauveria (family Cordycipitaceae). Metarhizium, in particular, has also emerged as an excellent model to explore a broad array of questions in ecology and evolution, host preference and host switching, and the mechanisms of speciation.
Comparative genomics offers a way forward for assessing poorly characterized species. Already, comparative genomics has facilitated the identification of fungal fitness traits and the selective forces that act upon them, improving our understanding of how entomopathogenic fungi interact with insects and the environment. In particular, sequence data have provided crucial information on the poorly understood ways that these organisms reproduce and persist in the environment, identified the genes involved in ecologically relevant traits, and illuminated the nature, timing, and architecture of the genomic changes governing the origin and processes of local adaptation. Alongside the recent availability of genomic resources, the wide array of experiments that can be performed with entomopathogenic fungi makes them ideal models for answering basic questions on the genetic and genomic processes behind adaptive phenotypes (a “Holy Grail” in biology). In addition, Meyling and Hajek have described how insects and their fungal pathogens could be used as model species for exploring metapopulation theory via experimental and predictive models: consideration of the interactions insect pathogenic fungi have with their host and the broader community enables ecological questions to be probed from a unique perspective (8).
There are a lot of detailed reviews dealing with entomopathogenic fungi and their development as microbial control agents, including those from Lacey et al. (9), Vega et al. (10), and several chapters in Lovett and St. Leger (11). Relevant chapters in Roy et al. (12) detail the crucial roles fungal entomopathogens play in natural ecosystems, and for methods and techniques used to study these pathogens consult the chapters in Stock et al. (13). Studies on the evolutionary genetics of insect immunity and on insect-pathogen coevolution are reviewed by Hu and St. Leger (14), and entomopathogen genomes are reviewed by Wang et al. (15). This review highlights recent advances in our understanding of insect pathogenic fungi deriving in large part from a plethora of genome sequences that have illuminated the nature of adaptive differences by which novel pathogens emerge and form. These studies have increased the utility of these fungi as important model and applied organisms, allowing us to focus attention on their convergent evolution, pathogenic strategies, and host specificity, which frequently involves manipulation of host behavior.

THE UTILITY OF INSECT PATHOGENIC FUNGI

Early interest in insect pathogenic fungi grew mostly from economic concerns. For example, Agostino Bassi described Beauveria bassiana in 1835 as the cause of the devastating muscardine disease of silkworms, and it was instrumental in his development of the germ theory of disease (16). There is still considerable research interest in protecting beneficial insects, particularly bees, from highly potent fungal pathogens, such as the causative agent of chalkbrood, Ascosphaera apis (17). The research interest in insect pathogens has also been propelled by the enormous ability of insects to negatively impact human society. It is estimated that insects destroy approximately 18% of the world’s annual crop production, and vector-borne diseases kill millions every year (18). Since populations of most insects are regulated by density-dependent factors, the diseases, pathogens, and immune responses of insects have been a long-standing research interest. In 1880, the pioneer immunologist Elie Metchnikoff was among the first to propose practical methods of microbial biological control of an insect crop pest, initiating trials of the fungus Metarhizium anisopliae against grain beetles (19). Entomopathogenic fungi are particularly well suited for development as biopesticides because, unlike bacteria and viruses that have to be ingested to elicit disease, fungi are contact insecticides and typically infect insects by directly penetrating the surface of the insect (cuticle) and multiplying in the insect body cavity (hemocoel) (Fig. 1). Approximately 170 pest control products have been developed based on at least 12 species of fungal entomopathogens (20).
FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1 (A) Scanning electron micrograph of M. robertsii growing on caterpillar (Manduca sexta) cuticle; appressoria (Ap) were most frequently produced on zones of weakness such as hair sockets. (B) Diagrammatic representation of cuticle penetration by M. robertsii using an appressorium along a seta (brown), glandular duct (beige), and trichogen cell (purple) followed by budding off of yeast-like blastospores in the hemolymph. (C, D, and E) Shown are M. robertsii-infected fly wings incubated with specific histochemical substrates to demonstrate aminopeptidase, subtilisin protease, and esterase activity, respectively, on appressoria and appressorial plates as described by St. Leger et al. (154).
Killing the host slowly is adaptive for many entomopathogenic fungi because it allows them to replicate in large numbers in the living host, but this is a severe limitation in modern agriculture or when attempting to control a disease vector. Insect pathologists have been trailblazers in utilizing genetic engineering to improve the efficacy of beneficial fungi by improving their tolerance to environmental stresses and increasing their virulence (21, 22). Up until now, most “useful” genes for strain enhancement have come from pathogens themselves, from host insects, or from arthropods, such as spiders, that produce insect-specific toxins (Fig. 2A) (2327, 155). Each of these sources provides a vast array of biologically active metabolites. In addition, a Metarhizium strain has been engineered that expresses a single-chain antibody fragment that blocks transmission of malaria parasites (27). Recombinant antibodies provide an additional vast array of potential anti-insect effectors that could target, for example, hormone receptors. The efficacy of Metarhizium strains expressing arthropod toxins or antimalarials is currently being tested in a purpose-built “Mosquito Sphere” (a compartmentalized facility with double-walled mosquito netting designed to test experimental fungi and insects in a natural ecosystem) in the malaria endemic region of Soumousso, Burkina Faso. The desire to use these new tools safely has driven studies on monitoring and mitigation methodologies for confinement of genetically engineered (GE) Metarhizium; development of bioconfinement strategies; survivability profiles and fitness of GE Metarhizium in the wild; studies of transgene stability over many generations; and the “evolvability” of transgenic strains if they escape containment (28). A review of future prospects for biocontrol highlights the application of transgenic Metarhizium to mosquitoes as providing GE biopesticides with the high profile necessary for widespread acceptance as safe and sustainable alternatives to chemicals (29).
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2 (A) Malaria vector mosquito Anopheles gambiae killed by a transgenic strain of Metarhizium expressing GFP and the spider toxin, Hybrid. (B) Fully matured fruiting bodies of Cordyceps militaris emerging from a silk worm pupa. (C) A fruiting body of Cordyceps cicadae forming on the subterranean larvae of its specific host Cicada flammata. Images B and C courtesy of Chengshu Wang.
As well as their direct benefit to agriculture and vector control as insect pathogens, Cordyceps/Ophiocordyceps spp., in particular, are medicinally valued because they are generally prolific producers of enzymes and diverse secondary metabolites with activities against insects, fungi, bacteria, viruses, and cancer cells (3034). Enzymes from Metarhizium and Beauveria spp. are frequently exploited as industrial catalysts (35, 36), even though the responsible genes for these products are rarely identified. The study of infection and immunity in insects has achieved considerable prominence with the appreciation that their host defense mechanisms share many fundamental characteristics with the innate immune system of vertebrates (14). Studies on the highly tractable model organism Drosophila, in particular, have led to a detailed understanding of conserved innate immunity networks, such as Toll (37).
The recent discovery (38) that common entomopathogenic fungi, including B. bassiana and Metarhizium spp., have epiphytic interactions with plants has generated a plethora of promising avenues of research investigating commonalities and distinctions between these two lifestyles (28, 39, 40). The same molecular and genetic tools developed to probe and manipulate these fungi to better kill insects are quickly allowing development of fungi with altered persistence in the environment and that can function as biofertilizers (4042).

