US20230408426A1 - Non-destructive assessment of corn rootworm damage - Google Patents
Non-destructive assessment of corn rootworm damage Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- US20230408426A1 US20230408426A1 US18/327,316 US202318327316A US2023408426A1 US 20230408426 A1 US20230408426 A1 US 20230408426A1 US 202318327316 A US202318327316 A US 202318327316A US 2023408426 A1 US2023408426 A1 US 2023408426A1
- Authority
- US
- United States
- Prior art keywords
- root
- insect
- candidate
- plant
- candidate plant
- 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.)
- Abandoned
Links
- 230000006378 damage Effects 0.000 title claims description 59
- 240000008042 Zea mays Species 0.000 title claims description 29
- 235000002017 Zea mays subsp mays Nutrition 0.000 title claims description 24
- 235000005824 Zea mays ssp. parviglumis Nutrition 0.000 title claims description 23
- 235000005822 corn Nutrition 0.000 title claims description 23
- 241000196324 Embryophyta Species 0.000 claims abstract description 144
- 238000000034 method Methods 0.000 claims abstract description 73
- 230000000749 insecticidal effect Effects 0.000 claims abstract description 56
- 241000238631 Hexapoda Species 0.000 claims abstract description 51
- 238000003384 imaging method Methods 0.000 claims abstract description 42
- 239000000463 material Substances 0.000 claims abstract description 32
- 244000038280 herbivores Species 0.000 claims abstract description 24
- 208000027418 Wounds and injury Diseases 0.000 claims description 55
- 208000014674 injury Diseases 0.000 claims description 55
- 238000002591 computed tomography Methods 0.000 claims description 35
- 230000001066 destructive effect Effects 0.000 claims description 28
- 108090000623 proteins and genes Proteins 0.000 claims description 28
- 102000004169 proteins and genes Human genes 0.000 claims description 26
- 239000002917 insecticide Substances 0.000 claims description 9
- 239000002689 soil Substances 0.000 claims description 9
- 241000489972 Diabrotica barberi Species 0.000 claims description 7
- 244000068988 Glycine max Species 0.000 claims description 7
- 108091032973 (ribonucleotides)n+m Proteins 0.000 claims description 6
- 102000040650 (ribonucleotides)n+m Human genes 0.000 claims description 6
- 241000489975 Diabrotica Species 0.000 claims description 6
- 241000489976 Diabrotica undecimpunctata howardi Species 0.000 claims description 6
- 241000489977 Diabrotica virgifera Species 0.000 claims description 6
- 235000010469 Glycine max Nutrition 0.000 claims description 6
- 240000006394 Sorghum bicolor Species 0.000 claims description 6
- 239000000126 substance Substances 0.000 claims description 6
- 235000003255 Carthamus tinctorius Nutrition 0.000 claims description 5
- 244000020518 Carthamus tinctorius Species 0.000 claims description 5
- 244000020551 Helianthus annuus Species 0.000 claims description 5
- 235000003222 Helianthus annuus Nutrition 0.000 claims description 5
- 240000004658 Medicago sativa Species 0.000 claims description 5
- 235000011684 Sorghum saccharatum Nutrition 0.000 claims description 5
- 230000002786 root growth Effects 0.000 claims description 5
- 235000011331 Brassica Nutrition 0.000 claims description 4
- 235000017587 Medicago sativa ssp. sativa Nutrition 0.000 claims description 4
- 235000002637 Nicotiana tabacum Nutrition 0.000 claims description 4
- 244000061176 Nicotiana tabacum Species 0.000 claims description 4
- 240000007594 Oryza sativa Species 0.000 claims description 4
- 235000007164 Oryza sativa Nutrition 0.000 claims description 4
- 244000062793 Sorghum vulgare Species 0.000 claims description 4
- 235000021307 Triticum Nutrition 0.000 claims description 4
- 235000019713 millet Nutrition 0.000 claims description 4
- 238000009826 distribution Methods 0.000 claims description 3
- 235000009566 rice Nutrition 0.000 claims description 3
