GB2400035A - Method to reduce the incidences of insect resistance to insecticidal plants - Google Patents

Method to reduce the incidences of insect resistance to insecticidal plants Download PDF

Info

Publication number
GB2400035A
GB2400035A GB0307871A GB0307871A GB2400035A GB 2400035 A GB2400035 A GB 2400035A GB 0307871 A GB0307871 A GB 0307871A GB 0307871 A GB0307871 A GB 0307871A GB 2400035 A GB2400035 A GB 2400035A
Authority
GB
United Kingdom
Prior art keywords
toxin
plants
region
locus
insecticidal
Prior art date
Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
Withdrawn
Application number
GB0307871A
Other versions
GB0307871D0 (en
Inventor
Martin Stephen Clough
Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.)
Syngenta Ltd
Original Assignee
Syngenta Ltd
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by Syngenta Ltd filed Critical Syngenta Ltd
Priority to GB0307871A priority Critical patent/GB2400035A/en
Publication of GB0307871D0 publication Critical patent/GB0307871D0/en
Priority to EP04716661A priority patent/EP1613161A1/en
Priority to PCT/GB2004/000901 priority patent/WO2004086868A1/en
Priority to CNB2004800086914A priority patent/CN100551243C/en
Priority to BRPI0409161-2A priority patent/BRPI0409161A/en
Priority to AU2004226682A priority patent/AU2004226682B2/en
Priority to US10/551,894 priority patent/US20070011773A1/en
Priority to CA002521235A priority patent/CA2521235A1/en
Priority to ARP040100823A priority patent/AR043587A1/en
Publication of GB2400035A publication Critical patent/GB2400035A/en
Withdrawn legal-status Critical Current

Links

Classifications

    • C—CHEMISTRY; METALLURGY
    • C12—BIOCHEMISTRY; BEER; SPIRITS; WINE; VINEGAR; MICROBIOLOGY; ENZYMOLOGY; MUTATION OR GENETIC ENGINEERING
    • C12N—MICROORGANISMS OR ENZYMES; COMPOSITIONS THEREOF; PROPAGATING, PRESERVING, OR MAINTAINING MICROORGANISMS; MUTATION OR GENETIC ENGINEERING; CULTURE MEDIA
    • C12N15/00—Mutation or genetic engineering; DNA or RNA concerning genetic engineering, vectors, e.g. plasmids, or their isolation, preparation or purification; Use of hosts therefor
    • C12N15/09—Recombinant DNA-technology
    • C12N15/63—Introduction of foreign genetic material using vectors; Vectors; Use of hosts therefor; Regulation of expression
    • C12N15/79—Vectors or expression systems specially adapted for eukaryotic hosts
    • C12N15/82—Vectors or expression systems specially adapted for eukaryotic hosts for plant cells, e.g. plant artificial chromosomes (PACs)
    • C12N15/8241—Phenotypically and genetically modified plants via recombinant DNA technology
    • C12N15/8261—Phenotypically and genetically modified plants via recombinant DNA technology with agronomic (input) traits, e.g. crop yield
    • C12N15/8271—Phenotypically and genetically modified plants via recombinant DNA technology with agronomic (input) traits, e.g. crop yield for stress resistance, e.g. heavy metal resistance
    • C12N15/8279—Phenotypically and genetically modified plants via recombinant DNA technology with agronomic (input) traits, e.g. crop yield for stress resistance, e.g. heavy metal resistance for biotic stress resistance, pathogen resistance, disease resistance