EVOLUTIONARY RELATIONSHIPS OF ENTOMOPATHOGENIC FUNGI

Fungal-insect pathogens represent lifestyle adaptations that have evolved numerous times, and there are significant differences in host range and pathogenic strategies between the major groups (Fig. 3). Ascomycetes, the most speciose phylum, and Entomophthoromycota are known to infect a diverse array of insects, Basidiomycota infect mostly Hemiptera, and the basal zoosporic groups that produce motile spores that swim to reach their hosts (e.g., aquatic chytrids and blastoclads) usually infect Diptera (3). Araújo and Hughes (3) emphasize that, despite their ecological importance and potential applications, fungal-arthropod associations remain an understudied area of fungal biodiversity and likely harbor one of the largest reservoirs of undocumented taxonomic, functional, and genetic diversity within the Fungi.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3 A phylogenetic tree representing relatedness of entomopathogenic fungal taxa. Important entomopathogenic groups are indicated in parentheses. (From reference 15, with permission.)
The best-studied entomopathogenic fungi are the Entomophthoromycota and three ascomycete families within the order Hypocreales (Cordycipitaceae, Clavicipitaceae, and Ophiocordycipitaceae). In terms of pathogenic strategies, the ascomycetes are characteristically hemibiotrophic, switching from a parasitic, biotrophic phase in the hemocoel to a saprophytic phase colonizing the host cadaver. Conidia are produced on the cadaver, but, unlike the Entomophthoromycota, are not actively discharged. In some genera of Entomophthoromycota, if the forcibly discharged primary infective spores (ballistospores) miss their aerial targets, they have evolved the ability to form secondary sticky spores (capillispores), thereby creating “minefields” around cadavers to entrap crawling targets (3, 156).
Both Entomophthoromycota and Hypocreales produce resting structures for persistence in the absence of new hosts or under adverse environmental conditions. The Hypocreales have both sexual (teleomorph) and asexual (anamorph) forms, although most research has focused on the anamorphs, which tend to be more amenable to in vitro techniques and have greater practical applications. Species in the Entomophthoromycota are characteristically biotrophic (exhibiting no somatic growth after death) with a narrow host range and are common among foliar arthropods in temperate environments. Eilenberg and Pell (43) list a number of host-pathogen systems in which the ecology of Entomophthoromycota has been studied.
Entomopathogenicity evolved independently in the Cordycipitaceae, Clavicipitaceae, and Ophiocordycipitaceae, and these hypocrealean genera cluster among closely related phytopathogens, endophytes, and mycoparasites. These ancestral associations are consistent with repeated transitions (host switching) between plant, fungi, and insect hosts (4). Their teleomorphs are the most common fungi encountered in association with arthropods in tropical forests (Fig. 2) (43). Most appear to have a very restricted host range; e.g., the zombie-ant fungus, Ophiocordyceps unilateralis species complex (carpenter ant-specific teleomorphs), may have a level of specificity of one fungal species per insect species (Fig. 4) (4446). In contrast, their anamorphic counterparts are often generalist pathogens with broad host ranges and the ability to pursue both pathogenic and saprophytic lifestyles (47). However, even within anamorph genera, there is considerable variation: thus, Metarhizium robertsii can infect hundreds of insect species spanning different orders, while M. album and M. acridum are specific to hemipterans (true bugs) and acridids (locusts and grasshoppers), respectively (48). In terms of the evolution of fungal host specificity, the study of Metarhizium species with different host ranges has shown a directional trajectory of speciation from being specialists to becoming generalists, and the specialists may have cryptic sexual stages (48). As discussed later, this raises the basic question of what is driving the host specificity of the sexual forms to a degree not observed in asexual forms of the same species. Other basic questions that remain unanswered include: why do teleomorphic ascomycetes not occur widely in temperate habitats, and are the teleomorphic ascomycetes utilizing the functional niches in the tropics that Entomophthoromycota occupy in temperate zones (49)?
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4 (A) A Brazilian carpenter ant Camponotus rufipes biting a leaf with Ophiocordyceps camponoti-rufipedis just beginning its growth out of the ant’s body. (B) Ophiocordyceps unilateralis fruiting body emerging from the head of the Thai carpenter ant, Camponotus leonardi. (C) Spore-producing bodies of Ophiocordyceps camponoti-balzani on the Brazilian carpenter ant Camponotus balzani. Images courtesy of David Hughes.
Researchers studying the Entomophthoromycota, which are difficult to mass-produce, have focused on the ecology of these organisms and their role as causative agents of mass epizootics. Hajek and Delalibera (50) conclude that they have been used more frequently than other types of pathogens in classical biological control and provide a sustainable avenue for controlling arthropod pests, especially the increasing numbers of invasive species. As of February 2016, 10 strains of entomophthoromycotans have sequencing projects listed on the Genomes OnLine Database (GOLD): three are Entomophthoraceae, three are Basidiobolaceae, and four are Ancylistaceae. Leveraging the full power of genomics in the study of Entomophthoromycota will be shortly forthcoming, but currently the only complete genome in this collection is that for a strain of Conidiobolus coronatus (all others are draft genomes or incomplete). Studies on anamorphs within the Ascomycota, particularly the genera Beauveria and Metarhizium (family Cordycipitaceae and Clavicipitaceae, respectively), dominate the entomopathogen literature because they have been developed as inundative control agents, which can be applied en masse to control a pest population. To date, there is much more genomic information on ascomycete insect pathogens relative to the Entomophthoromycota because sequences are available from nine Metarhizium strains (48, 5153), B. bassiana (54), Cordyceps militaris (32), Ophiocordyceps sinensis (anamorph, Hirsutella sinensis) (33), O. unilateralis (55), Tolypocladium inflatum (57), and Hirsutella thompsonii (56).
The comparative genome analysis of seven Metarhizium genomes (48) confirmed it is a monophyletic lineage that diverged from clavicipitacean plant pathogens and endophytes about 231 million years ago (MYA) and placed the hemipteran-specific M. album as basal in the Metarhizium clade with an estimated divergence time about 117 MYA (48). It has been suggested that the close physical proximity of the plant-associated ancestor of M. album to plant-sap-sucking hemipteran bugs may have facilitated this particular host switch to insects (3, 48).
Several Metarhizium spp. retain complex relationships with plants and endophytically colonize plant roots and the rhizosphere (the layer of soil influenced by root metabolism) (38, 39, 57, 58). B. bassiana also forms intimate endophytic relationships with a broad range of plant species, although it usually colonizes the aerial parts of the plant (5962). Field trials showed that a rhizosphere competent, avirulent mutant M. robertsii strain survived better in grassland soil than an insect pathogenic mutant unable to adhere to root surfaces, providing experimental evidence for the importance of plant roots in maintaining populations of M. robertsii (28). Stress may play an important part in adaptive evolution to soil and root conditions (63). Cell wall and stress response genes evolved at an accelerated rate, increasing the fitness of field isolates, whereas virulence determinants were unaltered (28). M. robertsii trades insect-derived nitrogen (64) for plant-derived carbohydrates from its plant host (65). Moonjely et al. (39) suggest that, rather than shifting hosts, many of these fungi broadened their host range to exploit insects as a nitrogen source while maintaining mutualistic plant endosymbiosis. They hypothesize that the coupling of these dual lifestyles was the driving force behind this evolution: as conduits of insect-derived nitrogen, these fungi become an indispensable partner underground. As shown by their antagonism to plant pathogenic fungi (66), ability to survive exposure to lead and other heavy metals (67), and pathogenicity to soil amoebae (68), at least some Metarhizium isolates have additional unexpected flexibility in their trophic capabilities.

THE FUNGAL INFECTION CYCLE AND HOST SPECIFICITY

Cumulative evidence suggests that genes involved in the specificity of some entomopathogens to a narrow range of insects could control adhesion to the cuticle surface; exploitation of cuticle surface conditions (nutrients, humidity, specific recognition factors); ability to overcome structural and chemical barriers to penetration; and toxin production (48, 51, 69). Much research has been directed at identifying determinants of specificity and virulence, because a major goal in the development of fungal insect pathogens as biocontrol agents is to be able to control these parameters.