- 241000220243 Brassica sp. Species 0.000 claims description 2
- 244000098338 Triticum aestivum Species 0.000 claims description 2
- 230000008653 root damage Effects 0.000 abstract description 7
- 238000004166 bioassay Methods 0.000 abstract description 5
- 229920001184 polypeptide Polymers 0.000 description 19
- 102000004196 processed proteins & peptides Human genes 0.000 description 19
- 108090000765 processed proteins & peptides Proteins 0.000 description 19
- 230000000694 effects Effects 0.000 description 17
- 238000011282 treatment Methods 0.000 description 16
- 238000012545 processing Methods 0.000 description 13
- 238000011156 evaluation Methods 0.000 description 10
- 238000005259 measurement Methods 0.000 description 9
- 241000489947 Diabrotica virgifera virgifera Species 0.000 description 7
- 108700019146 Transgenes Proteins 0.000 description 7
- 238000003860 storage Methods 0.000 description 7
- 230000009261 transgenic effect Effects 0.000 description 7
- 230000011218 segmentation Effects 0.000 description 6
- 238000012360 testing method Methods 0.000 description 6
- 206010061217 Infestation Diseases 0.000 description 5
- 238000004458 analytical method Methods 0.000 description 5
- 238000003556 assay Methods 0.000 description 5
- 235000013601 eggs Nutrition 0.000 description 5
- 240000007241 Agrostis stolonifera Species 0.000 description 4
- 244000299507 Gossypium hirsutum Species 0.000 description 4
- 241000258937 Hemiptera Species 0.000 description 4
- 241000244206 Nematoda Species 0.000 description 4
- 230000015654 memory Effects 0.000 description 4
- 238000005406 washing Methods 0.000 description 4
- 244000283070 Abies balsamea Species 0.000 description 3
- 235000007173 Abies balsamea Nutrition 0.000 description 3
- 244000105624 Arachis hypogaea Species 0.000 description 3
- 241000219198 Brassica Species 0.000 description 3
- 235000013162 Cocos nucifera Nutrition 0.000 description 3
- 244000060011 Cocos nucifera Species 0.000 description 3
- 241000254173 Coleoptera Species 0.000 description 3
- 229920000742 Cotton Polymers 0.000 description 3
- 244000241257 Cucumis melo Species 0.000 description 3
- 241000508723 Festuca rubra Species 0.000 description 3
- 241000482313 Globodera ellingtonae Species 0.000 description 3
- 240000007817 Olea europaea Species 0.000 description 3
- 235000010617 Phaseolus lunatus Nutrition 0.000 description 3
- 235000010627 Phaseolus vulgaris Nutrition 0.000 description 3
- 244000046052 Phaseolus vulgaris Species 0.000 description 3
- 235000007238 Secale cereale Nutrition 0.000 description 3
- 244000082988 Secale cereale Species 0.000 description 3
- 241000044578 Stenotaphrum secundatum Species 0.000 description 3
- 241000209140 Triticum Species 0.000 description 3
- 241000607479 Yersinia pestis Species 0.000 description 3
- 238000013459 approach Methods 0.000 description 3
- 235000013339 cereals Nutrition 0.000 description 3
- 230000030279 gene silencing Effects 0.000 description 3
- 230000005291 magnetic effect Effects 0.000 description 3
- 239000013642 negative control Substances 0.000 description 3
- 230000000361 pesticidal effect Effects 0.000 description 3
- 239000013641 positive control Substances 0.000 description 3
- 238000011002 quantification Methods 0.000 description 3
- 230000021749 root development Effects 0.000 description 3
- 238000013077 scoring method Methods 0.000 description 3
- 231100000419 toxicity Toxicity 0.000 description 3
- 230000001988 toxicity Effects 0.000 description 3
- 241000209137 Agropyron cristatum Species 0.000 description 2
- 241000491617 Agropyron desertorum Species 0.000 description 2
- 241001626535 Agrostis canina Species 0.000 description 2
- 241001184547 Agrostis capillaris Species 0.000 description 2
- 241000566547 Agrotis ipsilon Species 0.000 description 2
- 241001652650 Agrotis subterranea Species 0.000 description 2
