| Literature DB >> 27055120 |
Young-Joong Kim1,2, Joon-Ho Lee2,3, Chee Hark Harn4, Chang-Gi Kim1.
Abstract
Both herbivores that consume transgenic crops and their predators can be exposed to insecticidal proteins expressed in those crops. We conducted a tritrophic bioassay to evaluate the ecotoxicological impacts that Bt cabbage (Brassica oleracea var. capitata) expressing Cry1Ac1 protein might have on the wolf spider (Pardosa astrigera), a non-target generalist predator. Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assays indicated that protein levels were 4.61 ng g(-1) dry weight in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) fed with the transgenic cabbage and 1.86 ng g(-1) dry weight in the wolf spiders that preyed upon them. We also compared the life history traits of spiders collected from Bt versus non-Bt cabbage and found no significant differences in their growth, survival, and developmental rates. Because Bt cabbage did not affect the growth of fruit flies, we conclude that any indirect effects that this crop had on the wolf spider were probably not mediated by prey quality. Therefore, exposure to Cry1Ac1 protein when feeding upon prey containing that substance from transgenic cabbage has only a negligible influence on those non-target predatory spiders.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27055120 PMCID: PMC4824485 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153395
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Overall survival of P. xylostella that had preyed upon drosophila media containing Bt cabbage powder.
The drosophila medium was stored for 1 (black solid line), 7 (blue dotted line), or 14 (red dashed line) days at room temperature, and was used to verify its insecticidal activity. Data were derived from Kaplan-Meier curves (n = 10).
Body size of D. melanogaster when exposed to media containing either non-Bt cabbage or Bt cabbage powder.
| Factor | Non- | Degrees of freedom | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thorax length, male (mm) ( | 0.7±0.01 | 0.7±0.01 | 1.400 | 58 | 0.167 |
| Thorax length, female (mm) ( | 0.9±0.01 | 0.9±0.01 | 0.872 | 58 | 0.387 |
| Wing length, male (mm) ( | 2.0±0.02 | 2.1±0.02 | -1.831 | 58 | 0.072 |
| Wing length, female (mm) ( | 2.4±0.02 | 2.5±0.03 | -0.615 | 58 | 0.541 |
| Body weight, male (mg) ( | 4.1±0.07 | 4.1±0.05 | 0.688 | 18 | 0.500 |
| Body weight, female (mg) ( | 6.2±0.1 | 6.1±0.06 | 1.044 | 18 | 0.310 |
Data are means±standard errors.
aP-values are from Student’s t-tests.
Fig 2Cry1Ac1 concentrations (ng g-1 dry weight) in experimental samples.
(A) Bt cabbage (n = 3) or drosophila media containing Bt cabbage (n = 4) and (B) D. melanogaster feeding on Bt cabbage (n = 4) or P. astrigera that had preyed upon Bt cabbage-fed D. melanogaster (n = 4). Data are means ± standard errors.
Fig 3Overall survival of the wolf spider, P. astrigera that had preyed upon D. melanogaster fed with Bt or non-Bt cabbage.
Data were derived from Kaplan-Meier curves (n = 30).
Time (days) spent in each stage of development for P. astrigera from 3rd instar to adult emergence when exposed to either non-Bt cabbage-fed or Bt cabbage-fed D. melanogaster.
| Developmental stage | Non- | Degrees of freedom | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3rd instar | 6.2±0.3 | 6.8±0.3 | –1.438 | 57 | 0.156 |
| 4th instar | 11.5±0.6 | 10.7±0.4 | 0.831 | 57 | 0.409 |
| 5th instar | 11.9±0.4 | 12.1±0.5 | –0.309 | 57 | 0.758 |
| 6th instar | 16.3±0.7 | 15.0±0.7 | 1.219 | 55 | 0.228 |
| 7th instar | 18.5±1.1 | 16.8±0.6 | 1.199 | 15 | 0.248 |
| 3rd instar to adult | 52.1±1.0 | 50.1±1.2 | 1.589 | 54 | 0.118 |
Data are means±standard errors.
aP-values are from Student’s t-tests.
Comparisons of body sizes for P. astrigera exposed to non-Bt cabbage-fed versus Bt cabbage-fed D. melanogaster.
| Factor | Non- | Degrees of freedom | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fresh weight (mg) | 23.8±0.6 | 24.5±0.8 | –0.677 | 52 | 0.501 |
| Carapace width (mm) | 2.2±0.02 | 2.2±0.03 | 1.136 | 52 | 0.207 |
| Carapace length (mm) | 2.9±0.03 | 2.8±0.1 | 0.874 | 52 | 0.356 |
| CI | 77.0±0.5 | 77.7±1.4 | 0.218 | 52 | 0.634 |
| Tibia length (mm) | 2.4±0.04 | 2.3±0.1 | 0.696 | 52 | 0.490 |
Data are means±standard errors.
aCI, carapace index was calculated as CI = CW/CL × 100
bP-values are from Student’s t-tests.