Attachment and Penetration of the Insect Cuticle

Although fungal entomopathogens are highly diverse taxonomically, they all produce infective spores that attach to, germinate, and penetrate the cuticle (or digestive tract) of their host. In most cases, spores landing on the epicuticle (the surface layer of the cuticle) undergo a stereotyped series of changes that include producing appressoria (sticky holdfasts that attach to the cuticle) that in turn produce infection pegs that breach the cuticle using a combination of mechanical pressure and cuticle-degrading enzymes (Fig. 1) (70). The nature of the inductive triggers for production of appressoria varies with the entomopathogen; while the protein and chitin composition of insect procuticle appears similar in all insects, the overlying epicuticular components are extremely heterogeneous, even within the same insect genus, and therefore allowing different pathogen responses to particular insects (70).
The insect epicuticle comprises a heterogeneous mixture of long-chain alkanes, wax esters, and fatty acids, and represents the site of adhesion and the first barrier against fungal attack. Hydrophobic interactions initially drive host adhesion, with B. bassiana and Metarhizium spp. conidia being covered with a proteinaceous layer formed by hydrophobins that contribute variously to cell surface hydrophobicity and mediate adhesion to the similarly hydrophobic epicuticle (7175). Following nonspecific adhesion via hydrophobins, a specific adhesin-like protein (MAD1) mediates spore attachment in M. robertsii (40), and growing germ tubes and appressoria produce a sticky mucilage that also functions to localize secreted cuticle-degrading enzymes in the vicinity of the fungus (Fig. 1C through E) (78).
The transition from polarized hyphal growth to germ tube expansion (appressoria) in M. robertsii is linked to a reduced displacement rate or dispersal of the Spitzenkörper (the vesicle-generating apparatus at the hyphal tip), redirecting cell wall synthesis from the apical tip to the entire cell surface, and is regulated by several signaling cascades including cAMP and Ca2+-dependent phosphorylation events, with mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase regulating the organization of microtubules for vesicle transport (70, 76). The inability of the locust specialist M. acridum to infect cicadas is determined at the stage of appressorial formation. M. acridum adheres and germinates on cicada cuticle, but only forms few, small appressoria, suggesting different stimuli are on the locust and cicada cuticles. These stimuli are likely to be chemical, rather than physical, because locust cuticle extract is sufficient to stimulate abundant appressorial formation against a flat surface (70). Nutrient levels are one of the interactive phenomena that enable isolates of Metarhizium spp. to determine whether they are on an appropriate host cuticle (71, 77). For example, endogenous nutrients on homopterans are supplemented by sugar-rich insect secretions, while available nutrient levels on beetles are very low. Consistent with this, coleopteran-derived isolates produce appressoria against a plastic surface only in the presence of low levels of complex nitrogenous nutrients, while many lines isolated from homopterans also produce appressoria in glucose medium (71). Strains with very narrow host ranges showed the least plasticity and require host-derived supplements to stimulate germination and differentiation (70, 78). Despite their different, presumably selectable, responses to host-related stimuli, the ultimate physiological and morphological responses of these isolates (in terms of appressoria formation, enzyme biosynthesis, etc.) are very similar. This suggests host recognition may be determined by regulatory controls that allow modulated expression of pathogenicity genes by these fungi when they are on a suitable host; conversely, these regulatory controls preclude the expression of pathogenicity genes when not on a suitable host. Current evidence suggests the power to differentiate between hosts depends on G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) that sense extracellular cues. Beauveria mutants defective in the GPCR3 gene showed reduced virulence consistent with a role for GPCRs in initial infection stages (79). Compared with the specialists M. album and M. acridum, there was a major expansion of GPCR-related proteins in the broad-host-range Metarhizium spp., consistent with these being able to recognize and respond to many more environmental triggers, with particular expansion in the subfamilies that are developmentally upregulated early in germination and formation of infection structures on host cuticles (48, 51). M. acridum, but not M. robertsii, transcribed different Pth11-like GPCR genes on locust and cockroach cuticles, indicating a role in coordinating a response to specific hosts, or at least that these genes have a function that varies between strains with different host ranges (51).
M. acridum utilizes hydrocarbons and long-chain fatty acid components of the epicuticle during its pre-penetration growth, but the epicuticle also contains growth-stimulating peptides, free amino acids, and sugars (80). These induce extensive growth and appressoria formation by M. acridum, whereas the fungus is largely unresponsive to the nonpolar lipid fraction (a mixture of long-chain n-alkanes) that makes up the bulk of the locust epicuticle (79, 81). Thus, it seems that simple polar compounds are required to stimulate germination before the fungus can make effective use of a complex mixture of nonpolar lipids (80). At high levels, a polar extract of locust epicuticle produced extensive hyphal growth at the expense of appressorial production (81). This is consistent with observations on M. robertsii that suggest that a primary role of the appressorium is to establish a nutritional relationship with the host and is not necessary in the presence of a sufficiency of nutrients (82). M. robertsii and B. bassiana upregulate cytochrome P450 (CYP) subfamily CYP52 enzymes (for metabolism of insect epicuticular lipids) and lipase genes as they germinate on the cuticle surface (51, 54). Conidia harvested from insect cadavers contain high levels of cuticle-degrading enzymes and display higher virulence (83). Growth on insect lipid extracts can also result in conidia displaying higher virulence (84), presumably due to priming of lipid assimilatory pathways (85). However, individual targeted gene knockouts of the eight B. bassiana cytochrome P450 enzymes demonstrated a role for only one of these (Cyp52X1) in targeting cuticular waxy layer components (85, 86).
Following initial germination and growth of the fungal germling on the epicuticle, it proceeds to penetrate the protein/chitin insect procuticle. This involves the sequential expression of different degradative enzymes in combination with mechanical pressure. Mechanical pressure in M. robertsii appressoria is exerted by breakdown of endogenous lipids to glycerol; this process increases turgor pressure and is mediated by the expression of Mpl1 (perilipin) (87). Genes specifically induced by cuticle included a plethora of cuticle-degrading enzymes and transporters for cuticle degradation products. Although M. robertsii has specific responses for different cuticles, the most highly expressed cuticle-degrading enzymes are a large combination of subtilisin proteases (88). These differ in regulation (88), as well as structure and function (89). Thus, the broad-range subtilisin Pr1A is expressed by appressoria (90) as part of a general response to nutrient deprivation and functions in concert with the exopeptidases to generate host degradation products. These products allow the fungus to “sample” the cuticle and then respond with the secretion of an arsenal of cuticle-induced proteins, including proteases that require cuticle for induction, have different specificities, and have specialized roles in breaching host barriers (88, 89).
Comparative genomics has shown that diverse entomopathogens have more proteases, particularly subtilisins and trypsins, than plant pathogenic fungi (48, 51); this is consistent with niche-specific traits, i.e., traits shared by fungi that occupy the same niche irrespective of their phylogenetic position (91). The expansion of proteases is dramatic in B. bassiana and broad-host-range Metarhizium species, and less marked in more specialized pathogens, e.g., M. acridum and Cordyceps species. Similarly, entomopathogens have greatly expanded families of chitinases, lipases, fatty acid hydroxylases, and acyl-CoA dehydrogenases (for β-oxidation of fatty acids), compared with plant pathogens, and the generalists overall have more of these enzymes than the narrow-host-range species (32, 51, 54). The basal M. album genome, in particular, highlights the early expansion of genes involved in cuticle degradation, because it has 3-fold or more trypsin genes than related plant endophytes and phytopathogens (Fig. 3) (48). However, compared with M. album (87 proteases) and M. acridum (116 proteases), there has been additional expansion of proteolytic capacity in other Metarhizium species (average 165 proteases). Therefore, the proliferation of proteases may reflect an adaptation to infect insects via the cuticle and, as with the GPCRs, is possibly influenced by host range. The abundance of chitinases in entomopathogens compared with plant pathogens is likely an adaptation to the abundance of chitin in the insect cuticle. For entomopathogens, the necessity of crossing the protein-chitin procuticle has, therefore, had a major impact on their evolution; this is also a testament to the critical role the cuticle plays as a defense against entomopathogenic fungi. Genetically engineering overexpression of chitinase and protease activities has led to the construction of more virulent strains of Metarhizium and Beauveria spp., suggesting that these enzyme activities may be (partially) limiting virulence in the wild type (9295).
Clearly, there are factors specialists lack that limit their ability to cause disease in multiple insects, as demonstrated by an increased host range following transfer of genes from a generalist strain to the locust specialist M. acridum (96). Interestingly, the components of pathogenicity in specialists and generalists differ not only in how fast they evolve, but also in the ways in which they change. Thus, M. acridum has a large number of rapidly evolving genes (those with abundant nonsynonymous mutations), compared with generalists, showing that this specialist has not remained functionally static; rather, specialization has involved rapid evolution of existing protein sequences rather than the extensive gene duplication observed in generalists (48). The rapidly evolved genes are genes involved in specific locust to M. acridum pathogen interactions and, by evolving under pairwise coevolution, have been subject to strong balancing or directional selection. By contrast, generalist Metarhizium spp. interact with a wide range of hosts in multiple environmental conditions. Diffuse coevolution with many insect hosts offers an explanation as to why signatures of positive selection are observed less frequently in the genomes of M. robertsii and other generalists.
With the exception of O. sinensis, insect pathogenic ascomycetes have a 2- to 3-fold higher proportion of their genome (∼17%) devoted to secreted products than other ascomycetes, including plant pathogens and mycoparasitic Trichoderma spp. (54). O. sinensis, which mummifies ghost moth larvae (Thitarodes spp.) exclusively in Tibetan Plateau alpine ecosystems, provides an extreme case of specialization. Touted as “Himalayan Viagra,” the fungus’ sexual fruiting body is highly prized because of its pharmaceutical activities and dwindling supply (33). O. sinensis infects caterpillars through their spiracles (breathing holes) or orally and has greatly reduced gene families encoding epicuticular degrading CYP52 enzymes, cuticle-degrading proteases, and chitinases (33). In addition, protein families involved in adhesion to cuticles and formation of appressoria are absent or reduced in O. sinensis (33). These gene losses are consistent with the inability of O. sinensis to breach intact cuticle. Hydrolytic enzymes, particularly proteases, can elicit host immune defenses (92). In which case, the reduced number of cuticle-degrading enzymes in O. sinensis might also be an adaptation to avoid immune system detection during the several years it spends latent in the host. Copy number reduction was also evident for genes encoding known pathogen-associated molecular patterns such as lectins, consistent with selection for “stealth” (avoidance of host defenses) as a major force driving O. sinensis evolution (33). Evidently, differences found among the insect pathogens in protein family size are related to their modus operandi and host range.
The large secretomes of insect pathogens probably reflect the many habitats they must adapt to in insecta, including the cuticle and the hemolymph, as well as additional environmental habitats in the soil and with plants. These complex lifestyles are also reflected in the transcriptomes of insect pathogens; hundreds of different genes are induced during adaptation to host cuticle, hemolymph, or root exudate (54, 65, 70, 88, 9799). Some of these genes have been knocked out to confirm involvement in virulence. These encode regulators such as adenylate cyclase, the key enzyme for production of cAMP (100), the cAMP-dependent protein kinase A (PKA) that controls expression of many secreted virulence factors (101), calcineurin pathways with roles in B. bassiana responses to environmental stresses and host signals (102), components of the MAP kinase pathways involved in fungal adhesion and penetration (103, 104), an osmosensor that signals to penetrant hyphae that they have reached the hemocoel (105), and perilipin, glycerol-3-phosphate acyltransferase, and cell autophagy-related proteins that regulate lipolysis, turgor pressure, and formation of infection structures (51, 87, 106).
Many of the signal transduction genes regulating virulence in Beauveria and Metarhizium have also been implicated in pathogenicity in plant pathogens, e.g., PKA, MAP kinase pathways, and GPCR genes. Thus, although the signals that induce germination and differentiation are different, similar signal transduction pathways may mediate these signals in plant and insect pathogens. This conservation of developmental circuitry has probably facilitated switching between very different hosts.
Some genes are highly adapted to the specific needs of Metarhizium, e.g., Mcl1 (involved in immune evasion) with its collagen domain is so far unique to Metarhizium and is only expressed in the hemolymph (98). Mr-NPC2a is also expressed exclusively in the hemolymph; it was horizontally acquired from an insect and allows Metarhizium to compete with the host for growth-limiting sterols in the hemolymph (107). M. robertsii upregulates a specific plant adhesin in the presence of plants (Mad2) and a specific insect adhesin (Mad1) in the presence of insect cuticle, demonstrating that it has specialist genes for a bifunctional lifestyle (40). Other specifically regulated genes include a novel oligosaccharide transporter for root-derived nutrients required to colonize the rhizosphere and roots (65), an RNA binding protein that has important roles in both saprotrophy and pathogenicity (108), and an invertase that aids in the regulation of hydrolytic enzymes and provides a plant-derived signal restricting fungal growth (109).
Transcription of these genes is in part controlled by bZIP or C2H2-type transcription factors (TFs) (110, 111). M. robertsii has an array of 24 bZIP domain-containing TFs; a knockout of one of these (MBZ1) revealed that it contributes to negative regulation of subtilisin proteases, but positive control of adhesin MAD1 (110), consistent with transcriptomic data showing little subtilisin production while spores are in the process of adhering to cuticle (51). Characterization of MrpacC, a M. robertsii homologue of the C2H2-type PacC TF (a pH-responsive transcription factor), showed that it was highly activated in alkaline conditions and impacts cuticle penetration and evasion of the host immune response, perhaps in part because it positively controlled chitinase genes (111). Cultures of M. robertsii always show a rapid increase in pH during production of chitinases (112), hydrophobin, and proteases (113, 114). M. robertsii alkalinizes a proteinaceous microenvironment, such as the insect cuticle, by producing ammonia from proteolytic degradation products (114). Digestion of cuticle proteins exposes the underlying chitin to enzymolysis (115), so linking alkalinization with chitinase production is adaptive for the fungus. It is likely that continuing the dissection of the roles of individual TFs in the manner of MBZ1 and MrPacC will untangle the complexity and illuminate the interactions between what currently seem to be disconnected strands of biochemical and molecular data.

