Previous Article | Next Article 
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, November 2001, p. 5043-5048, Vol. 67, No. 11
0099-2240/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/AEM.67.11.5043-5048.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
High Genetic Variability for Resistance to
Bacillus thuringiensis Toxins in a Single
Population of Diamondback Moth
Joel
González-Cabrera,
Salvador
Herrero, and
Juan
Ferré*
Department of Genetics, Universitat de
València, 46100-Burjassot (Valencia), Spain
Received 14 May 2001/Accepted 11 August 2001
 |
ABSTRACT |
The long-term benefit of insecticidal products based on Cry toxins,
either in sprays or as transgenic crops, is threatened by the
development of resistance by target pests. The models used to predict
evolution of resistance to Cry toxins most often are monogenic models
in which two alleles are used. Moreover, the high-dose/refuge strategy
recommended for implementation with transgenic crops relies on the
assumption that the resistance allele is recessive. Using selection
experiments, we demonstrated the occurrence in a laboratory colony of
diamondback moth of two different genes (either allelic or nonallelic)
that confer resistance to Cry1Ab. At the concentration tested,
resistance was dominant in one selection line and partially recessive
in the other. Resistant insects from the two selection lines also
differed in their cross-resistance patterns. The diamondback moth
colony was derived from a field population from the Philippines, which
originally showed a different resistance phenotype. This is the first
time that an insect population has been directly shown to carry more
than one gene conferring resistance to the same Cry toxin.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
Resistance to insecticides is a key
issue in agriculture and in public health (with respect to control of
insect-transmitted diseases) because of the capacity of insects to
develop resistance to any pesticide to which they are exposed. More
than 500 species of insects and mites have been reported to have
developed resistance to one or more pesticides (12), and
cases of resistance to pesticides, including biological insecticides
such as those based on the bacterium Bacillus
thuringiensis, continue to appear (11,
29).
At the onset of the sporulation phase, B. thuringiensis produces proteinaceous crystalline
parasporal bodies (1). Some proteins in the crystals are
active against insects, and for this reason they are generically called
insecticidal crystal proteins,
-endotoxins, Cry proteins, or Cry
toxins. There are many formulations based on a mixture of spores and
crystals from different B. thuringiensis strains. These formulations have been used for many years as
alternatives to chemical insecticides when resistance to other
insecticides is severe, when natural enemies need to be preserved, when
application just before harvest is necessary, or when organic farming
methods are used. Since 1987 some B. thuringiensis genes coding for Cry proteins have been
transferred to the genomes of plants, which have become resistant to
insects (for reviews see references 16 and
19). Despite the high number of plant species transformed to date with B. thuringiensis genes, only two
transformed crops (corn and cotton) are planted widely in the United
States and, on a smaller scale, in other parts of the world. In 2000, a
total of 11.5 million hectares was dedicated to these crops (including plants with both B. thuringiensis and herbicide
tolerance); this represents 26% of total transgenic area
(15).
Sooner or later, extensive use of B. thuringiensis-based insecticide sprays and
particularly the high selection pressure exerted by B. thuringiensis cultivars will lead to insect
populations that develop resistance to Cry toxins. In fact, there are a
number of insect species that have already developed resistance to
single Cry toxins or mixtures of toxins in laboratory selection
experiments (11, 29). So far, the diamondback moth,
Plutella xylostella, is the only pest that has developed
resistance to B. thuringiensis in the field.
Genetic and biochemical studies with resistant insects belonging to
different species have allowed workers to draw the following general
conclusions concerning B. thuringiensis
resistance: (i) in all cases this resistance is autosomally inherited;
(ii) in most cases resistance is due to a recessive allele; and (iii) high levels of resistance and cross-resistance are generally related to
a lack of toxin binding to midgut receptors. Resistance due to dominant
(14, 22, 28) alleles and high levels of resistance not
explained by receptor binding alteration (31) have been reported in a few cases.
A strategy that has been widely recommended to delay resistance to
B. thuringiensis in insect populations in the
field is to combine the high-dose strategy (expression by plants of a
level of toxin sufficient to kill all heterozygous insects) with the use of refuges (plots containing non-B.
thuringiensis-treated plants) (21;
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides). However, for this
strategy to be effective, resistance has to be recessive, random mating
must occur between susceptible and resistant individuals, and the
frequency of resistance alleles must be low (23). Models used to predict evolution of resistance to a given Cry toxin most often
assume that resistance is due to one gene with two alleles, one
susceptible allele and one resistant allele. A few studies have
suggested that more than one gene conferring resistance to a given Cry
toxin is present in the same population (13, 24, 27, 28),
but direct evidence of this is not yet available.