    • C12N15/8286—Phenotypically and genetically modified plants via recombinant DNA technology with agronomic (input) traits, e.g. crop yield for stress resistance, e.g. heavy metal resistance for biotic stress resistance, pathogen resistance, disease resistance for insect resistance
    • A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
    • A01—AGRICULTURE; FORESTRY; ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; HUNTING; TRAPPING; FISHING
    • A01N—PRESERVATION OF BODIES OF HUMANS OR ANIMALS OR PLANTS OR PARTS THEREOF; BIOCIDES, e.g. AS DISINFECTANTS, AS PESTICIDES OR AS HERBICIDES; PEST REPELLANTS OR ATTRACTANTS; PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS
    • A01N63/00—Biocides, pest repellants or attractants, or plant growth regulators containing microorganisms, viruses, microbial fungi, animals or substances produced by, or obtained from, microorganisms, viruses, microbial fungi or animals, e.g. enzymes or fermentates
    • A01N63/50—Isolated enzymes; Isolated proteins
    • C—CHEMISTRY; METALLURGY
    • C12—BIOCHEMISTRY; BEER; SPIRITS; WINE; VINEGAR; MICROBIOLOGY; ENZYMOLOGY; MUTATION OR GENETIC ENGINEERING
    • C12N—MICROORGANISMS OR ENZYMES; COMPOSITIONS THEREOF; PROPAGATING, PRESERVING, OR MAINTAINING MICROORGANISMS; MUTATION OR GENETIC ENGINEERING; CULTURE MEDIA
    • C12N15/00—Mutation or genetic engineering; DNA or RNA concerning genetic engineering, vectors, e.g. plasmids, or their isolation, preparation or purification; Use of hosts therefor
    • C12N15/09—Recombinant DNA-technology
    • C12N15/63—Introduction of foreign genetic material using vectors; Vectors; Use of hosts therefor; Regulation of expression
    • C12N15/79—Vectors or expression systems specially adapted for eukaryotic hosts
    • C12N15/82—Vectors or expression systems specially adapted for eukaryotic hosts for plant cells, e.g. plant artificial chromosomes (PACs)
    • C12N15/8241—Phenotypically and genetically modified plants via recombinant DNA technology
    • C12N15/8261—Phenotypically and genetically modified plants via recombinant DNA technology with agronomic (input) traits, e.g. crop yield
    • C12N15/8271—Phenotypically and genetically modified plants via recombinant DNA technology with agronomic (input) traits, e.g. crop yield for stress resistance, e.g. heavy metal resistance
    • C12N15/8279—Phenotypically and genetically modified plants via recombinant DNA technology with agronomic (input) traits, e.g. crop yield for stress resistance, e.g. heavy metal resistance for biotic stress resistance, pathogen resistance, disease resistance
    • Y—GENERAL TAGGING OF NEW TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS; GENERAL TAGGING OF CROSS-SECTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES SPANNING OVER SEVERAL SECTIONS OF THE IPC; TECHNICAL SUBJECTS COVERED BY FORMER USPC CROSS-REFERENCE ART COLLECTIONS [XRACs] AND DIGESTS
    • Y02—TECHNOLOGIES OR APPLICATIONS FOR MITIGATION OR ADAPTATION AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE
    • Y02A—TECHNOLOGIES FOR ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE
    • Y02A40/00—Adaptation technologies in agriculture, forestry, livestock or agroalimentary production
    • Y02A40/10—Adaptation technologies in agriculture, forestry, livestock or agroalimentary production in agriculture
    • Y02A40/146—Genetically Modified [GMO] plants, e.g. transgenic plants