Immune Evasion and Growth Within the Hemocoel

Once within the host, entomopathogenic fungi proliferate as a progression of single- or multi-celled structures (protoplasts [fungal cells without a cell wall], blastospores [yeast-like budded cells], hyphal bodies [chains of budded cells]) thought to be important for dissemination of the pathogen. These exploit the nutritional resources of their hosts, and ultimately kill them through starvation or as a result of toxin production. In the majority of entomopathogenic fungi, the hyphae break through the cuticle only after death to produce either more infective conidia for immediate transmission or resting structures (sexual or asexual resting spores, chlamydospores, mummified hosts) for persistence in the environment. Species in the Entomophthoromycota are obligate pathogens and do not produce toxins of importance for the progression of the infection. They are characteristically biotrophic, keeping the host alive until all resources are utilized. This is in contrast to the strategy used by the hypocrealean fungi, which are hemibiotrophic, switching from a biotrophic phase (parasitism) in the hemocoel to a saprophytic phase, colonizing the body after death. Host death is, for broad-host-range strains, usually achieved by the production of toxic secondary metabolites.
Once inside the insect’s body cavity, a fungal pathogen faces a potent immune defense by which the host attempts to eliminate or reduce an infection. The antifungal immune response in Drosophila includes coagulation or melanization, phagocytosis, cellular encapsulation, and the release of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) following activation of the Toll signal-transduction pathway (14). Utilizing Metarhizium anisopliae in a Drosophila mutagenesis screen has enabled investigations on how host genotypes differentially affect pathogen fitness, and how defense is interconnected with other aspects of host physiology in complicated trade-offs (116). Approximately 9% of Drosophila lines with random single minos element insertions had altered disease resistance and only 13% of these insertions were in genes encoding immune responses (coagulation, phagocytosis, encapsulation, and melanization) (116). The nonimmune genes impacted a wide variety of biological functions including basic cellular processes, nutrition, early development, and, particularly, behavior (116).
There is evidence that entomopathogenic fungi are capable of interacting with the innate immune system, to successfully infect their hosts. This involves immune evasion strategies that interfere with, disrupt, or manipulate immune defenses (14). Diptera-infecting members of the genus Entomophthora proliferate within the host insect as protoplasts; producing no cell wall avoids detection by a host immune system that is triggered by cell wall epitopes (117). This intricate mechanism may have been a contributing factor for the evolution of a generally narrow host range within this group (118). However, a narrow host range is not a prerequisite for a “camouflage strategy,” as generalist Metarhizium spp. produce a hemolymph-induced, hydrophilic collagen (Mcl1) coat on cell surfaces to reduce immune detection of hyphal bodies (98). Metarhizium conidia can also be internalized and grow within arthropod phagocytic cells where they can avoid additional immune reactions (“anatomical seclusion” strategy), while dispersing through the insect body (119).
The Drosophila mutant screen implicated melanization as an effective defense in the fight against entomopathogenic fungi (115). This is consistent with fungal pathogens tightly regulating their own proteases so as not to activate this pathway (88, 120) and with the observation that many entomopathogenic fungi, including B. bassiana, have evolved antiphenoloxidase (anti-PO) activity (121) that may, in part, be mediated by secondary metabolites (99). At least some strains of Metarhizium and Beauveria are immune to drosomycin, the principal Drosophila antifungal AMP (116, 122), suggesting that successful adaptation to entomopathogenicity involved evolving multiple overlapping countermeasures to avoid or mitigate the antagonistic effects of responding host immune defenses.
Most hypocrealean insect pathogenic fungi produce large numbers of secondary metabolites (SMs) that are assumed to be part of the ongoing evolutionary arms race between fungi and insects. These compounds are often synthesized by nonribosomal peptide synthetases (NRPSs), polyketide synthetases (PKSs), and terpene cyclases (TCs). Some of the compounds produced by these SM gene clusters have been identified, such as destruxins and serinocyclins in M. robertsii (123). However, a multitude of biosynthetic pathways have been uncovered by the newly available Metarhizium genome sequences (123). These include pathways likely responsible for known chemistries (e.g., cytochalasins, ovalicin), pathways without candidate products yet known in Metarhizium, but similar to those in other fungi (ergot, diketopipearzine, resorcylic acid lactones), and pathways that are so unique that the molecules they produce cannot yet be predicted. These pathways highlight that the capacity of entomopathogenic fungi for secondary metabolite production is far greater than their known chemistry. Accordingly, we have a primitive understanding of how SMs are involved with the interactions of these fungi with other organisms (123).
There is also considerable variability in the number of SM genes among species in the genus Metarhizium. In terms of PKS genes and putative polyketides, generalist Metarhizium spp., such as M. robertsii, possess a greater potential for the production of secondary metabolites than specialist strains and other sequenced ascomycetes (48, 51, 123). Acting collectively with the secretome, the number and diversity of these effectors may contribute to the ability of generalists to infect and kill a much wider variety of insects than specialists. This also relates neatly with pathogenic strategies because M. robertsii kills hosts quickly via toxins and grows saprophytically in the cadaver. The destruxins (cyclic peptide toxins) produced by many broad-host-range Metarhizium spp. also play a specific role in resisting host immunity, as they have been shown to suppress AMP expression (124) and variously block phagocytosis (125). In contrast, like many specialists, including the Entomophthoromycota, M. acridum causes a systemic infection of host tissues before the host dies, which suggests a much smaller role for toxins (54, 126). It seems likely that specialists will have evolved specific adaptations to evade the immune systems of their particular hosts, whereas generalists that lack these specific adaptations produce toxins to kill the host before it has time to mount a significant defense.
Thus far, no Metarhizium SM has been shown to be sine qua non for pathogenicity (54, 127), except ferricrocin, which is considered by many to not be an SM, as it functions to sequester intracellular iron like many primary metabolites in other organisms (128). This highlights the complexity of virulence and host range in Metarhizium spp: the effect of a single toxic SM is not enough to drive either phenomenon (123).
Members of Clavicipitaceae (e.g., Metarhizium spp.) share few SM pathways with entomopathogens in Cordycipitaceae (e.g., B. bassiana and C. militaris). Beauveria produces its own large array of biologically active secondary metabolites (e.g., oosporein, bassianin, tenellin, beauvericin, bassianolides, and beauveriolides) and secreted metabolites putatively involved in pathogenesis and virulence (e.g., oxalic acid) that have potential or realized industrial, pharmaceutical, and agricultural uses (129). As with Metarhizium spp., the natural function of most of these metabolites is unknown, but oosporein suppresses insect host immunity (99).
Many other entomopathogens produce SM compounds with pharmaceutical applications and/or roles in antibiosis, pathogenesis, and competitive interactions between organisms (15, 124). For example, C. militaris produces cordycepin and cordycepic acids, which have been linked to a variety of benefits from antiaging to sleep-regulating effects (130). O. sinensis encodes four terpenoid synthases and one terpenoid cyclase that are absent in other fungi, indicating that it produces novel terpenoids. However, many putative secondary metabolism clusters were conserved between O. sinensis and other insect pathogens, providing singular exceptions to the restructuring of the O. sinensis genome by repeat elements, and suggesting that physically linking secondary metabolite biosynthetic genes has strong adaptive significance for entomopathogenicity. Toylypocladium inflatum produces a range of insecticidal compounds: most notably cyclosporine, an immunosuppressant in humans, as well as in insects, that is exploited to prevent transplant rejection. Phylogenomic analyses revealed complex patterns of homology between the NRPS that encodes for cyclosporin synthetase and those of other secondary metabolites with activities against insects (e.g., beauvericin, destruxins), and demonstrated the roles of module duplication and gene fusion of distantly related NRPS modules in diversification of NRPSs (131).

CONTROL OF INSECT BEHAVIOR BY PARASITIC FUNGI

Entomopathogenic fungi provide many classic examples of pathogens manipulating the behavior of their hosts, the so-called fungal extended phenotype (132134). In fact, the Fungal Kingdom stands alone in the range, extent, and complexity of their manipulation of arthropod behavior (3). This ability fascinates both scientists and nonscientists alike: it is fascinating because it inspires the macabre and touches on core philosophical issues, such as the existence of free will, and it is of enormous practical importance because parasites are ubiquitous and many have a predilection for the “immunologically privileged” site of the central nervous system. However, this location also provides a parasite with direct “access to the machinery” to alter host behavior, and a very large number take advantage of this. Unfortunately, the significance of such parasitic infections of the brain and “mind” is still underappreciated with limited information on their public health impact, and their overall impact in many areas of ecology, physiology, and evolution. Fungi probably represent a special case in this general field because of several peculiar features that usually include causing host death at the end of an infection cycle. At this stage, the pathogen depends on efficient transmission to maximize its fitness, so selection will favor positioning the dying host in time and space to achieve this. Numerous studies have documented that entomophthoralean fungi kill insect hosts during the late afternoon or evening (135, 136). This ensures that cadavers sporulate under the humid conditions of night to infect new hosts. Rapid transmission is required because the longer a cadaver is present in the field, the greater the chance that it will fall, be overgrown with saprophytic fungi, or be eaten by a scavenger (134). In many cases, the final interactions between a host and pathogen involve the pathogen directing the infected insect to seek an elevated position where wind currents and gravity can effectively disseminate conidia (the so-called “summit disease”). Summit disease has evolved multiple times within both the Entomophthoromycota and Ascomycota, and often involves an induced death-grip behavior involving the insect’s legs and/or jaws with wings outstretched to allow spores to be discharged from the body (132). Carpenter ants (Camponotus spp.) are probably the best known victims (132). An O. unilateralis infection transforms these ants into “zombie ants”; ultimately the fungus directs the ant to wander upward and, around noon (possibly after a solar cue), secure itself by biting down on foliage (twigs in temperate woods and leaf margins in rainforests) (Fig. 4) (136, 137). After the death of the host, the fungus sprouts a fruiting body (ascoma) from the back of its head and, after a few weeks of subsequent growth, this starts to rain sexual ascospores down on passing ants as they move on the forest floor or on branches below (132, 138). The modus operandi of Pandora formicae, an entomophthoromycotan infecting ants in the genus Formica, is very similar to the zombie-ant behavior manipulation seen in O. unilateralis: P. formicae manipulates ants to leave their nest, wander up onto vegetation, and use their mandibles to secure themselves so fungi are well placed for active discharge of conidia from the soft areas of the ant carcass (139, 140).
Very little is known about the mechanisms behind behavioral manipulation, and research has more often ruled out mechanisms than proved them. For example, adult flies killed by entomophthoromycotan fungi are often highly sexually attractive, facilitating spread of infectious propagules, but this is not due to the production of a sex pheromone (141). However, recent transcriptomic studies on ants infected with Pandora and Ophiocordyceps offer major insights into the mechanisms and extent to which fungi can manipulate their hosts (55, 142). The in insecta transcriptome of P. formicae elucidated the machinery that articulates its extensive morphological changes in the host, and revealed upregulation of catalases, which protect against host oxidative defenses, along with host-degrading subtilisin- and trypsin-like proteases (142). These proteases were similarly upregulated by O. unilateralis in the death-grip phase of infection, along with enzymes affecting oxidation-reduction processes and modulating serotonin and dopamine, thus, likely also modulating behavior (55). O. unilateralis sensu lato also secretes a plethora of putative compounds that have an effect on behavior, including, potentially, ergot, enterotoxins, alkaloids, polyketides, and nonribosomal peptides (55). Ergot famously causes serotonergic overstimulation of the central nervous system in humans and livestock (143), and polyketides, nonribosomal peptides, and alkaloids can be neuromodulatory agents (144). It has also been hypothesized that muscle atrophy seen during an O. unilateralis infection may be due in part to fungal enterotoxins (138). When incubated with the brains of two host and two nonhost ant species, O. unilateralis produced a different chemical cocktail for each ant species, in a manner that suggested it “knows” the brains of its target hosts and reacts accordingly (44). This goes some way to explaining why different Ophiocordyceps species seem to infect only certain ants.
Also of particular interest are potential commonalities for behavior manipulators across kingdoms (55). O. unilateralis upregulated the secreted enzyme protein-tyrosine phosphatase (PTP) by >110-fold in its ant hosts. In baculoviruses, PTP has been shown to cause the migration of caterpillars upward into plant foliage before death: a convergent viral approximation of the fungal summit disease (145, 146). The activity of PTP in fungal manipulations of ant behavior has not yet been experimentally confirmed.
Summit disease is not the only behavioral manipulation produced by insect pathogens. In possibly the most highly evolved interactions, as they indicate a very high level of adaptation of the pathogen to the host, the fungus keeps the host alive and controls its flight behavior so that the insect becomes an aerial vehicle for spore release. There are many examples reviewed by Roy et al. (134), but the entomophthoromycotan fungal genera Strongwellsea and Massospora are the best understood. In the case of Strongwellsea castrans, the hosts are adult flies (3). The fungus causes a large circular hole to develop on the host’s abdomen, and conidia are ejected from the flying insect through this hole. Massospora cicadina also initiates sporulation when its cicada host is still alive (Fig. 5) (147, 148). Eventually, the abdomen is entirely consumed, leaving just the head and thorax of the living insect. The cicada’s ability to fly is retained, increasing dispersion of spores in the environment, especially in the case of infected male cicadas, which attempt to attract and copulate with females and even continue to feed (3, 149).
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5 Live cicada with its abdomen replaced by sporulating Massospora cicadina: the insect host disseminates the fungus during this stage of the disease. Image courtesy of Mike Raupp.