In this study we used the PHI colony, which was derived from insects
that were collected in the Philippines from B. thuringiensis-treated fields and originally showed
high levels of resistance to Cry1Ab (3, 4). After
selection in the laboratory, this colony was shown to have independent
genetic control of Cry1Aa and Cry1Ab resistance (28). By
selecting two sample lines of the PHI colony with different selective
agents and with different larval instars, we obtained evidence that
there are two different genes (either allelic or nonallelic) that
confer resistance to Cry1Ab (we use the term gene in this paper to
indicate genetic variants, regardless of whether they occur at the same
locus or at different loci). Resistant insects obtained from the two
selection lines differed in their patterns of cross-resistance and in
their inheritance of resistance. Along with the findings of previous
studies showing that the PHI colony contains other genes for resistance
to Cry1A toxins, our findings indicate the high degree of variability
in B. thuringiensis resistance genes that can be
present in field populations.
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
Insects.
The PHI colony was derived from 130 pupae collected
in the Philippines in 1993 (4). During the 7 years that
this colony has been maintained in the laboratory, insects were
subjected to selection with Cry1Ab and then with MYX 03604, a product
containing chimeric Cry1Ab-Cry1Ac protoxin (domain I and almost all
domain II from Cry1Ac plus a small part of domain II, domain III, and the C-terminal half of the protein from Cry1Ab) expressed in
recombinant Pseudomonas fluorescens (Mycogen Corporation,
San Diego, Calif.) (3). After selection was discontinued,
the resistance values reverted to values close to those of the control
strain. The LAB-V strain, which originated from The Netherlands, was
used as the susceptible control and had never been exposed to B. thuringiensis (10). All insects were
reared on fresh cabbage leaves at 25°C with 60% relative humidity
and a photoperiod consisting of 16 h of light and 8 h of darkness.
Cry toxins.
Cry1Aa, Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac, Cry1F, and Cry1J were
obtained from recombinant B. thuringiensis
strains EG1273, EG7077, EG11070, EG11069, and EG7279, respectively
(Ecogen Inc.). Bacteria were grown for 48 h in CCY medium
(25) supplemented with the appropriate antibiotic. Spores
and crystals were collected by centrifugation at 9,700 × g for 10 min at 4°C. Each pellet was washed four times with a 1 M NaCl-10 mM EDTA solution, and then it was thoroughly suspended in 10 mM KCl. Purification and activation of toxins were
carried out by alkaline solubilization and trypsin activation as
previously described (24).
Toxins used for labeling and binding experiments were
chromatographically purified by using a MonoQ HR 5/5 anion-exchange column (fast protein liquid chromatography system; Pharmacia, Uppsala,
Sweden) (24).
Protein concentrations in solutions of activated toxins were determined
by the method of Bradford (
8). The concentrations
of
spore-crystal suspensions were expressed in units of optical
density at
600 nm (OD
600 units).
Bioassays.
Mortality was scored after 48 h. Groups of
10 third-instar larvae were placed on cabbage leaf discs that
previously had been dipped in a test solution containing the surfactant
0.2% Triton AG-98. Dilutions of toxins were prepared with 50 mM
carbonate buffer (pH 10.5). Dilutions of spore-crystal mixtures were
prepared with distilled water. Control leaves were dipped in distilled water containing 0.2% Triton AG-98. Five dilutions of toxins were used
to estimate the concentrations that killed 50% of the larvae tested
(LC50) with the Polo-PC program
(17). The LC50s reported below are
means based on two independent experiments. Single-point mortality
tests with Cry1F and Cry1J were performed with 50 larvae for each
concentration of toxin. These tests were performed twice.
Selection.
Selection experiments were performed with two
samples of the PHI colony. For the first sample, approximately 1,000 eggs were transferred to cabbage leaves that previously had been dipped in a mixture of spores and crystals of Cry1Aa (0.074 OD600 unit). Two days after hatching, additional
treated leaves were added, and larvae were allowed to feed for two more
days. Then, fresh untreated leaves were added until pupation. The
emerged adults were pooled to produce progeny for the next generation.
The selection process was continued until generation 13, although
selective pressure was applied only in 10 generations (selective
pressure was not applied in generations 8, 9, and 12). The resulting
selection line was called Sel-A.