Abstract

The present invention provides a method for reducing the incidence of resistance of insects to insecticidal plants. In particular, there is provided a locus at which insects feed comprising at least two regions, characterised in that: a) a first region comprises plants which produce at least a first insecticidal toxin; and b) a second region comprises plants which produce at least a second insecticidal toxin; wherein an insect which can develop resistance to the first toxin does not develop resistance to the second toxin, and the first region comprises plants which produce the first toxin but not the second toxin when the plants of the second region produce the second toxin but not the first toxin. The invention also provides a method for controlling insects. The plants are preferably cotton plants which express crystal proteins or VIP proteins of Bacillus thuringiensis.

Description

IMPROVEMENTS IN OR RELATING TO ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
The present invention relates to a method for reducing the incidence of insect resistance to insecticidal plants. In particular it relates to preventing resistance of insects to s transgenic insecticidal plants such as cotton from being spread through an insect population.
Millions of hectares of crops worldwide are damaged each year as a result of insect pests.
Controlling insect pests is a serious problem for farmers who look to minimise such crop 0 damage and resulting yield losses. This is especially true in cotton, a crop of great commercial importance. Thousands of hectares of cotton crops are damaged by insect pests each year.
Entomologists calculate that crop damage caused by insects has doubled in the last 50 years, related to intensified farming efforts to feed a growing world population. The agrochemical industry has tried to control this problem with chemical solutions and insecticide spraying has become a commonplace method adopted to minimise the damage to crops. Today there are over 200 different active ingredients, in some 40,000 commercial chemical products, all targeted at reducing insect damage.
During one growing season, many insecticide sprays may be applied to a single crop.
This intensive use of chemical insecticides imposes a high selection pressure and can lead to the rapid build-up of resistance. Examples of insect resistance to pesticides have been documented worldwide. It is estimated that more than 500 arthropod pests worldwide have developed resistance to chemicals. In China, cotton yields fell by one- third between 1991 and 1993, largely due to cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera) resistance to the chemicals which were used for insect control.
Insects have an exceptional ability to adapt to their environment. Genetics is the basis for the rapid build-up of resistance in many insects. Natural selection allows the insects with resistance genes to survive, and the resistance trait is passed on to their offspring.
Resistant insects continue to multiply as susceptible insects are eliminated by the pesticide, until eventually, insects that have the resistance genes are predominant and the - 2 pesticide is no longer effective. The speed with which resistance develops depends on many factors such as the rate of insect reproduction, the migration and host range of the insect, the persistence of the pesticide and how often the pesticide is applied.
s There are a number of known mechanisms of resistance in insects. For example, resistant insects may naturally detoxify the toxin or remove it from their bodies faster than susceptible insects (metabolic resistance); the site where the toxin usually binds in the insect may be modified to reduce its effects (altered target-site resistance); resistant insects may absorb the toxin slower than susceptible insects (penetration resistance); or 0 resistant insects may detect and avoid the toxin (behavioural resistance). Pests often use more than one of these mechanisms at the same time.
One solution aimed at reducing the number of insecticide sprays and managing insect resistance is to engineer the crop plants to synthesise their own insecticide. Plants may IS be engineered to contain, for example, insecticidal genes from other organisms.
Currently the most economically significant insecticidal transgenic plants are those which contain genes from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis that produces a protein that controls Lepidopteran pests. Not only can transgenic crops reduce the use of broad- spectrum insecticides, but they also are more target-pest specific. This means populations of beneficial insects may not be affected. Pest control is easier with transgenic crops because the insecticidal toxin can be targeted to different parts of the plant, such as the roots, which are hard to spray with conventional pesticides.
However as transgenic plants provide continuous selection pressure on pest populations, Is there is a greater potential for resistance development than with conventional insecticides. Also, unlike chemical insecticides, there are still very few genes and proteins that are known to be effective for the protection of transgenic crops against insects. Therefore management of resistance build-up in populations of target insects is very important.
Insect Resistance Management (IRM) programs are designed to control such a build-up of resistance, and include the use of synthetic insecticides, biological insecticides, - 3 transgenic plants, beneficial insects, cultural practices, crop rotation, pest-resistant crop varieties and chemical attractants or deterrents.
One strategy employed in IRM programs is the use of refuges (refugia). A refuge is the designation of a percentage of the crop as non-transgenic with no or reduced control treatments. Refuge areas may be within fields of transgenic or treated crops, around the border of such fields or even in adjacent fields. Refugia serve to maintain a population of pests that are susceptible to insects. When members of the susceptible population mate with any resistant insects that emerge from protected fields, their susceptible genes dilute 0 any resistant genes in the overall population. It is thought that in certain situations, as with transgenic crops, providing such a haven for pest insects can delay or even prevent the onset of resistance.
In essence, the use of refugia serves as a mechanism for producing a population of insects pests, pests which the growers are trying to control in their field. Resistant insects which survive the insecticidal effects of feeding on the transgenic crop are not killed.