EVOLUTION OF SEX IN ENTOMOPATHOGENIC FUNGI

Teleomorph hypocrealean states have much narrower host ranges than anamorphs, prompting the interesting question of how closely related fungi could differ so fundamentally in ecology depending on sexual state (49). Comparative genomics of entomopathogenic fungi has confirmed they exhibit diverse reproductive modes that often determine the rates and patterns of genome evolution and are linked as cause or effect with pathogenic strategies (15). The three modes of sexual reproduction in ascomycetous fungi, i.e., heterothallic, homothallic, and pseudohomothallic, are governed by the mating-type (MAT) locus (150, 151). The haploid genome of heterothallic species carries only one of the MAT loci, and, thus, they require a haploid partner with a compatible MAT locus to complete the sexual cycle. Homothallic species (self-fertile) have both loci in their haploid genomes, while the pseudohomothallic species are similarly self-fertile, but they contain two compatible haploid nuclei within their sexual spores (152). Most members of the three hypocrealean entomopathogen families (Clavicipitaceae, Cordycipitaceae, and Ophiocordycipitaceae) are heterothallic and are therefore potentially outcrossing fungi. Signs of sex in supposedly asexual species include footprints of Repeat Induced Point (RIP) mutations, a genome defense mechanism specific to fungi, occurring only during the sexual stages on repeated sequences. The consequences of RIP mutations are that repeated DNA segments, such as those that would result from the transposition of a retrotransposon or the duplication of a gene, are inactivated by mutations. Calculations of RIP indices indicated that RIP mutations occur in narrow-host-range species, M. album and M. acridum, but not in the broad-host-range species such as M. robertsii, which suggests retention of sexuality in specialists, although their sexual stages have not been verified (48). Intriguingly, therefore, asexuality in Metarhizium spp. is associated with broad host ranges and sexuality with narrow host ranges, consistent with the narrow host range of known teleomorph states. Unlike C. militaris, which is specific to lepidopteran pupae, the closely related B. bassiana has a wide host range. B. bassiana, like generalist Metarhizium spp., lacks the RIP mutations, consistent with the sexual cycle being rare (54). RIP is incompatible with gene duplication events, so its absence is consistent with expanded gene families and more transposable elements (TEs) in the B. bassiana and M. robertsii genomes, relative to C. militaris and M. acridum. It is possible, therefore, that losing sexuality, and therefore RIP, was a prerequisite for generalists expanding gene families.
In contrast to the other sequenced insect pathogens, which are all heterothallic, O. sinensis contains two compatible MAT loci in the genome and is sexually self-fertile, i.e., homothallic (33). It is likely that inbreeding is an adaptation by O. sinensis to its small population size resulting from a very specialized lifestyle and the extreme environmental conditions in its small geographical range. The O. sinensis genome size is approximately three times larger (∼120 Mb) than other ascomycete insect pathogens, but, whereas they contain more than 9,500 protein-coding genes, O. sinensis has only 6,972 genes (33). The RIP mechanism is dysfunctional in O. sinensis, which has probably contributed to a massive proliferation of retrotransposable elements, and thus genome size inflation, and the large number of retrotransposed and fragmented pseudogenes in the genome implicates retrotransposition in most of the gene losses in O. sinensis. It has been proposed that plant pathogenic fungal lineages with large and flexible genomes are likely to adapt faster during coevolution with hosts (153). The massive proliferation of transposable elements in the inbreeding O. sinensis, may provide a trade-off between advantages of increased genetic variation independent of sexual recombination and deletion of genes dispensable for its specialized pathogenic lifestyle. As O. sinensis has lost many genes for expanding its host range, future transitions away from its current lifestyle seem unlikely, indicating that, while retrotransposition may facilitate rapid adaptation, it may also contribute to stable host interactions.

CONCLUSION

Nearly all fungal phyla have representatives that have convergently evolved pathogenicity to insects. Identifying commonalities and differences between these fungi is providing a comprehensive picture of the mechanisms they use for pathogenicity, and how new pathogens emerge with different host ranges. Bioinformatics and sequencing technology have already contributed greatly to the study of insect pathogenic fungi, particularly the hard to culture obligates, and promise further breakthroughs in some of the more intractable aspects of this field, e.g., behavior manipulation and evolution of host specificity. Bolstered by this influx of information, entomopathogenic fungi are emerging as models for understanding how pathogens in general respond to and evolve in changing environments, initiate host invasion, colonize tissues, and counter host immune responses. These pathogens offer us a glimpse into the diverse answers fungi have to the question, how best to kill an insect?

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation Grant IOS-1257685 and by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under award number RO1 AI106998 to Raymond St. Leger.

