Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-6grmk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T09:01:56.978Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Introgression of a disrupted cadherin gene enables susceptible Helicoverpa armigera to obtain resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis toxin Cry1Ac

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 October 2008

Y.-H. Yang
Affiliation:
Key Lab of Monitoring and Management of Plant Diseases and Insects, Ministry of Agriculture, College of Plant Protection, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China
Y.-J. Yang
Affiliation:
Key Lab of Monitoring and Management of Plant Diseases and Insects, Ministry of Agriculture, College of Plant Protection, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China
W.-Y. Gao
Affiliation:
Key Lab of Monitoring and Management of Plant Diseases and Insects, Ministry of Agriculture, College of Plant Protection, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China
J.-J. Guo
Affiliation:
Key Lab of Monitoring and Management of Plant Diseases and Insects, Ministry of Agriculture, College of Plant Protection, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China
Y.-H. Wu
Affiliation:
Key Lab of Monitoring and Management of Plant Diseases and Insects, Ministry of Agriculture, College of Plant Protection, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China
Y.-D. Wu*
Affiliation:
Key Lab of Monitoring and Management of Plant Diseases and Insects, Ministry of Agriculture, College of Plant Protection, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China
*
*Author for correspondence Fax: +86 25 8439 6062 E-mail: wyd@njau.edu.cn
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A disrupted allele (r1) of a cadherin gene (Ha_BtR) is genetically associated with incompletely recessive resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis toxin Cry1Ac in a Cry1Ac-selected strain (GYBT) of Helicoverpa armigera. The r1 allele of Ha_BtR was introgressed into a susceptible SCD strain by crossing the GYBT strain to the SCD strain, followed by repeated backcrossing to the SCD strain and molecular marker assisted family selection. The introgressed strain (designated as SCD-r1, carrying homozygous r1 allele) obtained 438-fold resistance to Cry1Ac, >41-fold resistance to Cry1Aa and 31-fold resistance Cry1Ab compared with the SCD strain; however, there was no significant difference in susceptibility to Cry2Aa between the integrated and parent strains. It confirms that the loss of function mutation of Ha_BtR alone can confer medium to high levels of resistance to the three Cry1A toxins in H. armigera. Reciprocal crosses between the SCD and SCD-r1 strains showed that resistance to Cry1Ac in the SCD-r1 strain was completely recessive. Life tables of the SCD and SCD-r1 strains on artificial diet in the laboratory were constructed, and results showed that the net replacement rate (R0) did not differ between the strains. The toxicity of two chemical insecticides, fenvalerate and monocrotophos, against the SCD-r1 strain was not significantly different from that to the SCD strain. However, larval development time of the SCD-r1 strain was significantly longer than that of the SCD strain, indicating a fitness cost of slower larval growth is associated with Ha_BtR disruption in H. armigera.

Information

Type
Research Paper
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Schematic program for introgression of a disrupted cadherin gene from the GKBT strain into the SCD strain of H. armigera.

Figure 1

Table 1. Molecular detection of the r1 allele of Ha_BtR gene of H. armigera.

Figure 2

Table 2. Toxicity of activated Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac and Cry2Aa against the SCD and SCD-r1 strains of H. armigera.

Figure 3

Table 3. Toxicity of fenvalerate and monocrotophos against the SCD and SCD-r1 strains of H. armigera.

Figure 4

Table 4. Toxicity of Cry1Ac against the susceptible SCD strain, resistant SCD-r1 strain and their F1 progeny of H. armigera.

Figure 5

Table 5. Life table and relative fitness of the SCD and SCD-r1strains of H. armigera reared on artificial diet.

Figure 6

Table 6. Developmental time (day) of larvae and pupae of the SCD and SCD-r1 strains of H. armigera.