Instead, the refuge provides a source of susceptible insects with which resistant insects can mate. This is a potential problem because it may actually serve to spread the resistant trait rather than contain it.
The present patent application describes a solution to this problem. The invention uses a region similar to a refuge, but comprising plants which produce at least one insecticidal toxin, said toxin being different to the toxin produced by the principal crop plants. The effect of the different insecticidal toxins is to kill insects which are resistant to the toxin of the principal crop plants rather than allowing them to breed and thus spread the resistance trait. In this way a very high selection pressure exists and insects are unlikely to survive as this would require resistance to at least two different insecticidal toxins preferably having different modes of action. Therefore the incidence of resistance is reduced. This invention may be used in conjunction with other IRM techniques.
According to the present invention there is provided a locus at which insects feed comprising at least two regions, characterized in that: a) a first region comprises plants which produce at least a first insecticidal toxin; and b) a second region comprises plants - 4 which produce at least a second insecticidal toxin; wherein an insect which can develop resistance to the first toxin does not develop resistance to the second toxin, and the first region comprises plants which produce the first toxin but not the second toxin when the plants of the second region produce the second toxin but not the first toxin. s
The word insecticidal as used herein describes the effect of a toxin on insects. It is not limited to death of the insect, but also includes any effect which is detrimental to the insect, for example sickness, antifeedant, growth retardation and reduced fecundity.
lo Resistant insects are those that do not suffer any substantial or appreciable detrimental effects as a result of exposure to or ingestion of a suitable dose in insecticidal toxin. A suitable dose of insecticidal toxin may be measured by exposure to or ingestion of the toxin by a susceptible insect and identification of the dose at which detrimental effect(s) are observed. Detrimental effects to the insect are described above in the definition of IS the word insecticidal. These detrimental effects will reduce the incidence of transfer of a resistance trait from a resistant insect to future generations of insects.
The word plants as used herein refers to plants and plant parts and includes seeds.
The invention includes plants which produce more than one toxin, for example via gene stacking. The plants of either the first and/or second region may even produce the same toxins, with the proviso that the first region comprises plants which produce the first toxin but not the second toxin when the plants of the second region produce the second toxin but not the first toxin. The invention is not limited to loci which comprise first and 2s second regions that only comprise plants which produce insecticidal toxin(s), but may also contain other plants in addition. In one aspect of the invention, the plants of either region may also produce toxins to make them resistant to non-insect pests such as viruses, fungi or nematodes. In another aspect of the invention, the plants of either region may be tolerant to chemical herbicides. In a further aspect of the invention, the locus may comprise more than two regions, wherein said additional regions may comprise plants which produce insecticidal toxins. - 5
The skilled man will be familiar with insects which feed at the locus. Preferably, insects which feed at the locus includes pest insects which cause damage to plants. More preferably, this includes insects which are, or can develop to be, resistant to an insecticdal toxin. More preferably still, it includes insects selected from the group comprising: Acanthoscelides obtectus, Bruchus sps., Callosobruchus sps. (bruchid beetles), Agriotes sps. (wireworms), Amphimallon sps. (chafer beetles), Anthonomus grandis (cotton boll weevil), Ceutorhynchus assimilis (cabbage seed weevil), Cylas sps.
(sweet potato weevils), Diabrotica sps. (corn root worms), Epicauta sps. (black blister beetles), Epilachna sps. (melon beetles etc.), Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Colorado potato o beetle) Meligisthes sps. (blossom beetles), Melolontha sps. (cockchafers), Phyleotreta sps., Psylliodes sps. (flea beetles), Popillia japonica (Japanese beetle), Scolytus sps. (bark beetles), Sitophilus sps. (grain weevils), Tenebrio molitor (yellow mealworm), Tribolium sps. (flour beetles), Trogoderma granarium (Khapra beetle), Acleris sps. (fruit tree tortrixs), Acraea acerata (sweet potato butterfly), Agrotis sps. (cutworms), Autographa gamma (silver-Y moth), Chilo sps. (stalk borers), Cydia pomonella (coaling moth), Diparopsis sps. (red bollworms), Ephestia sps. (warehouse moths), Heliothis sps., Helicoverpa sps. (budworms, bollworms), Mamestra brassicae (cabbage moth), Manduca sps. (hornworms), Maruca testulalis (mung moth), Mythimna sps. (cereal armyworms), Ostrinia nubilalis (European corn borer), Pectinophora gossypiella (pink bollworm), Phthorimaea operculella (potato tuber moth), Pieris brassicae (large white butterfly), Pieris rapae (small white butterfly), Plodia interpunctella (Indian grain moth), Plutella xylostella (diamond-back moth), Pseudoplusia includens (soybean looper), Sitatroga cerealella (Angoumois grain moth), Spodoptera sps. (armyworms), Trichoplusia ni (cabbage semi looper), A cheta sps. (field crickets), Gryllotalph sps. (mo le crickets), Locusta migratoria (migratory locust), Schistocerca gregaria (desert locust), Acrythosiphon pisum, Drosophila sp., Acrosternum hilare (green stink bug), Aphis gossypii (cotton aphid), Campylomma liebnechti (apple dimpling bug), Creontiades dilutus (green mirid), Crocidosema plebejana (cotton tipworm), Earias huegelli (rough bollworm), Euschistus servus (brown stink bug), Frankliniella sps. (thrips), Lygus lineolaris (tarnished plant bug), Tetranychus urticae (spider mite) and Thrips tabaci (onion thrips). - 6
Most preferably, it includes insects selected from the group comprising: Anthonomus grandis (cotton boll weevil) , Pectin ophora gossypiella (pink bollworm), Helioth is virescens (tobacco budworm), Helicoverpa zea (cotton bollworm), Helicoverpa armigera (American bollworm), Helicoverpa punctigera (native bollworm), Spodoptera exigua s (beet armyworm) and Spodoptera frugiperda (fall armyworm).
