It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Evolution of pest resistance threatens the benefits of genetically engineered crops that produce Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) insecticidal proteins. Strategies intended to delay pest resistance are most effective when implemented proactively. Accordingly, researchers have selected for and analyzed resistance to Bt toxins in many laboratory strains of pests before resistance evolves in the field, but the utility of this approach depends on the largely untested assumption that laboratory- and field-selected resistance to Bt toxins are similar. Here we compared the genetic basis of resistance to Bt toxin Cry2Ab, which is widely deployed in transgenic crops, between laboratory- and field-selected populations of the pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella), a global pest of cotton. We discovered that resistance to Cry2Ab is associated with mutations disrupting the same ATP-binding cassette transporter gene (PgABCA2) in a laboratory-selected strain from Arizona, USA, and in field-selected populations from India. The most common mutation, loss of exon 6 caused by alternative splicing, occurred in resistant larvae from both locations. Together with previous data, the results imply that mutations in the same gene confer Bt resistance in laboratory- and field-selected strains and suggest that focusing on ABCA2 genes may help to accelerate progress in monitoring and managing resistance to Cry2Ab.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details



1 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Research Service (ARS), U.S. Arid Land Agricultural Research Center, Maricopa, AZ, USA
2 Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), Indian Institute of Rice Research (IIRR), Hyderabad, India
3 Pesticide Residue and Food Quality Analysis Laboratory, University of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur, Karnataka, India
4 Agriculture Research Station, Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Darsi, Andhra Pradesh, India
5 Arizona Genomics Institute, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
6 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), Black Mountain Laboratories, Acton, ACT, Australia
7 Department of Entomology, Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, Jena, Germany
8 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), Myall Vale Laboratories, Narrabri, NSW, Australia
9 Department of Entomology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA