| Literature DB >> 26473961 |
Daniel Bernardi1, Eloisa Salmeron1, Renato Jun Horikoshi1, Oderlei Bernardi1, Patrick Marques Dourado2, Renato Assis Carvalho2, Samuel Martinelli3, Graham P Head3, Celso Omoto1.
Abstract
Genetically modified plants expressing insecticidal proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) offer valuable options for managing insect pests with considerable environmental and economic benefits. Despite the benefits provided by Bt crops, the continuous expression of these insecticidal proteins imposes strong selection for resistance in target pest populations. Bt maize (Zea mays) hybrids have been successful in controlling fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda), the main maize pest in Brazil since 2008; however, field-evolved resistance to the protein Cry1F has recently been reported. Therefore it is important to assess the possibility of cross-resistance between Cry1F and other Cry proteins expressed in Bt maize hybrids. In this study, an F2 screen followed by subsequent selection on MON 89034 maize was used to select an S. frugiperda strain (RR) able to survive on the Bt maize event MON 89034, which expresses the Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 proteins. Field-collected insects from maize expressing the Cry1F protein (event TC1507) represented most of the positive (resistance allele-containing) (iso)families found. The RR strain showed high levels of resistance to Cry1F, which apparently also conferred high levels of cross resistance to Cry1A.105 and Cry1Ab, but had only low-level (10-fold) resistance to Cry2Ab2. Life history studies to investigate fitness costs associated with the resistance in RR strain revealed only small reductions in reproductive rate when compared to susceptible and heterozygous strains, but the RR strain produced 32.2% and 28.4% fewer females from each female relative to the SS and RS (pooled) strains, respectively. Consistent with the lack of significant resistance to Cry2Ab2, MON 89034 maize in combination with appropriate management practices continues to provide effective control of S. frugiperda in Brazil. Nevertheless, the occurrence of Cry1F resistance in S. frugiperda across Brazil, and the cross-resistance to Cry1Ab and Cry1A.105, indicates that current Cry1-based maize hybrids face a challenge in managing S. frugiperda in Brazil and highlights the importance of effective insect resistance management for these technologies.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26473961 PMCID: PMC4608726 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140130
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Number of two-parent families tested and positive lines of S. frugiperda (those with any offspring that survived on MON 89034 maize) identified using F2 screen method.
| Insect population | County/State | Year | Host source | F2 lines tested | Positive F2 lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BA27 | São Desidério, BA | 2012 | Cry1F maize | 99 | 41 |
| BA31 | Luís Eduardo Magalhães, BA | 2012 | non-Bt maize | 56 | 17 |
| GO22 | Montividiu, GO | 2012 | non-Bt maize | 74 | 7 |
| GO23 | Caiapônia, GO | 2012 | non-Bt maize | 56 | 1 |
| MT19 | Sinop, MT | 2012 | non-Bt maize | 26 | 0 |
| MT20 | Campo Novo do Parecis, MT | 2012 | non-Bt maize | 34 | 0 |
| MS11 | São Gabriel do Oeste, MS | 2012 | non-Bt maize | 51 | 4 |
| MS12 | Chapadão do Sul, MS | 2012 | non-Bt maize | 21 | 1 |
| MS13 | Dourados, MS | 2012 | non-Bt maize | 27 | 0 |
| PR34 | Sabáudia, PR | 2012 | non-Bt maize | 69 | 4 |
| PR38 | Campo Mourão, PR | 2012 | non-Bt maize | 39 | 0 |
| Total | - | 552 | 75 |
Survival of S. frugiperda larvae per plant (mean ± SE) on MON 89034 maize and non-Bt near-isoline in greenhouse trials.
| FAW strain | Host | Surviving larvae |
|---|---|---|
| RR | MON 89034 | 0.75 ± 0.04 a |
| Non-Bt maize | 0.80 ± 0.04 a | |
| S♂R♀ | MON 89034 | 0.00 ± 0.00 b |
| Non-Bt maize | 0.80 ± 0.04 a | |
| S♀R♂ | MON 89034 | 0.00 ± 0.00 b |
| Non-Bt maize | 0.85 ± 0.04 a | |
| SS | MON 89034 | 0.00 ± 0.00 b |
| Non-Bt maize | 0.75 ± 0.04 a |
a Values followed by the same letter are not significantly different (LSD t-test. P > 0.05).
Concentration-response and growth inhibition response (MIC50 and EC50; ng/cm2) of S. frugiperda in diet-overlay bioassays with purified Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 proteins.
| FAW strain |
| Slope ± SE | MIC50 (95% IC) | χ2(df) | Resistance Ratio | EC50 (95% CI) | Resistance Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||
| RR | 384 | - | > 16,000 | - | > 3368 | 138.40 (102.21–191.02) | 206.56 |
| S♂R♀ | 502 | 1.14 ± 0.11 | 25.05 (18.80–32.06) | 5.08 (6) | 5.27 | 8.80 (5.96–12.80) | 13.13 |
| S♀R♂ | 445 | 1.42 ± 0.12 | 32.62 (23.98–47.67) | 6.14 (6) | 6.86 | 18.37 (15.87–29.38) | 27.41 |
| SR Pooled | 947 | 1.16 ± 0.04 | 28.97 (20.53–39.90) | 8.53 (6) | 5.99 | 13.18 (12.39–13.97) | 19.7 |
| SS | 448 | 1.20 ± 0.19 | 4.75 (2.67–7.04) | 8.63 (4) | - | 0.67 (0.53–0.84) | - |
|
| |||||||
| RR | 540 | 0.96 ± 0.09 | 146.96 (83.37–330.35) | 16.83 (5) | 10.44 | 19.05 (10.77–35.56) | 10.82 |
| S♂R♀ | 448 | 1.51 ± 0.12 | 48.35 (26.17–90.48) | 18.07 (7) | 3.43 | 16.01 (12.72–24.36) | 9.09 |
| S♀R♂ | 512 | 1.07 ± 0.12 | 45.63 (28.48–76.28) | 17.24 (7) | 3.24 | 13.51 (8.68–20.53) | 7.67 |
| SR Pooled | 960 | 1.40 ± 0.10 | 45.36 (25.81–76.61) | 8.53 (6) | 3.10 | 13.52 (11.53–15.51) | 7.68 |
| SS | 576 | 1.27 ± 0.09 | 14.06 (11.64–16.96) | 7.63 (7) | - | 1.76 (1.23–2.49) | - |
a MIC50: Concentration that inhibits molting to second instar in 50% of individuals after 7 days.
b P > 0.05 in the goodness-of-fit test.
c Resistance Ratio = (MIC50 or EC50 of indicated strain)/(MIC50 or EC50 of SS strain).
d EC50: Effective concentration of protein required to cause 50% growth inhibition at 7 days.
Fig 1Concentration-response of S. frugiperda in diet-overlay bioassays with purified Cry1A.105 (A and B) and Cry2Ab2 (C and D) proteins.
Each data point represents the mean of four replicates, corrected for control mortality. Error bars represent SD.
Estimates of effective dominance, D GIL (after [40]), for the Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 resistance traits in the RR S. frugiperda strain compared with the laboratory-reared SS strain, based on growth inhibition at 508.7 and 1589.8 ng of Cry1A.105 or Cry2Ab2/cm2 of diet, respectively.
| Strain | SS (%) | RR (%) | SR Pooled (%) | Dominance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cry1A.105 protein | ||||
| Mean growth inhibition (SD) | 94.1 (0.7) | 10.3 (4.7) | 83.6 (0.3) |
|
| Cry2Ab2 protein | ||||
| Mean growth inhibition (SD) | 93.1 (1.7) | 73.3 (2.2) | 93.7 (2.0) |
|
Survival of S. frugiperda on leaf discs of different Bt and non-Bt maize plants.
| Entry | Survival (%) | Larval stage of survivors | Weight (mg) | WR (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L1 | L2 | L3 | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Cry1A-P | 80.0 ± 8.6 b | 90.6 ± 5.8 | 9.4 ± 5.8 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 1.9 ± 0.3 | 75.7 |
| Cry2A-P | 1.6 ± 1.6 c | 100.0 ± 0.0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | n.a | n.a |
| TC 1507 (Cry1F) | 98.4 ± 1.6 a | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 7.0 ± 3.4 | 93.0 ± 3.4 | 8.0 ± 1.2 | 0.0 |
| MON 810 (Cry1Ab) | 98.4 ± 1.6 a | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 100.0 ± 0.0 | 8.8 ± 0.4 | 0.0 |
| Non-Bt maize | 100.0 ± 0.0 a | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 1.7 ± 1.7 | 98.3 ± 1.7 | 7.6 ± 2.6 | n.a |
|
| ||||||
| Cry1A-P | 0.0 ± 0.0 c | n.a | n.a | n.a | n.a | n.a |
| Cry2A-P | 0.0 ± 0.0 c | n.a | n.a | n.a | n.a | n.a |
| TC 1507 (Cry1F) | 0.0 ± 0.0 c | n.a | n.a | n.a | n.a | n.a |
| MON 810 (Cry1Ab) | 61.6 ± 4.3 b | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 13.8 ± 4.6 | 86.2 ± 4.6 | 4.3 ± 0.4 | 40.5 |
| Non-Bt maize | 90.0 ± 4.9 a | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 8.4 ± 5.2 | 91.6 ± 5.2 | 7.2 ± 0.5 | n.a |
Values represent means ± SE. A separate ANOVA (Tukey’s test, P≤0.05) was conducted for treatments within each column (means followed by the same letter in column are not significantly different).
a Mean weight of survivors.
b Weight reduction compared to control (non-Bt).
n.a. Not applicable
Fig 2Comparison of fitness components of life stages of S. frugiperda strains reared on non-Bt corn.
Within each development stage, bars with the same letter are not significantly different (LSD t-test; P > 0.05).
Fig 3Comparison of fitness cost components of females of S. frugiperda strains reared on non-Bt corn.
Bars with the same letter are not significantly different (LSD t-test; P > 0.05).
Fertility life table parameters of S. frugiperda strains fed on non-Bt maize.
| FAW strain | Fertility life table parameter | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T (days) | Ro (♀/♀) | rm (♀/♀/day) | λ | |
| RR | 35.7 ± 0.2 a | 503.4 ± 27.7 b | 0.17 ± 0.001 b | 1.19 ± 0.002 b |
| SR Pooled | 36.6 ± 0.1 a | 697.5 ± 34.8 a | 0.18 ± 0.001 a | 1.20 ± 0.001 a |
| SS | 35.5 ± 0.4 a | 736.7 ± 55.6 a | 0.18 ± 0.002 a | 1.20 ± 0.003 a |
Values within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different for two-tailed t-tests for pairwise group comparisons (P > 0.05).
a T = mean generation time; Ro = net reproductive rate; rm = intrinsic rate of increase and λ = finite rate of increase.
Fig 4Distribution of populations of Spodoptera frugiperda used in F2 screen.
Geographic coordinates, total number of caterpillars sampled and date of sampling of field populations sampled for F2 screen.
| Insect population | County/State | Farm | Latitude | Longitude |
| Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BA27 | São Desidério, BA | Grupo Mizote | 13°00′78″S | 46°09′83″W | 480 | Jan. 2012 |
| BA31 | Luís Eduardo Magalhães, BA | Circulo Verde | 11°50′16″S | 46°17′21″W | 500 | June 2012 |
| GO22 | Montividiu, GO | Ouro Verde | 17°15′35″S | 51°14′50″W | 550 | March 2012 |
| GO23 | Caiapônia, GO | Mata Alta | 17°13′02″S | 51°38′38″W | 524 | May 2012 |
| MT19 | Sinop, MT | _ | 11°51′32″S | 55°35′30″W | 568 | April 2012 |
| MT20 | Campo Novo do Parecis, MT | Chapeco | 13°24′47″S | 57°57′51″W | 570 | April 2012 |
| MS11 | São Gabriel do Oeste, MS | _ | 19°23′37″S | 54°33′49″W | 486 | March 2012 |
| MS12 | Chapadão do Sul, MS | Romulo Ideal | 18°46′44″S | 52°36′59″W | 150 | April 2012 |
| MS13 | Dourados, MS | Boa Vista | 22°01′13″S | 54°32′03″W | 228 | May 2012 |
| PR34 | Sabáudia, PR | Campo Bandeira | 23°18′43″S | 51°29′43″W | 228 | May 2012 |
| PR38 | Campo Mourão, PR | Grupo Integral | 24°06′16″S | 52°26′25″W | 601 | May 2012 |