REFERENCES

1.
Ødegaard F. 2000. How many species of arthropods? Erwin’s estimate revised. Biol J Linn Soc Lond 71:583–597. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2000.tb01279.x
2.
Vega FE, Blackwel M. 2005. Insect-Fungal Associations: Ecology and Evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.
3.
Araújo JPM, Hughes DP. 2016. Diversity of entomopathogenic Fungi: which groups conquered the insect body? p 1–39. In Lovett B, St. Leger RJ (ed), Genetics and Molecular Biology of Entomopathogenic Fungi. Advances in Genetics, vol 94. Academic Press, Cambridge, MA. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adgen.2016.01.001
4.
Suh SO, Noda H, Blackwell M. 2001. Insect symbiosis: derivation of yeast-like endosymbionts within an entomopathogenic filamentous lineage. Mol Biol Evol 18:995–1000. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a003901
5.
Mueller UG, Gerardo NM, Aanen DK, Six DL, Schultz TR. 2005. The evolution of agriculture in insects. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36:563–595. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.36.102003.152626
6.
De Kesel A. 1996. Host specificity and habitat preference of Laboulbenia slackensis. Mycologia 88:565–573. https://doi.org/10.2307/3761150
7.
Roberts DW, St Leger RJ. 2004. Metarhizium spp., cosmopolitan insect-pathogenic fungi: mycological aspects. Adv Appl Microbiol 54:1–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2164(04)54001-7
8.
Meyling NV, Hajek AE. 2010. Principles from community and metapopulation ecology: application to fungal entomopathogens. BioControl 55:39–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-009-9246-5
9.
Lacey LA, Grzywacz D, Shapiro-Ilan DI, Frutos R, Brownbridge M, Goettel MS. 2015. Insect pathogens as biological control agents: back to the future. J Invertebr Pathol 132:1–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2015.07.009
10.
Vega FE, Meyling NV, Luangsa-ard JJ, Blackwell M. 2012. Insect Pathology. Elsevier, London, UK.
11.
Lovett B, St. Leger RJ (ed). 2016. Genetics and Molecular Biology of Entomopathogenic Fungi. Advances in Genetics, vol 94. Academic Press, Cambridge, MA.
12.
Roy HE, Chandler D, Goettel MS, Pell J, Vega FE, Wajnberg E. 2010. The Ecology of Fungal Entomopathogens. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3966-8
13.
Stock SP, Vanderberg J, Boemare N, Glazer I. 2009. Insect Pathogens: Molecular Approaches and Techniques. CABI, Wallingford, United Kingdom. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845934781.0000
14.
Lu H-L, St. Leger RJ. 2016. Insect immunity to entomopathogenic fungi, p 251–285. In Lovett B, St. Leger RJ (ed), Genetics and Molecular Biology of Entomopathogenic Fungi. Advances in Genetics, vol 94. Academic Press, Cambridge, MA. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adgen.2015.11.002
15.
Wang JB, St. Leger RJ, Wang C. 2016. Advances in genomics of insect pathogenic fungi, p 67–105. In Lovett B, St. Leger RJ (ed), Genetics and Molecular Biology of Entomopathogenic Fungi. Advances in Genetics, vol 94. Academic Press, Cambridge, MA. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adgen.2016.01.002
16.
Steinhaus EA. 1956. Microbial Control: The Emergence of an Idea; a Brief History of Insect Pathology Through the Nineteenth Century. University of California, Berkeley, CA.
17.
Aronstein KA, Murray KD. 2010. Chalkbrood disease in honey bees. J Invertebr Pathol 103(Suppl 1):S20–S29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2009.06.018
18.
Oerke E-C, Dehne H-W. 2004. Safeguarding production—losses in major crops and the role of crop protection. Crop Prot 23:275–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2003.10.001
19.
Lord JC. 2005. From Metchnikoff to Monsanto and beyond: the path of microbial control. J Invertebr Pathol 89:19–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2005.04.006
20.
de Faria MR, Wraight SP. 2007. Mycoinsecticides and Mycoacaricides: a comprehensive list with worldwide coverage and international classification of formulation types. Biol Control 43:237–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2007.08.001
21.
Ortiz-Urquiza A, Luo Z, Keyhani NO. 2015. Improving mycoinsecticides for insect biological control. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 99:1057–1068. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-014-6270-x
22.
Fang W, Azimzadeh P, St Leger RJ. 2012. Strain improvement of fungal insecticides for controlling insect pests and vector-borne diseases. Curr Opin Microbiol 15:232–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mib.2011.12.012
23.
Wang C, St Leger RJ. 2007. A scorpion neurotoxin increases the potency of a fungal insecticide. Nat Biotechnol 25:1455–1456. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1357
24.
Fang W, St Leger RJ. 2012. Enhanced UV resistance and improved killing of malaria mosquitoes by photolyase transgenic entomopathogenic fungi. PLoS One 7:e43069. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043069
25.
Fang W, Lu H-L, King GF, St Leger RJ. 2014. Construction of a hypervirulent and specific mycoinsecticide for locust control. Sci Rep 4:7345. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep07345
26.
Fan Y, Borovsky D, Hawkings C, Ortiz-Urquiza A, Keyhani NO. 2012. Exploiting host molecules to augment mycoinsecticide virulence. Nat Biotechnol 30:35–37. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2080
27.
Fang W, Vega-Rodríguez J, Ghosh AK, Jacobs-Lorena M, Kang A, St Leger RJ. 2011. Development of transgenic fungi that kill human malaria parasites in mosquitoes. Science 331:1074–1077. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199115
28.
Wang S, O’Brien TR, Pava-Ripoll M, St Leger RJ. 2011. Local adaptation of an introduced transgenic insect fungal pathogen due to new beneficial mutations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:20449–20454. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1113824108
29.
Glare T, Caradus J, Gelernter W, Jackson T, Keyhani N, Köhl J, Marrone P, Morin L, Stewart A. 2012. Have biopesticides come of age? Trends Biotechnol 30:250–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2012.01.003
30.
Isaka M, Kittakoop P, Kirtikara K, Hywel-Jones NL, Thebtaranonth Y. 2005. Bioactive substances from insect pathogenic fungi. Acc Chem Res 38:813–823. https://doi.org/10.1021/ar040247r
31.
Kim HG, Song H, Yoon DH, Song B-W, Park SM, Sung GH, Cho J-Y, Park HI, Choi S, Song WO, Hwang KC, Kim TW. 2010. Cordyceps pruinosa extracts induce apoptosis of HeLa cells by a caspase dependent pathway. J Ethnopharmacol 128:342–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2010.01.049
32.
Zheng P, Xia Y, Xiao G, Xiong C, Hu X, Zhang S, Zheng H, Huang Y, Zhou Y, Wang S, Zhao G-P, Liu X, St Leger RJ, Wang C. 2011. Genome sequence of the insect pathogenic fungus Cordyceps militaris, a valued traditional Chinese medicine. Genome Biol 12:R116. https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2011-12-11-r116
33.
Hu X, Zhang Y-J, Xiao G-H, Zheng P, Xia Y-L, Zhang X-Y, St. Leger RJ, Liu X-Z, Wang C-S. 2013. Genome survey uncovers the secrets of sex and lifestyle in caterpillar fungus. Chin Sci Bull 58:2846–2854. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11434-013-5929-5
34.
Liu L, Zhang J, Chen C, Teng J, Wang C, Luo D. 2015. Structure and biosynthesis of fumosorinone, a new protein tyrosine phosphatase 1B inhibitor firstly isolated from the entomogenous fungus Isaria fumosorosea. Fungal Genet Biol 81:191–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fgb.2015.03.009
35.
Pereira JL, Noronha EF, Miller RNG, Franco OL. 2007. Novel insights in the use of hydrolytic enzymes secreted by fungi with biotechnological potential. Lett Appl Microbiol 44:573–581. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-765X.2007.02151.x
36.
Silva WOB, Santi L, Berger M, Pinto AFM, Guimarães JA, Schrank A, Vainstein MH. 2009. Characterization of a spore surface lipase from the biocontrol agent Metarhizium anisopliae. Process Biochem 44:829–834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2009.03.019
37.
Lemaitre B, Hoffmann J. 2007. The host defense of Drosophila melanogaster. Annu Rev Immunol 25:697–743. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.immunol.25.022106.141615
38.
Hu G, St Leger RJ. 2002. Field studies using a recombinant mycoinsecticide (Metarhizium anisopliae) reveal that it is rhizosphere competent. Appl Environ Microbiol 68:6383–6387. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.68.12.6383-6387.2002
39.
Moonjely S, Barelli L, Bidochka MJ. 2016. Insect pathogenic fungi as endophytes, p 107–135. In Lovett B, St. Leger RJ (ed), Genetics and Molecular Biology of Entomopathogenic Fungi. Advances in Genetics, vol 94. Academic Press, Cambridge, MA. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adgen.2015.12.004
40.
Wang C, St Leger RJ. 2007. The MAD1 adhesin of Metarhizium anisopliae links adhesion with blastospore production and virulence to insects, and the MAD2 adhesin enables attachment to plants. Eukaryot Cell 6:808–816. https://doi.org/10.1128/EC.00409-06
41.
Liao X, Lu H-L, Fang W, St Leger RJ. 2014. Overexpression of a Metarhizium robertsii HSP25 gene increases thermotolerance and survival in soil. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 98:777–783. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-013-5360-5
42.
Liao X, O’Brien TR, Fang W, St Leger RJ. 2014. The plant beneficial effects of Metarhizium species correlate with their association with roots. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 98:7089–7096. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-014-5788-2
43.
Eilenberg J, Pell JK. 2007. EcologyArthropod-pathogenic entomophthorales. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
44.
de Bekker C, Quevillon LE, Smith PB, Fleming KR, Ghosh D, Patterson AD, Hughes DP. 2014. Species-specific ant brain manipulation by a specialized fungal parasite. BMC Evol Biol 14:166. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-014-0166-3
45.
Evans HC, Elliot SL, Hughes DP. 2011. Hidden diversity behind the zombie-ant fungus Ophiocordyceps unilateralis: four new species described from carpenter ants in Minas Gerais, Brazil. PLoS One 6:e17024. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017024
46.
Kobmoo N, Mongkolsamrit S, Wutikhun T, Tasanathai K, Khonsanit A, Thanakitpipattana D, Luangsa-Ard JJ. 2015. New species of Ophiocordyceps unilateralis, an ubiquitous pathogen of ants from Thailand. Fungal Biol 119:44–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.funbio.2014.10.008
47.
Blackwell M. 2010. Fungal evolution and taxonomy. BioControl 55:7–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-009-9243-8
48.
Hu X, Xiao G, Zheng P, Shang Y, Su Y, Zhang X, Liu X, Zhan S, St Leger RJ, Wang C. 2014. Trajectory and genomic determinants of fungal-pathogen speciation and host adaptation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:16796–16801. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1412662111
49.
Hesketh H, Roy HE, Eilenberg J, Pell JK, Hails RS. 2010. Challenges in modelling complexity of fungal entomopathogens in semi-natural populations of insects, p 55–73. In Roy HE, Vega FE, Goettel MS, Chandler D, Pell JK, Wajnberg E (ed), The Ecology of Fungal Entomopathogens. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3966-8_5
50.
Hajek AE, Delalibera I. 2010. Fungal pathogens as classical biological control agents against arthropods. BioControl 55:147–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-009-9253-6
51.
Gao Q, Jin K, Ying S-H, Zhang Y, Xiao G, Shang Y, Duan Z, Hu X, Xie X-Q, Zhou G, Peng G, Luo Z, Huang W, Wang B, Fang W, Wang S, Zhong Y, Ma L-J, St Leger RJ, Zhao G-P, Pei Y, Feng M-G, Xia Y, Wang C. 2011. Genome sequencing and comparative transcriptomics of the model entomopathogenic fungi Metarhizium anisopliae and M. acridum. PLoS Genet 7:e1001264. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1001264
52.
Pattemore JA, Hane JK, Williams AH, Wilson BAL, Stodart BJ, Ash GJ. 2014. The genome sequence of the biocontrol fungus Metarhizium anisopliae and comparative genomics of Metarhizium species. BMC Genomics 15:660. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-15-660
53.
Staats CC, Junges A, Guedes RLM, Thompson CE, de Morais GL, Boldo JT, de Almeida LGP, Andreis FC, Gerber AL, Sbaraini N, da Paixão RLA, Broetto L, Landell M, Santi L, Beys-da-Silva WO, Silveira CP, Serrano TR, de Oliveira ES, Kmetzsch L, Vainstein MH, de Vasconcelos ATR, Schrank A. 2014. Comparative genome analysis of entomopathogenic fungi reveals a complex set of secreted proteins. BMC Genomics 15:822. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-15-822
54.
Xiao G, Ying S-H, Zheng P, Wang Z-L, Zhang S, Xie X-Q, Shang Y, St Leger RJ, Zhao G-P, Wang C, Feng M-G. 2012. Genomic perspectives on the evolution of fungal entomopathogenicity in Beauveria bassiana. Sci Rep 2:483. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep00483
55.
de Bekker C, Ohm RA, Loreto RG, Sebastian A, Albert I, Merrow M, Brachmann A, Hughes DP. 2015. Gene expression during zombie ant biting behavior reflects the complexity underlying fungal parasitic behavioral manipulation. BMC Genomics 16:620. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-015-1812-x
56.
Agrawal Y, Khatri I, Subramanian S, Shenoy BD. 2015. Genome sequence, comparative analysis, and evolutionary insights into chitinases of entomopathogenic fungus Hirsutella thompsonii. Genome Biol Evol 7:916–930. https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evv037