The other sample was selected with activated Cry1Ab. Close to 300 third-instar larvae were placed on leaf discs that previously
had been
dipped in a solution containing 50 mg of Cry1Ab per liter.
After 2 days, the survivors were transferred to fresh untreated
leaves until
pupation. The emerged adults were pooled to produce
progeny for the
next generation. Selection was applied for three
generations, and the
resulting selection line was called Sel-B.
Evaluation of dominance.
Bioassays to determine the type of
inheritance were carried out with a solution containing 50 mg of Cry1Ab
per liter by crossing resistant individuals (Sel-A or Sel-B) with
susceptible LAB-V individuals. For single-pair crosses, one virgin male
was caged together with one virgin female for mating and egg
production. The sexes of the parents were selected randomly. Only
single pairs that produced enough progeny were used in Cry1Ab
bioassays. Before genetic analysis, Sel-A individuals went through one
generation without selection, and then they were treated with a
solution containing 50 mg of Cry1Ab per liter to eliminate individuals susceptible to this concentration of toxin.
Effective dominance (
DML) was
calculated from mortality values at a single concentration
(
6), as follows:
DML = (
MLRS
MLSS)/(
MLRR
MLSS), where
MLRR,
MLRS, and
MLSS are the mortality
values at a
particular toxin concentration for the resistant line,
the
F
1 progeny, and the susceptible strain, respectively. The
DML values range from 0 (completely
recessive resistance) to 1
(completely dominant
resistance).
Binding assays.
Binding assays were performed with brush
border membrane vesicles (BBMV) prepared from whole fourth-instar
Sel-A, Sel-B, and LAB-V larvae (9). Total protein
concentrations of BBMV preparations were determined by the method of
Bradford (8). Activated Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac toxins were
labeled with 125I by the chloramine-T method
(30). Binding experiments were conducted as described
previously (31), except that BBMV were incubated with
labeled toxin for 30 min. At the highest concentration of BBMV used,
the levels of total binding of 125I-labeled
Cry1Ab were 9.5% for LAB-V, 1.9% for Sel-A, and 1.7% for Sel-B, and
the levels of total binding of 125I-labeled
Cry1Ac were 35% for LAB-V and 2.4% for Sel-B.
 |
RESULTS |
Response to selection and cross-resistance.
Two samples of the
PHI colony were selected with different B. thuringiensis products. Selection line Sel-A was
derived from a PHI sample selected with a mixture of spores and
crystals containing only Cry1Aa protoxin. Before selection, the
LC50 for the spore-crystal mixture was 0.074 OD600 unit (95% fiducial limits
[FL95], 0.006 to 0.176 OD600 unit) (Table
1). After 10 generations of selection, Sel-A did not show any significant response to the selective agent (LC50, 0.23 OD600 unit;
FL95, 0.08 to 0.50 OD600
unit). The other selection line, Sel-B, was derived from a second PHI
sample and was selected with solubilized and trypsin-activated Cry1Ab
toxin. In this case, we observed a strong response to the selective
agent. The LC50 of Cry1Ab changed from 2.08 mg/liter (FL95, 1.44 to 3.20 mg/liter) to 143 mg/liter (FL95, 119 to 186 mg/liter) in just three generations of selection (Table 1).
Despite the differences in the responses to the selective agents
described above, both selection lines showed very similar
patterns of
cross-resistance to the Cry1A toxins (Table
1). In
both cases there was
a significant increase in resistance to Cry1Ab
and Cry1Ac and no
increase in resistance to Cry1Aa in either form
(solubilized
activated toxin or crystallized protoxin with spores).
However, it is
important to note that the responses to Cry1Ab
were significantly
different in the two selection
lines.
Bioassays performed with Cry1F and Cry1J also revealed differences
between the two selection lines (Table
2). Sel-B developed
cross-resistance to
Cry1F, whereas Sel-A was even more susceptible
than the control LAB-V
strain. For Cry1J, the susceptibilities
of LAB-V and Sel-B were
essentially the same, but Sel-A had significantly
higher mortality at
the two concentrations tested.
Inheritance of resistance to Cry1Ab.
Analysis of the
F1 progeny from single-pair crosses between
resistant insects and susceptible strain LAB-V insects clearly showed
that there were differences in the mode of inheritance of Cry1Ab
resistance in the two selection lines at the test concentration used
(50 mg/liter). Bioassays of the progeny from the cross between Sel-A
and LAB-V suggested that resistance to Cry1Ab was due to an
autosomal dominant gene (A) at a single locus (Fig.
