Vol.12_No.2 - Pesticide Alternatives Lab - Michigan State University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Spring 2003 Resistant Pest Management Newsletter Vol. 12, No.2scientific publications of the 1910s and continuing tothe present, the resistance question has drawnresearchers from fields as diverse as populationgenetics and organic chemistry and in institutionalcontexts ranging from agricultural experiment stationsto industrial research laboratories. To be sure,insecticide resistance research has been primarily thedomain of economic entomology, yet both the ubiquityand complexity of the phenomenon have broughttogether researchers with diverse backgrounds andresearch agendas.Detailing this history is the goal of a new researchproject funded by the Swiss National ScienceFoundation conducted by Christian W. Simon,professor of history at the University of Basel, andJohn S. Ceccatti, a post-doctoral research associate onthe project. One of the central questions beingaddressed is how scientists have utilized fieldobservations, laboratory experiments, and theoreticalframeworks to develop explanations of insecticideresistance that were consistent with current biologicalthought. Another area of interest is to compare thevarious research approaches taken by scientists fromvarious disciplines and institutional settings.From the current scientific vantage, the ability ofinsects to develop resistance to insecticides is hardly acontested fact. But even into the 1940s and 1950s, thephenomenon of insecticide resistance continued tochallenge many deeply held convictions amongscientists. For many economic entomologists, forexample, insecticide resistance ran against the longstandingidea of the fixity of biological species innature. Resistance also contradicted a guiding principleof the insecticide industry that once a chemicalcompound was proven effective is would remain soindefinitely. Resistance is also a sticky concept in thegeneral public - and, by extension, those corporatemanagers, policy-makers, and other 'thought leaders'without scientific training. One need only look at ongoingdiscussions (and confusions) about the relatedissue of antibiotic resistance to see that general beliefsin technological 'fixes' to complex problems havestrong staying power.To write the history of insecticide resistanceresearch, the authors draw on a variety of sourcesranging from scientific journals, industry trademagazines, unpublished technical reports fromcompany archives, as well as personal communicationswith scientists currently or formerly involved with theresistance question. On this latter point, the authorswelcome additional input and any interested personscan contact the authors by email atjohn@conceptualresearch.com. A synopsis of theresearch findings will be presented in the next issue ofthe RPM Newsletter.Resistance Management from Around the GlobeBaseline Resistance InformationNative Resistance to Cry1Ac Toxin in Cotton Bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) in South Indian CottonEcosystemGenes from Bacillus thuringiensis coding forcrystal (Cry) toxins of the Cry1A group have beentransferred to and expressed in a number of crops inorder to confer resistance against lepidopteron insectpests (1,2,3). Bt transgenic cotton was cleared by theDepartment of Biotechnology, Government of India forcommercial cultivation for the year 2002, after longdebate and discussion. The primary target pest of thistechnology in India and several other countries is thecotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner),which causes economic losses up to about Rs. 250billion in India (3,4). Lately, the problems of pestmanagement in cotton and other crops have beencompounded by the development of resistance toinsecticides in H. armigera (5). Outbreaks of H.armigera in south Indian cotton and pigeonpeaecosystems usually lead to severe socio-economicaldisturbances, including several reports of suicide byfarmers. Introduction of insect resistant transgeniccrops, especially Bt transgenics, are expected to be ofimmense value in management and effective control oflepidopteran pests with a significant reduction in theoverall use of insecticides. However, long-termexposure to Bt transgenic crops is likely to renderlepidopteran pests resistant to the Cry toxins due tocontinuous selection pressure (6). Moreover, with theintroduction of transgenic plants, expressing a Crytoxin under the influence of constitutive promoters islikely to hasten this process. The development ofresistance to Bt toxins can be quite distinct, dependingupon the species, selection regime, or geographicalorigin of the founder colony (7). Hence, initial surveysto assess the susceptibility of test insects to the Crytoxins will establish a baseline that can be used inmonitoring resistance development in future. We reportthe resistance of H. armigera to Cry1Ac toxin in 11distinct geographic populations representing the entiresouth Indian cotton ecosystem.10