With the benefit of the present disclosure, the skilled man will be familiar with insecticidal toxins that can be expressed in plants which may be suitable for use in this invention. Suitable toxins may even be those known in the prior art. For example, they lo include crystal proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis, many of which are have been extensively studied and are well known in the prior art such as CrylAc, Cry2Ab and Cryl F. Further non-limiting examples of insecticidal toxins are vegetative insecticidal proteins VIP3A and VIP3B from Bacillus thuringiensis, 445 from Paecilomyces farinosus (see International Patent Application publication number WO01/00841) and GGK (see International Patent Application publication number WO02/098911).
Alternative suitable insecticidal toxins may, for example, be isolated from bacteria, fungi, plants or other sources. The genes encoding these toxins can be cloned and transformed into suitable plants under the control of a plant-operable gene cassette, using standard molecular and cell biology techniques. The toxins may be targeted to particular parts of the plant such as the roots, leaves or seeds by cloning the genes encoding the toxins to be under the control of tissue-specific promoters. Alternatively, the toxins may only be produced at a certain growth stage of the plant through use of inducible or temporal promoters. The toxins first and second insecticidal toxins may be insecticidal towards different spectra of insect species. Preferably the first and second toxins are insecticidal towards the same or similar insect species, or overlapping spectra of insect species.
In one aspect of the invention, the plants of the first and second regions may optionally exhibit other beneficial traits, which also may have been introduced via gene cloning and plant transformation. Any number of these traits may be stacked with the insecticidal so toxin in the plants. For example, the plants of either region may exhibit resistance to a particular herbicide, fungal disease, viral infection or nematode infestation. An example of resistance to a herbicide is described in International Patent Application publication - 7 number WO 00/66747 wherein a mutant form of the enzyme EPSP synthase is expressed in a plant so that the plant is tolerant to the herbicide glyphosate.
In a particular embodiment of the present invention, the second region is within a quarter s of a mile from the first region. In a further embodiment the second region is adjacent to the first region. In a still further embodiment the second region is a border around the perimeter of the first region. In a further embodiment the second region comprises one or more strips within the first region. In a still further embodiment a plurality of first and second regions are present in a mosaic pattern. In a further embodiment the locus lo comprises a random distribution of first and second regions within the locus. The schematic diagrams provided in Figures I to 10 represent non-limiting examples of the possible arrangement of first and second regions within the locus of the present invention.
IS A locus according to the present invention may be comprised by a farm, wherein the at least two regions are fields. The following non-limiting examples describe possible arrangements of the fields. For example, the fields may be adjacent to one another (see Figures 5 to 7). Alternatively, the locus of the present invention may be a field, wherein the at least two regions are areas of the field comprising different plants. The second region may be arranged, for example, as a border around the perimeter of the first region (see Figure 1), as a series of horizontal or vertical strips amongst the first regions (see Figures 2 and 3) or as a block within the first region (see Figure 4). A plurality of first and second regions may be present in a mosaic pattern, for example as depicted in Figure 8, 9 or 10. Plants of the first and second regions may be interplanted, or distributed randomly within the locus. In one aspect of the invention, there may be a border around the locus comprising or consisting of non- host plants or being uncultivated so that insects cannot migrate outside of the locus.
Alternatively, a locus according to the present invention may be comprised by, for example, a garden, forest, glasshouse or seed store. The locus may even be comprised by a lake such that the invention is used to control aquatic insects. However, the scope of this invention is clearly restricted to loci wherein the invention would be functional. The skilled man would understand that the present invention excludes the possibility of the - 8 locus being the world, wherein the first region is America and the second region is
Europe, for example.
In a particular embodiment of the present invention the locus comprises at least two regions wherein the first region comprises plants which produce at least a first insecticidal toxin, and the second region comprises plants which produce at least a second insecticidal toxin, wherein the first insecticidal toxin has a different mode of action to the second insecticidal toxin. Examples of known modes of action of insecticidal chemicals and toxins include, but are not limited to acetyl choline esterase lo inhibitors, GABA-gated chloride channel antagonists, sodium channel modulators, acetyl choline receptor modulators, chloride channel activators, juvenile hormone mimics, t fumigants, selective feeding blockers, growth inhibitors, disrupters of insect midgut membranes, inhibitors or oxidative phosphorylation, disrupters of ATE formation, oxidative phosphorylation uncouplers, inhibitors of magnesium stimulated ATPase, inhibitors of chitin biosynthesis, ecdysone agonist or disrupters, electron transport inhibitors and voltage dependent sodium channel blockers. For example, the first toxin may be a disrupter of the insect midgut membrane, such as a crystal toxin from Bacillus t thuringiensis, and the second toxin may be a growth inhibitor.
In a further embodiment of the invention, the first insecticidal toxin is a crystal protein I from Bacillus thuringiensis and the second insecticidal toxin is a vegetative insecticidal i protein (VIP) from Bacillus thuringiensis, or vice versa. Many crystal proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis have been isolated and are known to have an insecticidal effect.