1A). Cry1Ab produced around 50%
mortality in six of nine F1 families (families 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8), around 10% mortality in two families (families 1 and 6), and 23% mortality in one family (family 9). The sex of
the parental insects did not have any effect on the results. The
results obtained for the six families with mortality values around 50%
corresponded to the segregation expected if the Sel-A parents were
heterozygous (AS). The results obtained for the two families
with mortality values around 10% are consistent with crosses with
homozygous Sel-A parents (AA). If this occurred, the
F1 progeny from these two families should have
been heterozygous (AS) and, when crossed with LAB-V insects
(SS), should produce 50% resistant offspring and 50%
susceptible offspring. To test this hypothesis, we crossed the family 1 and 6 survivors with LAB-V insects in single-pair mating experiments.
Five crosses for each family produced enough offspring, and in
all cases mortality was close to 60% (the expected level of mortality,
since the resistant parents had 10% mortality at the test
concentration) when the insects were exposed to Cry1Ab (Fig.
2). Because mortality in the presence of
Cry1Ab was not determined with the Sel-A parents used in the initial
crosses, we could not tell whether this was a case of partial dominance
or a case of complete dominance. Finally, the 23% mortality for family
9 seemed to have been strongly affected by environmental conditions,
and therefore this result is not informative.

View larger version (45K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 1.
Mortalities of F1 progeny from single-pair
crosses between insects from selected lines and LAB-V insects in the
presence of 50 mg of Cry1Ab per liter. (A) Sel-A × LAB-V; (B)
Sel-B × LAB-V. Assays were performed with an average of 38 larvae.
|
|

View larger version (57K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 2.
Mortalities of the offspring from two test crosses of
F1 insects (families 1 and 6 in Fig. 1A) with LAB-V insects
in the presence of 50 mg of Cry1Ab per liter.
|
|
The pattern of resistance to Cry1Ab in the Sel-B line was different.
Analysis of the F
1 progeny from the cross between
Sel-B
and LAB-V insects suggested that resistance was due to an
autosomal
partially recessive gene (
b) at a single locus
(Fig.
1B). Cry1Ab
produced mortalities ranging from 80 to 97% (mean,
86%) in 8 of
the 10 families tested and of around 45% (43 and 47%)
in the other
two families. No effect of the sex of the parents on the
progeny
was detected. The results obtained for the eight families
with
a mean mortality value of 86% corresponded to results expected
for progeny of homozygous Sel-B parents (
bb) crossed with
homozygous
susceptible LAB-V insects (
ss). Since at the test
concentration
the resistant parents had a mortality of 4% and the
susceptible
parents had a mortality of 100% (Fig.
3), we calculated that the
effective
dominance of resistance (
DML) was
0.15, which corresponded
to partially recessive inheritance. The
simplest explanation for
the two families with mortalities around 45%
is that the LAB-V
insects used in these crosses were heterozygous
(
bs) for the resistance
gene. The progeny of a homozygous
Sel-B insect with a heterozygous
LAB-V insect would be 50%
bb and 50%
bs, which would give a global
mortality of [(0.5 × 0.04) + (0.5 × 0.86)] × 100% or
45%. To test
this hypothesis, survivors in these two
F
1 families were allowed
to mate among themselves
(within each family), and the F
2 progeny
were
exposed to Cry1Ab and Cry1F. If our hypothesis was correct,
the
contributions to the F
2 offspring of the
different parental
genotypes would be f(
bb) = (0.5 × 0.96/0.55) = 0.873 and f(
bs)
= (0.5 × 0.14/0.55) = 0.127. The allele frequencies in the parental
F
1 generation would then be f(
b) = 0.873 + (0.5 × 0.127) = 0.9365
and f(
s) = 0.5 × 0.127 = 0.0635. Assuming that random mating occurred,
Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium can be applied, and the expected frequencies
of genotypes in the F
2 generation would be
f(
bb) = 0.877, f(
bs)
= 0.119, and
f(
ss) = 0.004. If the empirical mortality data for
these three genotypes at the Cry1Ab concentration tested (4% for
bb, 86% for
bs, and 100% for
ss)
were used, the overall expected
mortality with this toxin would be
14%. The actual mortality observed
in the F
2
generation was 20% (
n = 41 or 49, depending on the
family),
which is not significantly different from the calculated value
(
P < 0.05). In the case of the Cry1F toxin, the
mortalities for
the
bb and
ss genotypes were 0 and 47%, respectively (Table
2).