57.
Fisher JJ, Rehner SA, Bruck DJ. 2011. Diversity of rhizosphere associated entomopathogenic fungi of perennial herbs, shrubs and coniferous trees. J Invertebr Pathol 106:289–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2010.11.001
58.
Pava-Ripoll M, Angelini C, Fang W, Wang S, Posada FJ, St Leger R. 2011. The rhizosphere-competent entomopathogen Metarhizium anisopliae expresses a specific subset of genes in plant root exudate. Microbiology 157:47–55. https://doi.org/10.1099/mic.0.042200-0
59.
Brownbridge M, Reay SD, Nelson TL, Glare TR. 2012. Persistence of Beauveria bassiana (Ascomycota: Hypocreales) as an endophyte following inoculation of radiata pine seed and seedlings. Biol Control 61:194–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2012.01.002
60.
Biswas C, Dey P, Satpathy S, Satya P. 2011. Establishment of the fungal entomopathogen Beauveria bassiana as a season long endophyte in jute (Corchorus olitorius) and its rapid detection using SCAR marker. BioControl 57:565–571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-011-9424-0
61.
Ownley BH, Gwinn KD, Vega FE. 2009. Endophytic fungal entomopathogens with activity against plant pathogens: ecology and evolution, p 113–128. In Roy HE, Vega FE, Goettel MS, Chandler D, Pell JK, Wajnberg E (ed), The Ecology of Fungal Entomopathogens. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3966-8_9
62.
Vega FE. 2008. Insect pathology and fungal endophytes. J Invertebr Pathol 98:277–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2008.01.008
63.
Lovett B, St Leger RJ. 2015. Stress is the rule rather than the exception for Metarhizium. Curr Genet 61:253–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00294-014-0447-9
64.
Behie SW, Bidochka MJ. 2014. Ubiquity of insect-derived nitrogen transfer to plants by endophytic insect-pathogenic fungi: an additional branch of the soil nitrogen cycle. Appl Environ Microbiol 80:1553–1560. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.03338-13
65.
Fang W, St Leger RJ. 2010. Mrt, a gene unique to fungi, encodes an oligosaccharide transporter and facilitates rhizosphere competency in Metarhizium robertsii. Plant Physiol 154:1549–1557. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.110.163014
66.
Bark YG, Lee DG, Kang SC, Kim YH. 1996. Antibiotic properties of an entomopathogenic fungus, Beauveria bassiana, on Fusarium oxysporum and Botrytis cinerea. Korean J Plant Pathol 12:245–250.
67.
Rhee YJ, Hillier S, Gadd GM. 2012. Lead transformation to pyromorphite by fungi. Curr Biol 22:237–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.12.017
68.
Bidochka MJ, Clark DC, Lewis MW, Keyhani NO. 2010. Could insect phagocytic avoidance by entomogenous fungi have evolved via selection against soil amoeboid predators? Microbiology 156:2164–2171. https://doi.org/10.1099/mic.0.038216-0
69.
Screen SE, Hu G, St Leger RJ. 2001. Transformants of Metarhizium anisopliae sf. anisopliae overexpressing chitinase from Metarhizium anisopliae sf. acridum show early induction of native chitinase but are not altered in pathogenicity to Manduca sexta. J Invertebr Pathol 78:260–266. https://doi.org/10.1006/jipa.2001.5067
70.
Wang C, St Leger RJ. 2005. Developmental and transcriptional responses to host and nonhost cuticles by the specific locust pathogen Metarhizium anisopliae var. acridum. Eukaryot Cell 4:937–947. https://doi.org/10.1128/EC.4.5.937-947.2005
71.
St Leger RJ, Staples RC, Roberts DW. 1992. Cloning and regulatory analysis of starvation-stress gene, ssgA, encoding a hydrophobin-like protein from the entomopathogenic fungus, Metarhizium anisopliae. Gene 120:119–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1119(92)90019-L
72.
Bidochka MJ, St. Leger RJ, Joshi L, Roberts DW. 1995. The rodlet layer from aerial and submerged conidia of the entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana contains hydrophobin. Mycol Res 99:403–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0953-7562(09)80637-0
73.
Kirkland BH, Keyhani NO. 2011. Expression and purification of a functionally active class I fungal hydrophobin from the entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana in E. coli. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 38:327–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10295-010-0777-7
74.
Zhang S, Xia YX, Kim B, Keyhani NO. 2011. Two hydrophobins are involved in fungal spore coat rodlet layer assembly and each play distinct roles in surface interactions, development and pathogenesis in the entomopathogenic fungus, Beauveria bassiana. Mol Microbiol 80:811–826. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2958.2011.07613.x
75.
Sevim A, Donzelli BGG, Wu D, Demirbag Z, Gibson DM, Turgeon BG. 2012. Hydrophobin genes of the entomopathogenic fungus, Metarhizium brunneum, are differentially expressed and corresponding mutants are decreased in virulence. Curr Genet 58:79–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00294-012-0366-6
76.
St. Leger RJ, Roberts DW, Staples RC. 1991. A model to explain differentiation of appressoria by germlings of Metarhizium anisopliae. J Invertebr Pathol 57:299–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2011(91)90134-C
77.
St. Leger RJ, Bidochka MJ, Roberts DW. 1994. Germination triggers of Metarhizium anisopliae conidia are related to host species. Microbiology 140:1651–1660. https://doi.org/10.1099/13500872-140-7-1651
78.
St. Leger RJ, May B, Allee LL, Frank DC, Staples RC, Roberts DW. 1992. Genetic differences in allozymes and in formation of infection structures among isolates of the entomopathogenic fungus Metarhizium anisopliae. J Invertebr Pathol 60:89–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2011(92)90159-2
79.
Ying S-H, Feng M-G, Keyhani NO. 2013. A carbon responsive G-protein coupled receptor modulates broad developmental and genetic networks in the entomopathogenic fungus, Beauveria bassiana. Environ Microbiol 15:2902–2921.
80.
Jarrold SL, Moore D, Potter U, Charnley AK. 2007. The contribution of surface waxes to pre-penetration growth of an entomopathogenic fungus on host cuticle. Mycol Res 111:240–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mycres.2006.10.007
81.
Ortiz-Urquiza A, Keyhani NO. 2013. Action on the surface: entomopathogenic fungi versus the insect cuticle. Insects 4:357–374. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects4030357
82.
St. Leger RJ, Butt TM, Goettel MS, Staples RC, Roberts DW. 1989. Production in vitro of appressoria by the entomopathogenic fungus Metarhizium anisopliae. Exp Mycol 13:274–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-5975(89)90049-2
83.
St. Leger RJ, Goettel M, Roberts DW, Staples RC. 1991. Prepenetration events during infection of host cuticle by Metarhizium anisopliae. J Invertebr Pathol 58:168–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2011(91)90061-T
84.
Crespo R, Júrez MP, Dal Bello GM, Padín S, Fernández GC, Pedrini N. 2002. Increased mortality of Acanthoscelides obtectus by alkane-grown Beauveria bassiana. BioControl 47:685–696. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020545613148
85.
Pedrini N, Zhang S, Juárez MP, Keyhani NO. 2010. Molecular characterization and expression analysis of a suite of cytochrome P450 enzymes implicated in insect hydrocarbon degradation in the entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana. Microbiology 156:2549–2557. https://doi.org/10.1099/mic.0.039735-0
86.
Zhang S, Widemann E, Bernard G, Lesot A, Pinot F, Pedrini N, Keyhani NO. 2012. CYP52X1, representing new cytochrome P450 subfamily, displays fatty acid hydroxylase activity and contributes to virulence and growth on insect cuticular substrates in entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana. J Biol Chem 287:13477–13486. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M111.338947
87.
Wang C, St Leger RJ. 2007. The Metarhizium anisopliae perilipin homolog MPL1 regulates lipid metabolism, appressorial turgor pressure, and virulence. J Biol Chem 282:21110–21115. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M609592200
88.
Freimoser FM, Hu G, St Leger RJ. 2005. Variation in gene expression patterns as the insect pathogen Metarhizium anisopliae adapts to different host cuticles or nutrient deprivation in vitro. Microbiology 151:361–371. https://doi.org/10.1099/mic.0.27560-0
89.
Bagga S, Hu G, Screen SE, St Leger RJ. 2004. Reconstructing the diversification of subtilisins in the pathogenic fungus Metarhizium anisopliae. Gene 324:159–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gene.2003.09.031
90.
Goettel MS, St. Leger RJ, Rizzo NW, Staples RC, Roberts DW. 1989. Ultrastructural localization of a cuticle-degrading protease produced by the entomopathogenic fungus Metarhizium anisopliae during penetration of host (Manduca sexto) cuticle. Microbiology 135:2233–2239. https://doi.org/10.1099/00221287-135-8-2233
91.
Hu G, Leger RJ. 2004. A phylogenomic approach to reconstructing the diversification of serine proteases in fungi. J Evol Biol 17:1204–1214. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2004.00786.x
92.
St Leger R, Joshi L, Bidochka MJ, Roberts DW. 1996. Construction of an improved mycoinsecticide overexpressing a toxic protease. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:6349–6354. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.13.6349
93.
Fan Y, Fang W, Guo S, Pei X, Zhang Y, Xiao Y, Li D, Jin K, Bidochka MJ, Pei Y. 2007. Increased insect virulence in Beauveria bassiana strains overexpressing an engineered chitinase. Appl Environ Microbiol 73:295–302. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01974-06
94.
Fang W, Feng J, Fan Y, Zhang Y, Bidochka MJ, Leger RJ, Pei Y. 2009. Expressing a fusion protein with protease and chitinase activities increases the virulence of the insect pathogen Beauveria bassiana. J Invertebr Pathol 102:155–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2009.07.013
95.
Zhang W, Yueqing C, Yuxian X. 2008. Cloning of the subtilisin Pr1A gene from a strain of locust specific fungus, Metarhizium anisopliae, and functional expression of the protein in Pichia pastoris. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 24:2481–2488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-008-9771-x
96.
Wang S, Fang W, Wang C, St Leger RJ. 2011. Insertion of an esterase gene into a specific locust pathogen (Metarhizium acridum) enables it to infect caterpillars. PLoS Pathog 7:e1002097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1002097
97.
Wang C, Hu G, St Leger RJ. 2005. Differential gene expression by Metarhizium anisopliae growing in root exudate and host (Manduca sexta) cuticle or hemolymph reveals mechanisms of physiological adaptation. Fungal Genet Biol 42:704–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fgb.2005.04.006
98.
Wang C, St Leger RJ. 2006. A collagenous protective coat enables Metarhizium anisopliae to evade insect immune responses. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:6647–6652. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0601951103
99.
Feng P, Shang Y, Cen K, Wang C. 2015. Fungal biosynthesis of the bibenzoquinone oosporein to evade insect immunity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:11365–11370. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1503200112
100.
Wang J, Zhou G, Ying S-H, Feng M-G. 2014. Adenylate cyclase orthologues in two filamentous entomopathogens contribute differentially to growth, conidiation, pathogenicity, and multistress responses. Fungal Biol 118:422–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.funbio.2014.03.001
101.
Fang W, Pava-ripoll M, Wang S, St Leger R. 2009. Protein kinase A regulates production of virulence determinants by the entomopathogenic fungus, Metarhizium anisopliae. Fungal Genet Biol 46:277–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fgb.2008.12.001
102.
Li F, Wang Z-L, Zhang L-B, Ying S-H, Feng M-G. 2015. The role of three calcineurin subunits and a related transcription factor (Crz1) in conidiation, multistress tolerance and virulence in Beauveria bassiana.Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 99:827–840. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-014-6124-6
103.
Zhang Y, Zhang J, Jiang X, Wang G, Luo Z, Fan Y, Wu Z, Pei Y. 2010. Requirement of a mitogen-activated protein kinase for appressorium formation and penetration of insect cuticle by the entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana. Appl Environ Microbiol 76:2262–2270. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02246-09
104.
Jin K, Ming Y, Xia YX. 2012. MaHog1, a Hog1-type mitogen-activated protein kinase gene, contributes to stress tolerance and virulence of the entomopathogenic fungus Metarhizium acridum. Microbiology 158:2987–2996. https://doi.org/10.1099/mic.0.059469-0
105.
Wang C, Duan Z, St Leger RJ. 2008. MOS1 osmosensor of Metarhizium anisopliae is required for adaptation to insect host hemolymph. Eukaryot Cell 7:302–309. https://doi.org/10.1128/EC.00310-07
106.
Duan Z, Chen Y, Huang W, Shang Y, Chen P, Wang C. 2013. Linkage of autophagy to fungal development, lipid storage and virulence in Metarhizium robertsii. Autophagy 9:538–549. https://doi.org/10.4161/auto.23575
107.
Zhao H, Xu C, Lu H-L, Chen X, St Leger RJ, Fang W. 2014. Host-to-pathogen gene transfer facilitated infection of insects by a pathogenic fungus. PLoS Pathog 10:e1004009. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1004009