Preferably, the crystal protein of the present invention is CrylAc. Preferably the VIP protein is VIP3A. In one aspect of the invention, the plants which produce either the first or second insecticidal toxin may comprise both CrylAc and Cry2Ab.
In a further embodiment of the present invention, the plants which comprise the first toxin and the plants which comprise the second toxin are from different genera. For; example, the plants which comprise the first toxin may be cotton plants from the genus Gossypium L., and the plants which comprise the second toxin may be corn plants from the genus Zea L In further non-limiting example, the plants which comprise the first] - 9 - toxin may be wheat plants from the genus Triticum L. and the plants which comprise the second toxin may be barley plants from the genus Hordeum L In a further embodiment of the present invention, the plants which comprise the first toxin and the plants which comprise the second toxin are cotton plants. Preferably the plants are of the same genus. More preferably the plants are the Upland Cotton species, Gossypium hirsutum. The cotton plants of the first and second regions may be different varieties.
ID In a further embodiment of the invention, at least 5% of the locus comprises the first region and at least 5% of the locus comprises the second region. Preferably, at least 20% of the locus comprises the first region and at least 20% of the locus comprises the second region. More preferably, 50% of the locus comprises the first region and 50% of the locus comprises the second region.
Further, the invention provides the option of applying a chemical spray to some or all of the regions or parts of said regions within the locus. The chemical may, for example, be an insecticide, fungicide or herbicide. Preferably such an insecticidal chemical has a different mode of action to the insecticidal toxins produced by the plants of the first and / or second regions. More preferably, the chemical is not a Bacillus thuringiensis I insecticide. i According to the present invention there is provided a method of controlling insects comprising providing a locus at which insects feed comprising at least two regions, characterized in that: a) a first region comprises plants which produce at least a first insecticidal toxin; and b) a second region comprises plants which produce at least a second insecticidal toxin; wherein an insect which can develop resistance to the first toxin does not develop resistance to the second toxin, and the first region comprises plants which produce the first toxin but not the second toxin when the plants of the second region produce the second toxin but not the first toxin. -
The words 'controlling' or 'control' as used herein refer not just to death of insects, but also include other detrimental effects on insects such as sickness, anti-feedant, growth retardation and reduced fecundity.
In an embodiment of the invention, a locus as described above is used in a method of controlling insects.
According to the present invention there is provided a method of reducing the incidence of resistance to a first insecticidal toxin comprising the steps of providing a locus at lo which insects feed comprising at least two regions, characterized in that: a) a first region comprises plants which produce at least a first insecticidal toxin; and b) a second region comprises plants which produce at least a second insecticidal toxin; wherein an insect which can develop resistance to the first toxin does not develop resistance to the second toxin, and the first region comprises plants which produce the first toxin but not the IS second when the plants of the second region produce the second toxin but not the first, so that insects which have developed or are developing resistance to the first insecticidal toxin are controlled by the second toxin.
The terms 'developed resistance' and 'developing resistance' refer to resistance within a population of insects rather than individual insects. While it may be possible for an individual insect to become resistant or more resistant to an insecticidal toxin, for example by the overproduction of a detoxification enzyme in response to ingestion of the toxin, resistance is more likely to occur as a result of one or more mutations in the insect genome. In this way, insects are either born resistant or susceptible to a particular toxin.
Therefore insects which have 'developed' or are 'developing resistance' encompasses the development of resistance via evolution through generations of breeding.
In an embodiment of the invention, a locus as described above is used in a method of reducing the incidence of resistance of insects to a first insecticidal toxin.
In a further embodiment of the present invention, there is a method as described above or a locus as described above wherein either the first or second region comprises Bollgard cotton plants. Preferably either the first or second region comprises Bollgard Id) cotton plants which produce the insecticidal toxin CrylAc. More preferably either the first or second region comprises Bollgard II cotton plants which produce the insecticidal toxins CrylAc and Cry2Ab in the same plant.
In a further embodiment of the present invention, there is a method as described above or a locus as described above wherein the first region comprises Bollgard cotton plants and the second region comprises VIP cotton plants. In a further embodiment still, there is a method as described above or a locus as described above wherein the first region comprises VIP cotton plants and the second region comprises Bollgard cotton plants.
0 The Bollgard cotton plants may be Bollgard Id) or Bollgard II. The VIP cotton plants produce the insecticidal toxin VIP3A (see, for example, British Patent Application Number GB0225 129.6). In a further aspect of the invention, the first region comprises VIP cotton plants and the second region comprises Bollgard cotton plants.
DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES
The accompanying figures illustrate non-limiting examples of the arrangement of the first and second regions within the locus.
Figure 1 - Second region forms a border around the perimeter of the first region Figure 2 - Second region forms brackets either side of the first region Figure 3 - Second region forms a series of horizontal or vertical strips amongst the first regions Figure 4 - Second region forms a block within the first region Figures 5 - 7 - First and second regions are adjacent Figure 8 - 10 - A plurality of first and second regions present in mosaic patterns - 12