If it was assumed that the mortality
for the
bs genotype at the
concentration tested (10 mg/liter) was 47%, the overall expected
mortality would be 5.8%. Our
actual results with Cry1F gave a
mortality for the
F
2 generation of 10% (
n = 50 for
each family),
which again was close to the calculated value and
consistent with
the hypothesis that two individuals of the LAB-V strain
were heterozygous
for the resistant gene.

View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 3.
Concentration-mortality responses of LAB-V ( )
and Sel-B ( ) insects when they were tested with activated
Cry1Ab. The dashed line indicates the expected response of the
F1 generation (Sel-B × LAB-V) based on the mortality
observed in the presence of 50 mg/liter ( ), assuming that the slope
was the same as that of the regression line for Sel-B.
|
|
Binding assays.
BBMV from LAB-V, used as a control susceptible
strain, exhibited specific binding of
125I-labeled Cry1Ab and
125I-labeled Cry1Ac (Fig.
4). In contrast, BBMV from Sel-B
exhibited no specific binding at all with either labeled toxin. BBMV
from Sel-A were tested only with 125I-labeled
Cry1Ab and exhibited highly reduced binding.

View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 4.
Specific binding of 125I-labeled Cry1Ab (A)
and 125I-labeled Cry1Ac (B) as a function of BBMV protein
concentration in the resistant lines and the susceptible control
strain. Symbols: , Sel-A; , Sel-B; , LAB-V.
|
|
 |
DISCUSSION |
The analysis of susceptibility to Cry1Ab, Cry1F, and Cry1J and the
genetic analysis showed that the types of resistance obtained in the
two selection experiments were substantially different. Since at the
concentration of Cry1Ab used (50 mg/liter), resistance in the Sel-A
line is dominant, we could not perform complementation tests to
determine whether the mutations that confer resistance are alleles of
the same locus. At this concentration the two selection lines clearly
differed in terms of the type of inheritance of Cry1Ab resistance,
which is dominant in Sel-A and partially recessive in Sel-B.
In the selection experiments described here, similar patterns of
resistance to Cry1A toxins were obtained when Cry1Aa protoxin plus
spores and activated Cry1Ab were used as selective agents. It seems
that the initial frequency of genes conferring resistance to Cry1Ab and
Cry1Ac in the PHI colony must have been much higher than the initial
frequency of genes conferring resistance to Cry1Aa, and thus the former
were selected even when Cry1Aa was used as the selective agent.
Previously, Tabashnik et al. (28) showed that in the PHI
colony, there is evidence of independent genetic control of resistance
to Cry1Aa and Cry1Ab. The fact that Cry1Ab selected for Cry1Ac
resistance indicates that there are mechanisms of resistance which are
shared by these toxins and can be explained by alteration of a common
binding site in the midgut receptor, as shown by the binding analysis.
Why selection with Cry1Aa selected for Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac resistance but
not for Cry1Aa resistance is more difficult to explain. Any mechanism
related to crystal solubilization or protoxin processing would be
irrelevant when the insects are tested with activated Cry1A toxins.
Moreover, any mechanism related to the activated toxin should have
selected for Cry1Aa as well. It is possible that because the selection procedure was performed with neonate larvae and the bioassays were
performed with third-instar larvae, a Cry1Aa-resistant phenotype in
neonates was missed. In addition, because Sel-A went through important
bottlenecks during the selection process (in generation 11 the number
of parents was limited to 10 individuals), genetic drift might have
influenced the final resistance phenotype of Sel-A.
The PHI colony was derived from a field population from the
Philippines. The first time that bioassays were carried out, insects showed high resistance to Cry1Ab but not to Cry1Aa or Cry1Ac
(4), indicating that there was a gene that conferred
resistance to Cry1Ab but did not provide protection against the other
Cry1A toxins. This was in agreement with the finding that BBMV from the
resistant insects did not bind Cry1Ab, whereas they bound Cry1Aa and
Cry1Ac (5, 28). To maintain or even increase the level of
resistance, this colony was subjected to selection with pure Cry1Ab for
several generations, and the resistance pattern did not change.