108.
Fang W, St Leger RJ. 2010. RNA binding proteins mediate the ability of a fungus to adapt to the cold. Environ Microbiol 12:810–820. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2009.02127.x
109.
Liao X, Fang W, Lin L, Lu H-L, St Leger RJ. 2013. Metarhizium robertsii produces an extracellular invertase (MrINV) that plays a pivotal role in rhizospheric interactions and root colonization. PLoS One 8:e78118. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0078118
110.
Huang W, Shang Y, Chen P, Cen K, Wang C. 2015. Basic leucine zipper (bZIP) domain transcription factor MBZ1 regulates cell wall integrity, spore adherence, and virulence in Metarhizium robertsii. J Biol Chem 290:8218–8231. doi:10.1074/jbc.M114.630939.
111.
Huang W, Shang Y, Chen P, Gao Q, Wang C. 2015. MrpacC regulates sporulation, insect cuticle penetration and immune evasion in Metarhizium robertsii. Environ Microbiol 17:994–1008. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.12451
112.
St. Leger RJ, Charnley AK, Cooper RM. 1986. Cuticle-degrading enzymes of entomopathogenic fungi: synthesis in culture on cuticle. J Invertebr Pathol 48:85–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2011(86)90146-1
113.
St Leger RJ, Joshi L, Roberts D. 1998. Ambient pH is a major determinant in the expression of cuticle-degrading enzymes and hydrophobin by Metarhizium anisopliae. Appl Environ Microbiol 64:709–713.
114.
St Leger RJ, Nelson JO, Screen SE. 1999. The entomopathogenic fungus Metarhizium anisopliae alters ambient pH, allowing extracellular protease production and activity. Microbiology 145:2691–2699. https://doi.org/10.1099/00221287-145-10-2691
115.
St. Leger RJ, Charnley AK, Cooper RM. 1986. Cuticle-degrading enzymes of entomopathogenic fungi: mechanisms of interaction between pathogen enzymes and insect cuticle. J Invertebr Pathol 47:295–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2011(86)90099-6
116.
Lu H-L, Wang JB, Brown MA, Euerle C, St Leger RJ. 2015. Identification of Drosophila mutants affecting defense to an entomopathogenic fungus. Sci Rep 5:12350. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep12350
117.
De Fine Licht HH, Hajek AE, Eilenberg J, Jensen AB. 2016. Utilizing genomics to study entomopathogenicity in the fungal phylum entomophthoromycota: a review of current genetic resources, p 41–65. In Lovett B, St. Leger RJ (ed), Genetics and Molecular Biology of Entomopathogenic Fungi. Advances in Genetics, vol 94. Academic Press, Cambridge, MA. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adgen.2016.01.003
118.
Boomsma JJ, Jensen AB, Meyling NV, Eilenberg J. 2014. Evolutionary interaction networks of insect pathogenic fungi. Annu Rev Entomol 59:467–485. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-011613-162054
119.
Kurtti TJ, Keyhani NO. 2008. Intracellular infection of tick cell lines by the entomopathogenic fungus Metarhizium anisopliae. Microbiology 154:1700–1709. https://doi.org/10.1099/mic.0.2008/016667-0
120.
St Leger RJ, Joshi L, Bidochka MJ, Rizzo NW, Roberts DW. 1996. Biochemical characterization and ultrastructural localization of two extracellular trypsins produced by Metarhizium anisopliae in infected insect cuticles. Appl Environ Microbiol 62:1257–1264.
121.
Matskevich AA, Quintin J, Ferrandon D. 2010. The Drosophila PRR GNBP3 assembles effector complexes involved in antifungal defenses independently of its Toll-pathway activation function. Eur J Immunol 40:1244–1254. https://doi.org/10.1002/eji.200940164
122.
Tzou P, De Gregorio E, Lemaitre B. 2002. How Drosophila combats microbial infection: a model to study innate immunity and host-pathogen interactions. Curr Opin Microbiol 5:102–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-5274(02)00294-1
123.
Donzelli BGG, Krasnoff SB. 2016. Molecular genetics of secondary chemistry in Metarhizium fungi, p 365–436. In Lovett B, St. Leger RJ (ed), Genetics and Molecular Biology of Entomopathogenic Fungi. Advances in Genetics, vol 94. Academic Press, Cambridge, MA. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adgen.2016.01.005
124.
Pal S, St Leger RJ, Wu LP. 2007. Fungal peptide Destruxin A plays a specific role in suppressing the innate immune response in Drosophila melanogaster. J Biol Chem 282:8969–8977. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M605927200
125.
Chen X-R, Hu Q-B, Yu X-Q, Ren S-X. 2014. Effects of destruxins on free calcium and hydrogen ions in insect hemocytes. Insect Sci 21:31–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7917.12028
126.
Kulkarni RD, Thon MR, Pan H, Dean RA. 2005. Novel G-protein-coupled receptor-like proteins in the plant pathogenic fungus Magnaporthe grisea. Genome Biol 6:R24. https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2005-6-3-r24
127.
Giuliano Garisto Donzelli B, Krasnoff SB, Sun-Moon Y, Churchill AC, Gibson DM. 2012. Genetic basis of destruxin production in the entomopathogen Metarhizium robertsii. Curr Genet 58:105–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00294-012-0368-4
128.
Silva B, Faustino P. 2015. An overview of molecular basis of iron metabolism regulation and the associated pathologies. Biochim Biophys Acta 1852:1347–1359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbadis.2015.03.011
129.
Ortiz-Urquiza AO, Keyhani N. 2016. Molecular genetics of Beauveria bassiana infection of insects, p 165–249. In Lovett B, St. Leger RJ (ed), Genetics and Molecular Biology of Entomopathogenic Fungi. Advances in Genetics, vol 94. Academic Press, Cambridge, MA.
130.
Paterson RRM. 2008. Cordyceps: a traditional Chinese medicine and another fungal therapeutic biofactory? Phytochemistry 69:1469–1495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phytochem.2008.01.027
131.
Bushley KE, Raja R, Jaiswal P, Cumbie JS, Nonogaki M, Boyd AE, Owensby CA, Knaus BJ, Elser J, Miller D, Di Y, McPhail KL, Spatafora JW. 2013. The genome of Tolypocladium inflatum: evolution, organization, and expression of the cyclosporin biosynthetic gene cluster. PLoS Genet 9:e1003496. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003496
132.
Andersen SB, Gerritsma S, Yusah KM, Mayntz D, Hywel-Jones NL, Billen J, Boomsma JJ, Hughes DP. 2009. The life of a dead ant: the expression of an adaptive extended phenotype. Am Nat 174:424–433. https://doi.org/10.1086/603640
133.
Shang Y, Feng P, Wang C. 2015. Fungi that infect insects: altering host behavior and beyond. PLoS Pathog 11:e1005037. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1005037
134.
Roy HE, Steinkraus DC, Eilenberg J, Hajek AE, Pell JK. 2006. Bizarre interactions and endgames: entomopathogenic fungi and their arthropod hosts. Annu Rev Entomol 51:331–357. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.51.110104.150941
135.
Milner RJ, Holdom DG, Glare TR. 1984. Diurnal patterns of mortality in aphids infected by entomophthoran fungi. Entomol Exp Appl 36:37–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.1984.tb03404.x
136.
Krasnoff SB, Watson DW, Gibson DM, Kwan EC. 1995. Behavioral effects of the entomopathogenic fungus, Entomophthora muscae on its host Musca domestica: postural changes in dying hosts and gated pattern of mortality. J Insect Physiol 41:895–903. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1910(95)00026-Q
137.
Evans H. 1982. Entomogenous fungi in tropical forest ecosystems: an appraisal. Ecol Entomol 7:47–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.1982.tb00643.x
138.
Hughes DP, Andersen SB, Hywel-Jones NL, Himaman W, Billen J, Boomsma JJ. 2011. Behavioral mechanisms and morphological symptoms of zombie ants dying from fungal infection. BMC Ecol 11:13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6785-11-13
139.
Boer P. 2008. Observations of summit disease in Formica rufa Linnaeus, 1761 (Hymenoptera: formicidae). Myrmecol News 11:63–66.
140.
Marikovsky PI. 1962. On some features of behavior of the ants Formica rufa L. infected with fungous disease. Insectes Soc 9:173–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02224263
141.
Zurek L, Wes Watson D, Krasnoff SB, Schal C. 2002. Effect of the entomopathogenic fungus, Entomophthora muscae (Zygomycetes: Entomophthoraceae), on sex pheromone and other cuticular hydrocarbons of the house fly, Musca domestica. J Invertebr Pathol 80:171–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-2011(02)00109-X
142.
Małagocka J, Grell MN, Lange L, Eilenberg J, Jensen AB. 2015. Transcriptome of an entomophthoralean fungus (Pandora formicae) shows molecular machinery adjusted for successful host exploitation and transmission. J Invertebr Pathol 128:47–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2015.05.001
143.
Eadie MJ. 2003. Convulsive ergotism: epidemics of the serotonin syndrome? Lancet Neurol 2:429–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(03)00439-3
144.
Molnár I, Gibson DM, Krasnoff SB. 2010. Secondary metabolites from entomopathogenic Hypocrealean fungi. Nat Prod Rep 27:1241–1275. https://doi.org/10.1039/c001459c
145.
Kamita SG, Nagasaka K, Chua JW, Shimada T, Mita K, Kobayashi M, Maeda S, Hammock BD. 2005. A baculovirus-encoded protein tyrosine phosphatase gene induces enhanced locomotory activity in a lepidopteran host. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:2584–2589. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0409457102
146.
van Houte S, Ros VID, Mastenbroek TG, Vendrig NJ, Hoover K, Spitzen J, van Oers MM. 2012. Protein tyrosine phosphatase-induced hyperactivity is a conserved strategy of a subset of baculoviruses to manipulate lepidopteran host behavior. PLoS One 7:e46933. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0046933
147.
Humber RA. 1982. Strongwellsea vs. Erynia: the case for a phylogenetic classification of the Entomophthorales (Zygomycetes). Mycotaxon 15:167–184.
148.
Thaxter R. 1888. The Entomophthoreae of the United States. Boston Society of Natural History. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.57312
149.
Duke L, Steinkraus DC, English JE, Smith KG. 2002. Infectivity of resting spores of Massospora cicadina (Entomophthorales: Entomophthoraceae), an entomopathogenic fungus of periodical cicadas (Magicicada spp.) (Homoptera: Cicadidae). J Invertebr Pathol 80:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-2011(02)00040-X
150.
Idnurm A. 2011. Sex determination in the first-described sexual fungus. Eukaryot Cell 10:1485–1491. https://doi.org/10.1128/EC.05149-11
151.
Whittle CA, Nygren K, Johannesson H. 2011. Consequences of reproductive mode on genome evolution in fungi. Fungal Genet Biol 48:661–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fgb.2011.02.005
152.
Ni M, Feretzaki M, Sun S, Wang X, Heitman J. 2011. Sex in fungi. Annu Rev Genet 45:405–430. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genet-110410-132536
153.
Raffaele S, Kamoun S. 2012. Genome evolution in filamentous plant pathogens: why bigger can be better. Nat Rev Microbiol 10:417–430.
154.
St. Leger RJ, Cooper RM, Charnley AK. 1987. Production of cuticle-degrading enzymes by the entomopathogen Metarhizium anisopliae during infection of cuticles from Calliphora vomitoria and Manduca sexta. Microbiology 133:1371–1382. https://doi.org/10.1099/00221287-133-5-1371
155.
Pava-Ripoll M, Posada FJ, Momen B, Wang C, St. Leger RJ. 2008. Increased pathogenicity against coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), by Metarhizium anisopliae expressing the scorpion toxin (AaIT) gene. J Invertebr Pathol 99:220–226.
156.
Hughes DP, Araújo JPM, Loreto RG, Quevillon LE, de Bekker C, Evans HC. 2016. From so simple a beginning: the evolution of behavioral manipulation by fungi. Adv Genet 94:437–469.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Microbiology Spectrum
Microbiology Spectrum
Volume 5Number 230 April 2017
eLocator: 10.1128/microbiolspec.funk-0001-2016
Editor: Joseph Heitman, Department of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710

History

Received: 22 February 2016
Returned for modification: 19 December 2016
Published online: 3 March 2017

Contributors

Authors

Brian Lovett
Department of Entomology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
Raymond J. St. Leger
Department of Entomology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742

Editor

Joseph Heitman
Department of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710

Notes

Correspondence: Brian Lovett, [email protected]

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Note:

  • For recently published articles, the TOTAL download count will appear as zero until a new month starts.
  • There is a 3- to 4-day delay in article usage, so article usage will not appear immediately after publication.
  • Citation counts come from the Crossref Cited by service.

Citations

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. For an editable text file, please select Medlars format which will download as a .txt file. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

View Options

Figures and Media

Figures

Media

Tables

Share

Share

Share the article link

Share with email

Email a colleague

Share on social media

American Society for Microbiology ("ASM") is committed to maintaining your confidence and trust with respect to the information we collect from you on websites owned and operated by ASM ("ASM Web Sites") and other sources. This Privacy Policy sets forth the information we collect about you, how we use this information and the choices you have about how we use such information.
FIND OUT MORE about the privacy policy