Claims (19)

1. A locus at which insects feed comprising at least two regions, characterised in that: a) a first region comprises plants which produce at least a first insecticidal toxin; and b) a second region comprises plants which produce at least a second insecticidal toxin; wherein an insect which can develop resistance to the first toxin does not develop lo resistance to the second toxin, and the first region comprises plants which produce the first toxin but not the second toxin when the plants of the second region produce the second toxin but not the first toxin.
2. A locus according to claim 1 wherein the second region is within a quarter of a mile from the first region.
3. A locus according to claim 1 or 2 wherein the second region is adjacent to the first region.
4. A locus according to any of claims 1 to 3 wherein the second region is a border around the perimeter of the first region.
5. A locus according to claim 2 wherein the second region comprises one or more strips within the first region.
6. A locus according to claim 2 wherein a plurality of first and second regions are present in a mosaic pattern.
7. A locus according to claim 2 which comprises a random distribution of first and second regions.
8. A locus according to any of the preceding claims wherein the first insecticidal toxin has a different mode of action to the second insecticidal toxin. - 13
9. A locus according to any of claims 1 to 7 wherein the first insecticidal toxin is a crystal protein from Bacillus thuringiensis and the second insecticidal toxin is a VIP protein from Bacillus thuringiensis, or vice versa.
10. A locus according to any of the preceding claims wherein the plants which -- comprise the first toxin and the plants which comprise the second toxin are from different genera.
lo
1 1. A locus according to any of claims 1 to 10 wherein the plants which comprise the first toxin and the plants which comprise the second toxin are cotton plants.
12. A locus according to any of the preceding claims wherein at least 5% of the locus comprises the first region and least 5% of the locus comprises the second region.
13. A locus according to claim 12 wherein at least 20% of the locus comprises the first region and least 20% of the locus comprises the second region.
14. A method of controlling insects comprising providing a locus at which insects feed comprising at least two regions, characterized in that: a) a first region comprises plants which produce at least a first insecticidal toxin; and b) a second region comprises plants which produce at least a second insecticidal toxin; 2s wherein an insect which can develop resistance to the first toxin does not develop resistance to the second toxin, and the first region comprises plants which: produce the first toxin but not the second toxin when the plants of the second region produce the second toxin but not the first toxin.
15. Use of a locus according to any of claims 1 to 13 in a method of controlling insects. - 14
16. A method of reducing the incidence of resistance of an insect to a first insecticidal toxin comprising the steps of providing a locus at which insects feed comprising at least two regions, characterised in that: a) a first region comprises plants which produce at least a first insecticidal toxin; and b) a second region comprises plants which produce at least a second insecticidal toxin; wherein an insect which can develop resistance to the first toxin does not develop resistance to the second toxin, and the first region comprises plants which lo produce the first toxin but not the second when the plants of the second region produce the second toxin but not the first, so that insects which have developed or are developing resistance to the first insecticidal toxin are controlled by the second toxin.
17. Use of a locus according to any of claims 1 to 13 in a method of reducing the incidence of resistance of insects to a first insecticidal toxin.
18. A method according to claim 14 or 16 or a locus according to any of claims 1 to 13 wherein either the first or second region comprises Bollgard cotton plants.
19. A method according to claim 14 or 16 or a locus according to any of claims 1 to 13 wherein the first region comprises Bollgard) cotton plants and the second region comprises VIP cotton plants, or vice versa.
GB0307871A 2003-04-04 2003-04-04 Method to reduce the incidences of insect resistance to insecticidal plants Withdrawn GB2400035A (en)