However, resistance to Cry1Aa and Cry1Ac started to build up when the
colony was exposed to MYX 03604, a product containing a chimeric
Cry1Ac-Cry1Ab protoxin (3). After selection with this
product, the PHI colony became resistant to Cry1Aa, Cry1Ab, and Cry1Ac
but not to Cry1F (28). In the present study we obtained a
new phenotype (Sel-B) with resistance to Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac, and Cry1F,
most likely caused by alteration of the common Cry1Ab/Cry1Ac/Cry1F
receptor (5). Therefore, the PHI population has been shown
to carry genes conferring resistance to (i) just Cry1Ab
(4); (ii) Cry1Aa (28); (iii) Cry1Ab and
Cry1Ac but not Cry1F, with a loss of Cry1Ab binding but not of Cry1Ac
binding (28); and (iv) Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac, and Cry1F, with a
loss of Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac binding (Sel-B in this study). We cannot
completely eliminate the possibility that the resistance gene in the
Sel-A line is the same gene that was previously reported for the PHI colony (28). In both cases the insects were resistant to
Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac but not to Cry1F. Although PHI insects were found to be resistant to Cry1Aa as well, resistance to this toxin was shown to
be independent of resistance to Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac. Finally, the finding
that resistance to Cry1Ab in Sel-A is dominant whereas it was
previously found to be recessive in the PHI colony might have been due
to differences in the concentration or the toxin form used
(7). In summary, the PHI population must have carried at
least one gene for resistance to Cry1Aa, one gene for resistance to
Cry1Ab, one gene for resistance to Cry1Ac (not affecting receptor binding), and one gene conferring resistance to Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac, and
Cry1F that altered binding. In the latter case, if binding of Cry1F was
not affected, at least one additional mutation would be required for
resistance to Cry1F. The PHI population is not unique, because other
populations have been shown to exhibit substantial genetic variation in
resistance to Cry1A toxins (20, 26, 27).
The presence of heterozygous individuals in the LAB-V strain is not
completely surprising, since the presence of resistance genes has been
reported in other susceptible control strains (18, 27).
Furthermore, we cannot eliminate the possibility that there was
contamination of the susceptible colony by resistant PHI insects. An
alternative explanation for the two families with 45% mortality in the
F1 generation resulting from the cross between
Sel-B and LAB-V is that the selection that led to the Sel-B line also
selected for dominant A genes. These two families
would be the result of the cross of two AS insects from the
Sel-B line with susceptible homozygotes from the LAB-V line. However,
in this case we would expect most members of the
F2 generation to be susceptible to Cry1F, which
does not agree with the actual results.
Binding of Cry1Ab was strongly reduced in the two selection lines.
Since the Sel-A line is not homozygous for the resistance gene, it is
expected to produce susceptible homozygotes once selection is
discontinued. Because this was the case when the binding analysis was
performed, the residual binding observed with BBMV from Sel-A insects
must have been due to the contribution of susceptible individuals.
Therefore, absence of Cry1Ab binding seems to have been the cause of
resistance to this toxin in both selection lines. In addition,
resistance to Cry1Ac, at least in Sel-B insects, seemed to be also due
to an absence of binding. Since Sel-B insects are also resistant to
Cry1F, it is likely that the resistance mechanism is an alteration in
the common receptor affecting binding of Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac, and Cry1F
(5).
The two selection procedures applied to insects from the PHI colony in
the present study had important differences. With regard to the
selective agents used, besides the presence of spores, the differences
were restricted not only to the primary structure of the toxin but also
to the level of processing (protoxin versus activated toxin) and its
physical state (crystal versus solubilized). Moreover, in Sel-A the
selective pressure was exerted on neonate larvae, whereas in Sel-B it
was exerted on third-instar larvae. It is worth bearing in mind that
under field conditions insects can encounter either soluble Cry toxins
in transgenic plants or B. thuringiensis spores
and crystalline inclusions in sprayed plants or both and that different
instars may be exposed to the selective agent. All these variables have
an influence on the final resistance outcome.
Another result of our work is that, based on different cross-resistance
patterns and types of inheritance, we found evidence of at least two
distinct genes conferring resistance to the same Cry toxin (Cry1Ab) in
the same insect population. Although the presence of more than one gene
conferring resistance to the same Cry toxin has been suggested in other
studies, the evidence reported here is more direct than the evidence
provided previously (13, 24, 27, 28). Our results indicate
that insect populations may carry, more frequently than has been
assumed, more than one gene involved in resistance to a given Cry toxin
or even to a set of toxins if cross-resistance appears. Our results
have important implications for resistance management strategies, since
they show the high variability of B. thuringiensis resistance genes present in field
populations and since they stress the effect of the selective agent
and/or larval instar on the final resistance outcome. Models to predict
the evolution of resistance in hypothetical scenarios and especially
when management strategies are designed should consider high genetic
variability to be not a rare phenomenon but a very common phenomenon in
field populations.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
We thank Bruce E. Tabashnik for his thoughtful comments on the
manuscript. We also thank Luis Calzada for his technical assistance and
Ecogen for providing B. thuringiensis strains.
