01.02.2013 Views

Insect Control: Biological and Synthetic Agents - Index of

Insect Control: Biological and Synthetic Agents - Index of

Insect Control: Biological and Synthetic Agents - Index of

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

van Beek et al. found that there were no significant<br />

differences in the ET50 <strong>of</strong> the recombinant<br />

AcMNPVs expressing LqhIT2 under an early<br />

(hr5/ie1 or hr5/lef3)orearly/late(hr5/39K)genepromoter.<br />

Furthermore, regardless <strong>of</strong> the larval instar<br />

or dose applied, when the early hr5/ie1 promoter<br />

was used to drive the expression <strong>of</strong> LqhIT2 or AaIT,<br />

the ET50s <strong>of</strong> the recombinant AcMNPV expressing<br />

LqhIT2 were consistently lower (by 8–32 h) in comparison<br />

to those <strong>of</strong> the recombinant AcMNPV<br />

expressing AaIT. This was putatively due to differences<br />

in the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> the two toxins.<br />

As described above, Gershburg et al. (1998) have<br />

constructed recombinant AcMNPVs expressing the<br />

excitatory toxin LqhIT1 or depressant toxin LqhIT2<br />

under either the early p35 gene or very late p10<br />

gene promoters. They found that the recombinant<br />

AcMNPV expressing LqhIT1 under the p35 promoter<br />

had a slightly slower ET50 (73 versus 66 h)<br />

in comparison to the recombinant AcMNPV expressing<br />

LqhIT1 under the p10 promoter. However, they<br />

detected a clear paralytic effect when the p35 promoter<br />

was used to express LqhIT1 even when they<br />

were unable to detect the LqhIT1 by immunochemical<br />

analysis. Thus, they suggested that baculovirus<br />

expression <strong>of</strong> toxin in cells that are adjacent to the<br />

target sites <strong>of</strong> the motor neural tissues overcomes<br />

the pharmacokinetic barriers that the toxin may<br />

face when, for example, purified toxin is injected<br />

to the insect. Consistent with this hypothesis, Elazar<br />

et al. (2001) have shown that the concentration <strong>of</strong><br />

AaIT in the hemolymph <strong>of</strong> paralyzed B. mori larvae<br />

is approximately 50-fold lower when the paralyzing<br />

dose is delivered by a baculovirus (BmAaIT) rather<br />

than by the direct injection <strong>of</strong> purified AaIT. They<br />

hypothesized that baculovirus expression <strong>of</strong> AaIT<br />

provides a continuous, local supply <strong>of</strong> freshly produced<br />

toxin (via the tracheal system) to the neuronal<br />

receptors, thus providing access to critical target<br />

sites that are inaccessible to toxin that is injected.<br />

Therefore, a lower level <strong>of</strong> continuous expression<br />

under an early promoter may be sufficient to elicit<br />

a paralytic response.<br />

As discussed above, Tomalski <strong>and</strong> Miller (1992)<br />

have constructed an occlusion-negative recombinant<br />

AcMNPV (vETL-Tox34) that expresses the<br />

tox34 gene under the baculoviral early PETL promoter.<br />

In early fifth instar larvae <strong>of</strong> T. ni, this virus<br />

induced much slower paralysis (occurring after 48 h<br />

in 95% <strong>of</strong> larvae) in comparison to control larvae<br />

infected with recombinant AcMNPVs (vEV-Tox34,<br />

vCappolh-Tox34, or vSp-Tox34) expressing tox34<br />

under a very late or chimeric promoter (all larvae<br />

were paralyzed or dead by 48 h). Additionally, the<br />

average cumulative weight gain <strong>of</strong> vETL-Tox34<br />

10: Genetically Modified Baculoviruses for Pest <strong>Insect</strong> <strong>Control</strong> 349<br />

infected larvae at 24 h post injection was not significantly<br />

different to that <strong>of</strong> control larvae injected<br />

with AcMNPV or cell culture medium (mock infection).<br />

Lu et al. (1996) have also constructed a<br />

recombinant AcMNPV (vDA26tox34) expressing<br />

the tox34 gene under the early Da26 gene promoter.<br />

In comparison to vp6.9tox34 (tox34 under a late<br />

promoter) or vSp-tox34 (tox34 under a very late<br />

promoter) infected Sf-21 or TN-368 cells (derived<br />

from S. frugiperda <strong>and</strong> T. ni, respectively), TxP-I<br />

expression was detected at least 24 h earlier (but at<br />

dramatically lower levels) in Sf-21 <strong>and</strong> TN-368 cells<br />

infected with vDA26tox34. In time-mortality bioassays<br />

(at an LC95 dose), the ET 50 <strong>of</strong> vDA26tox34<br />

in neonate larvae <strong>of</strong> S. frugiperda <strong>and</strong> T. ni was<br />

reduced by approximately 39% (61.8 versus 101.3 h)<br />

<strong>and</strong> 28% (71.2 versus 99.0 h), respectively, in<br />

comparison to wild-type AcMNPV. However, this<br />

was 17.1 <strong>and</strong> 29.5 h slower, respectively, in comparison<br />

to neonate larvae <strong>of</strong> S. frugiperda <strong>and</strong> T. ni that<br />

were infected with vp6.9tox34 (ET 50s <strong>of</strong> 44.7 <strong>and</strong><br />

41.7 h, respectively). Even though the TxP-I is<br />

expressed significantly earlier under the early promoter,<br />

it is apparently not expressed in sufficient<br />

quantity, at least initially, to paralyze larvae <strong>of</strong><br />

S. frugiperda or T. ni. Popham et al. (1997) have<br />

also expressed the tox34 gene under the early<br />

DA26 <strong>and</strong> late p6.9 promoters (<strong>of</strong> AcMNPV) by<br />

recombinant HzSNPVs (HzEGTDA26tox34 <strong>and</strong><br />

HzEGTp6.9tox34, respectively). They found that<br />

the ET50s <strong>of</strong> HzEGTDA26tox34 <strong>and</strong> HzEGTp6.<br />

9tox34 in neonate larvae <strong>of</strong> H. zea were reduced<br />

by approximately 47% (35.4 versus 67.3 h) <strong>and</strong><br />

44% (38.0 versus 67.3 h), respectively, in comparison<br />

to a control virus. In contrast to the results<br />

<strong>of</strong> Lu et al. (1996), the early promoter was more<br />

effective in the case <strong>of</strong> HzSNPV <strong>and</strong> neonate H. zea<br />

suggesting that the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> a promoter will<br />

be virus <strong>and</strong> insect specific. With toxins <strong>of</strong> current<br />

potency, the use <strong>of</strong> early (<strong>and</strong> weak) promoters such<br />

as ie1, lef3, p35, etl, orDA26 may or may not<br />

provide any benefit in terms <strong>of</strong> improved crop protection.<br />

However, if toxins that act at lower concentration<br />

(i.e., with much greater potency) are<br />

identified, the use <strong>of</strong> early promoters may <strong>of</strong>fer a<br />

great advantage.<br />

Tomalski <strong>and</strong> Miller (1992) have used a chimeric<br />

promoter (Pcap/polh) comprised <strong>of</strong> both the late capsid<br />

<strong>and</strong> very late polyhedrin promoter elements to<br />

drive the expression <strong>of</strong> the tox34 gene in an occlusion-negative<br />

recombinant AcMNPV (vCappolh-<br />

Tox34). In Sf-21 cell cultures infected with<br />

vCappolh-Tox34, TxP-I is detected in the culture<br />

medium at 12 h p.i. at levels that are similar to<br />

those found in vEV-Tox34 (tox34 under a very late

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!