Priority Applications (9)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
GB0307871A GB2400035A (en) 2003-04-04 2003-04-04 Method to reduce the incidences of insect resistance to insecticidal plants
CA002521235A CA2521235A1 (en) 2003-04-04 2004-03-03 Improved method of resistance management for transgenic crops
BRPI0409161-2A BRPI0409161A (en) 2003-04-04 2004-03-03 improved resistance control method for transgenic crops
PCT/GB2004/000901 WO2004086868A1 (en) 2003-04-04 2004-03-03 Improved method of resistance management for transgenic crops
CNB2004800086914A CN100551243C (en) 2003-04-04 2004-03-03 Improving one's methods of resistance management for transgenic crops
EP04716661A EP1613161A1 (en) 2003-04-04 2004-03-03 Improved method of resistance management for transgenic crops
AU2004226682A AU2004226682B2 (en) 2003-04-04 2004-03-03 Improved method of resistance management for transgenic crops
US10/551,894 US20070011773A1 (en) 2003-04-04 2004-03-03 Method of resistance management for transgenic crops
ARP040100823A AR043587A1 (en) 2003-04-04 2004-03-12 IMPROVED RESISTANCE CONTROL METHOD FOR TRANSGENIC CROPS

Applications Claiming Priority (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
GB0307871A GB2400035A (en) 2003-04-04 2003-04-04 Method to reduce the incidences of insect resistance to insecticidal plants

Publications (2)

Publication Number Publication Date
GB0307871D0 GB0307871D0 (en) 2003-05-14
GB2400035A true GB2400035A (en) 2004-10-06

Family

ID=9956233

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
GB0307871A Withdrawn GB2400035A (en) 2003-04-04 2003-04-04 Method to reduce the incidences of insect resistance to insecticidal plants

Country Status (2)

Country Link
CN (1) CN100551243C (en)
GB (1) GB2400035A (en)

Citations (3)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US5640804A (en) * 1994-09-14 1997-06-24 The Regents Of The University Of California Pest trap plants and crop protection
US6338040B1 (en) * 1999-02-12 2002-01-08 Agren, Inc. Method for delaying the development in pest species of resistance to control techniques, using insurance to encourage correct uses of refuges
US6501009B1 (en) * 1999-08-19 2002-12-31 Monsanto Technology Llc Expression of Cry3B insecticidal protein in plants

Family Cites Families (1)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
EP0400246A1 (en) * 1989-05-31 1990-12-05 Plant Genetic Systems, N.V. Prevention of Bt resistance development

Patent Citations (3)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US5640804A (en) * 1994-09-14 1997-06-24 The Regents Of The University Of California Pest trap plants and crop protection
US6338040B1 (en) * 1999-02-12 2002-01-08 Agren, Inc. Method for delaying the development in pest species of resistance to control techniques, using insurance to encourage correct uses of refuges
US6501009B1 (en) * 1999-08-19 2002-12-31 Monsanto Technology Llc Expression of Cry3B insecticidal protein in plants

Also Published As

Publication number Publication date
CN100551243C (en) 2009-10-21
GB0307871D0 (en) 2003-05-14
CN1849071A (en) 2006-10-18

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
Reay-Jones Pest status and management of corn earworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in field corn in the United States
Nester et al. 100 years of Bacillus thuringiensis: a critical scientific assessment
Ratnadass et al. Plant species diversity for sustainable management of crop pests and diseases in agroecosystems: a review
Reed et al. Transgenic Bt potato and conventional insecticides for Colorado potato beetle management: comparative efficacy and non‐target impacts
Snow et al. Commercialization of transgenic plants: potential ecological risks
Sharma Biotechnological approaches for pest management and ecological sustainability
Stout Host-plant resistance in pest management
Van den Berg et al. Managing fall armyworm in Africa: can Bt maize sustainably improve control?
Federici Transgenic Bt crops and resistance: Broadscale use of pest-killing plants to be true test
Bengyella et al. Assessment of damage caused by evolved fall armyworm on native and transgenic maize in South Africa
Shelton et al. Transgenic vegetables and fruits for control of insects and insect-vectored pathogens
Mabrouk et al. Integrated pest management in chickpea
Nester et al. 100 Years of Bacillus thuringiensis: A Critical Scientific Assessment: This report is based on a colloquium,“100 Years of Bacillis thuringiensis, a Paradigm for Producing Transgenic Organisms: A Critical Scientific Assessment,” sponsored by the American Academy of Microbiology and held November 16–18, in Ithaca, New York
Altieri et al. Genetic engineering and ecological engineering: a clash of paradigms or scope for synergy
Mookiah et al. Host plant resistance
AU2004226682B2 (en) Improved method of resistance management for transgenic crops
Thota et al. Genetic Alchemy: Unlocking the Untold Potential of Bt-Brinjal for Pest Management
GB2400035A (en) Method to reduce the incidences of insect resistance to insecticidal plants
Ahmad et al. First-generation transgenic cotton crops
GB2405095A (en) Method of planting transgenic crops
Singh et al. Mega pests of crops in India
Sweet et al. Synthesis and overview studies to evaluate existing research and knowledge on biological issues on GM plants of relevance to Swiss environments
Adomako et al. Transgenic plants and its role in insect control
Monga et al. MEGA PESTS OF CROPS IN INDIA
Shera et al. Biointensive integrated pest management for sustainable agriculture

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
WAP Application withdrawn, taken to be withdrawn or refused ** after publication under section 16(1)