This work was supported by Agencia Española de Cooperación
Internacional (AECI) grant AECI99-02-1°. J.G.C. was funded by an AECI fellowship.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
Corresponding author. Mailing address: Departament de
Genètica, Facultat de CC. Biològiques, Dr. Moliner 50, 46100-Burjassot (Valencia), Spain. Phone: (34) 96 386 4506. Fax: (34)
96 398 3029. E-mail: Juan.Ferre{at}uv.es.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Agaisse, H., and D. Lereclus.
1995.
How does Bacillus thuringiensis produce so much insecticidal crystal protein?
J. Bacteriol.
177:6027-6032[Free Full Text].
|
| 2.
|
Agresti, A., and B. A. Coull.
1998.
Approximate is better than "exact" for interval estimation of binomial proportion.
Am. Stat.
52:119-126[CrossRef].
|
| 3.
|
Ballester, V.
1997.
Resistencia a -endotoxinas de Bacillus thuringiensis en poblaciones naturales de Plutella xylostella. Ph.D. thesis.
University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
|
| 4.
|
Ballester, V.,
B. Escriche,
J. L. Ménsua,
G. W. Riethmacher, and J. Ferré.
1994.
Lack of cross-resistance to other Bacillus thuringiensis crystal proteins in a population of Plutella xylostella highly resistant to CryIA(b).
Biocontrol Sci. Technol.
4:437-443.
|
| 5.
|
Ballester, V.,
F. Granero,
B. E. Tabashnik,
T. Malvar, and J. Ferré.
1999.
Integrative model for binding of Bacillus thuringiensis toxins in susceptible and resistant larvae of the diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella).
Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
65:1413-1419[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 6.
|
Bourguet, D.,
A. Genissel, and M. Raymond.
2000.
Insecticide resistance and dominance levels.
J. Econ. Entomol.
93:1588-1595[Medline].
|
| 7.
|
Bourguet, D.,
M. Prout, and M. Raymond.
1996.
Dominance of insecticide resistance presents a plastic response.
Genetics
143:407-416[Abstract].
|
| 8.
|
Bradford, M. M.
1976.
A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding.
Anal. Biochem.
72:248-254[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 9.
|
Escriche, B.,
F. J. Silva, and J. Ferré.
1995.
Testing suitability of brush border membrane vesicles prepared from whole larvae from small insects for binding studies with Bacillus thuringiensis CryIA(b) crystal protein.
J. Invertebr. Pathol.
65:318-320[CrossRef].
|
| 10.
|
Ferré, J.,
M. D. Real,
J. Van Rie,
S. Jansens, and M. Peferoen.
1991.
Resistance to the Bacillus thuringiensis bioinsecticide in a field population of Plutella xylostella is due to a change in a midgut membrane receptor.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
88:5119-5123[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 11.
|
Frutos, R.,
C. Rang, and M. Royer.
1999.
Managing insect resistance to plants producing Bacillus thuringiensis toxins.
Crit. Rev. Biotechnol.
19:227-276[CrossRef].
|
| 12.
|
Georghiou, G. P., and A. Lagunes-Tejeda.
1991.
The occurrence of resistance to pesticides in arthropods.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
|
| 13.
|
Herrero, S.,
B. Oppert, and J. Ferré.
2001.
Different mechanisms of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis toxins in the Indianmeal moth.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
67:1085-1089[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 14.
|
Huang, F.,
L. L. Buschman,
R. A. Higgins, and W. H. McGaughey.
1999.
Inheritance of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Dipel ES) in the European corn borer.
Science
284:965-967[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 15.
|
James, C.
2000.
Global status of commercialized transgenic crops: 2000. Preview.
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Ithaca, N.Y.
|
| 16.
|
Jenkins, J. N.
1999.
Transgenic plants expressing toxins from Bacillus thuringiensis.
Biopesticides
5:211-232.
|
| 17.
|
LeOra Software.
1987.
POLO-PC: a user's guide to probit or logit analysis.
LeOra Software, Berkeley, Calif.
|
| 18.
|
Liu, Y.-B., and B. E. Tabashnik.
1998.
Elimination of a recessive allele conferring resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis from a heterogeneous strain of diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae).
J. Econ. Entomol.
91:1032-1037.
|
| 19.
|
Mazier, M.,
C. Pannetier,
J. Tourneur,
L. Jouanin, and M. Giband.
1997.