Spring 2003 Resistant Pest Management Newsletter Vol. 12, No.2The Cry1Ac protein was produced according tothe method in Albert et al. (8) from an E. coli straincontaining the hyper-expressivity recombinant plasmidvector pKK223, kindly provided by Daniel R. Zeigler,Ohio State University, USA. The toxin was purifiedfrom over expressing cells by sonication and extensivewashing with sodium bromide. Proteins werequantified according to Lowry et al. (9) and the toxinwas quantified by SDS-PAGE densitometry beforepreparing dilutions (ranging from 10 to 20000 fold) indistilled water (10). Forty percent of the proteinextracted the recombinant E. coli cultures were foundto comprise Cry1Ac toxin. LC50 values weredetermined for the toxin.Laboratory strains of H. armigera were establishedfrom those collected in cotton fields during thecropping season of 2001-02 from major cotton growingregions of the south Indian cotton ecosystem: Nagpurand Nanded (Maharastra); Guntur, Madhira, andNalgonda (Andhra Pradesh); Dharwad, Raichur, andMysore (Karnataka); Coimbatore, Madurai, andKovilpatti (Tamil Nadu). These 11 sampling locationsrepresent the cotton growing ecosystems of south India(Fig. 1). An insecticide susceptible H. armigeraobtained from ICRISAT, Patancheru, Hyderabad wasused as a baseline susceptible strain for comparison.Larvae were reared on a chickpea-based semi-syntheticdiet (11), individually in 32-well multicavity trays untilpupation. Moths were kept in glass jars at 270C ±10Cand 70% RH and fed with a 10% honey solution. Alayer of muslin cloth was placed on the inner surface ofthe jars for oviposition.Laboratory cultures were established for eachpopulation from 500-650 moths and reared to gethomogenous F1 populations before conductingbioassays. Bioassays were carried out in 32-wellmulticavity culture trays. Six-day-old juvenile larvae(ca: 30-40 mg) were tested, one per well, on cottonleaves dipped in different concentrations of the toxin.In all, 30 larvae in three replicates were tested for eachtreatment. Mortality was recorded daily for six days.All assays were repeated three times and pooled datawere subjected to statistical analysis. Assays wereperformed in the laboratory at conditions at 270C ±10C and 70% RH. Median lethal concentrations(LC50) presented in Table 1 were derived from logdose probit calculations (12) using the MLP 0.38statistical package (13).Cry1Ac protein was found to be toxic to allgeographic populations tested (Table 1). Theinsecticide susceptible ICRISAT laboratory strain wasthe most susceptible. Compared with the others,geographic populations from Nagpur, Nanded, Guntur,Nalgonda, Madhira, and Raichur were found tolerant tothe toxin. Mortality of different populations ispresented in Table 1. LC50 values for Cry1Ac rangedfrom 0.147 to 1.095 µg/ml. The fiducial limits (atP=0.95) of the probit assay data indicated that therewas a good deal of variability in response of differentpopulations to Cry1Ac. The Kovilpatti (Tamil Nadu;extreme southern most part of south Indian cottonecosystem) population was found to be as susceptibleas the laboratory strain for Cry1Ac. The Coimbatoreand Dharwad populations were similar to each other ata resistance factor (RF) of 1.5. Geographic populationsof Guntur and Nanded recorded the highest RF of 8.03and 8.42, respectively. The LC50 values of the testpopulations could be considered as the baselinesusceptibility LC50 values for these individualpopulations and could be used for monitoringresistance in the future.For resistance management programs to beeffective, monitoring, surveillance, and earlydetection of resistant phenotypes in the fieldpopulations are important pre-requisites in orderto initiate timely remedial measures and toevaluate the effectiveness of resistancemanagement strategies. Traditionally, log doseprobit assays and recently diagnostic dose assays,have been routinely used to monitor developmentof resistance to insecticides (3, 14, 15).Diagnostic or discriminatory dose assays arenormally employed to identify individuals in apopulation resistant to the toxin (16), whereas logdose probit assays are useful to assess the level ofresistance of a population as a ration over areference strain or a population, usually asusceptible check. Therefore, for monitoringresistance built up in a population, diagnosticdose assays and log dose probit assays are themost appropriate (10,16,17). The results of thepresent analysis, showing significant differencesin susceptibility to Cry1Ac toxin among11
Page 1: Resistant Pest Management Newslette
Page 4 and 5: Spring 2003 Resistant Pest Manageme
Page 35 and 36: Tetranychus urticae Koch. At 24 hrs
Page 61 and 62:
Spring 2003 Resistant Pest Manageme
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77:
Page 80 and 81:
In contrast to spinosad, indoxacarb
Page 82 and 83:
Resistance Management NewsInsect Mo
Page 84 and 85:
SymposiaCAST Pesticide Resistance M
Page 86 and 87:
show all

Vol.12_No.2 - Pesticide Alternatives Lab - Michigan State University

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?