The expression of Bacillus thuringiensis genes in plant cells.
Biotechnol. Annu. Rev.
3:313-347.
|
| 20.
|
McGaughey, W. H., and D. E. Johnson.
1994.
Influence of crystal protein composition of Bacillus thuringiensis strains on cross-resistance in Indian- meal moth (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae).
J. Econ. Entomol.
87:535-540.
|
| 21.
|
Mellon, M., and J. Rissler (ed.).
1998.
Now or never: serious new plans to save a natural pest control.
Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, Mass.
|
| 22.
|
Rahardja, U., and M. E. Whalon.
1995.
Inheritance of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. tenebrionis CryIIIA delta-endotoxin in Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae).
J. Econ. Entomol.
88:21-26[Medline].
|
| 23.
|
Roush, R. T.
1994.
Managing pests and their resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis: can transgenic plants be better than sprays?
Biocontrol Sci. Technol.
4:501-516.
|
| 24.
|
Sayyed, A. H.,
R. Haward,
S. Herrero,
J. Ferré, and D. J. Wright.
2000.
Genetic and biochemical approach for characterization of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis toxin Cry1Ac in a field population of the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
66:1509-1516[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 25.
|
Stewart, G. S. A. B.,
K. Johnstone,
E. Hagelberg, and D. J. Ellar.
1981.
Commitment of bacterial spores to germinate.
Biochem. J.
198:101-106[Medline].
|
| 26.
|
Tabashnik, B. E.,
N. Finson,
W. J. Marshall, and D. G. Heckel.
1995.
Prolonged selection affects stability of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis in diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae).
J. Econ. Entomol.
88:219-224.
|
| 27.
|
Tabashnik, B. E.,
Y.-B. Liu,
N. Finson,
L. Masson, and D. G. Heckel.
1997.
One gene in diamondback moth confers resistance to four Bacillus thuringiensis toxins.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
94:1640-1644[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 28.
|
Tabashnik, B. E.,
Y.-B. Liu,
T. Malvar,
D. G. Heckel,
L. Masson,
V. Ballester,
F. Granero,
J. L. Ménsua, and J. Ferré.
1997.
Global variation in the genetic and biochemical basis of diamondback moth resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
94:12780-12785[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 29.
|
Van Rie, J., and J. Ferré.
2000.
Insect resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis crystal proteins, p. 219-237.
In
J. F. Charles, A. Delecluse, and C. Nielsen-LeRoux (ed.), Entomopathogenic bacteria: from laboratory to field applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
|
| 30.
|
Van Rie, J.,
S. Jansens,
H. Höfte,
D. Degheele, and H. Van Mellaert.
1990.
Receptors on the brush border membrane of the insect midgut as determinants of the specificity of Bacillus thuringiensis delta-endotoxins.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
56:1378-1385[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 31.
|
Zhao, J.-Z.,
H. L. Collins,
J. D. Tang,
J. Cao,
E. D. Earle,
R. T. Roush,
S. Herrero,
B. Escriche,
J. Ferré, and A. M. Shelton.
2000.
Development and characterization of diamondback moth resistance to transgenic broccoli expressing high levels of Cry1C.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
66:3784-3789[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, November 2001, p. 5043-5048, Vol. 67, No. 11
0099-2240/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/AEM.67.11.5043-5048.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Rodrigo-Simon, A., Caccia, S., Ferre, J.
(2008). Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac Toxin-Binding and Pore-Forming Activity in Brush Border Membrane Vesicles Prepared from Anterior and Posterior Midgut Regions of Lepidopteran Larvae. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
74: 1710-1716
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Siqueira, H. A. A., Gonzalez-Cabrera, J., Ferre, J., Flannagan, R., Siegfried, B. D.
(2006). Analyses of Cry1Ab Binding in Resistant and Susceptible Strains of the European Corn Borer, Ostrinia nubilalis (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Crambidae). Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
72: 5318-5324
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Sayyed, A. H., Raymond, B., Ibiza-Palacios, M. S., Escriche, B., Wright, D. J.
(2004). Genetic and Biochemical Characterization of Field-Evolved Resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis Toxin Cry1Ac in the Diamondback Moth, Plutella xylostella. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
70: 7010-7017
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Janmaat, A. F., Wang, P., Kain, W., Zhao, J.-Z., Myers, J.
(2004). Inheritance of Resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki in Trichoplusia ni. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
70: 5859-5867
[Abstract]
[Full Text]