- 244000144725 Amygdalus communis Species 0.000 description 2
- 235000011437 Amygdalus communis Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 244000226021 Anacardium occidentale Species 0.000 description 2
- 244000099147 Ananas comosus Species 0.000 description 2
- 235000007119 Ananas comosus Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 235000010777 Arachis hypogaea Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 244000075850 Avena orientalis Species 0.000 description 2
- 235000007319 Avena orientalis Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 241000193388 Bacillus thuringiensis Species 0.000 description 2
- 241001674345 Callitropsis nootkatensis Species 0.000 description 2
- 244000045232 Canavalia ensiformis Species 0.000 description 2
- 235000009467 Carica papaya Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 240000006432 Carica papaya Species 0.000 description 2
- 241000343781 Chaetocnema pulicaria Species 0.000 description 2
- 241000207199 Citrus Species 0.000 description 2
- 241000723377 Coffea Species 0.000 description 2
- 241001529599 Colaspis brunnea Species 0.000 description 2
- 241000218631 Coniferophyta Species 0.000 description 2
- 235000009847 Cucumis melo var cantalupensis Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 240000008067 Cucumis sativus Species 0.000 description 2
- ZAKOWWREFLAJOT-CEFNRUSXSA-N D-alpha-tocopherylacetate Chemical compound CC(=O)OC1=C(C)C(C)=C2O[C@@](CCC[C@H](C)CCC[C@H](C)CCCC(C)C)(C)CCC2=C1C ZAKOWWREFLAJOT-CEFNRUSXSA-N 0.000 description 2
- 240000004585 Dactylis glomerata Species 0.000 description 2
- 241001609607 Delia platura Species 0.000 description 2
- 241001414892 Delia radicum Species 0.000 description 2
- 235000009355 Dianthus caryophyllus Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 240000006497 Dianthus caryophyllus Species 0.000 description 2
- 241000255925 Diptera Species 0.000 description 2
- 241000400698 Elasmopalpus lignosellus Species 0.000 description 2
- 244000078127 Eleusine coracana Species 0.000 description 2
- 241000025852 Eremochloa ophiuroides Species 0.000 description 2
- 240000002395 Euphorbia pulcherrima Species 0.000 description 2
- 241001368778 Euxoa messoria Species 0.000 description 2
- 241000234643 Festuca arundinacea Species 0.000 description 2
- 241000192306 Festuca longifolia Species 0.000 description 2
- 241000410074 Festuca ovina Species 0.000 description 2
- 241001442498 Globodera Species 0.000 description 2
- 241001442497 Globodera rostochiensis Species 0.000 description 2
- 241000448472 Gramma Species 0.000 description 2
- 241000498254 Heterodera glycines Species 0.000 description 2
- 241000379510 Heterodera schachtii Species 0.000 description 2
- 235000005206 Hibiscus Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 235000007185 Hibiscus lunariifolius Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 244000284380 Hibiscus rosa sinensis Species 0.000 description 2
- 235000007340 Hordeum vulgare Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 240000005979 Hordeum vulgare Species 0.000 description 2
- 244000267823 Hydrangea macrophylla Species 0.000 description 2
- 235000014486 Hydrangea macrophylla Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 235000003228 Lactuca sativa Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 240000008415 Lactuca sativa Species 0.000 description 2
- 241000255777 Lepidoptera Species 0.000 description 2
- 244000100545 Lolium multiflorum Species 0.000 description 2
- 240000004296 Lolium perenne Species 0.000 description 2
- 235000007688 Lycopersicon esculentum Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 235000014826 Mangifera indica Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 240000007228 Mangifera indica Species 0.000 description 2
- 240000003183 Manihot esculenta Species 0.000 description 2
- 241000234479 Narcissus Species 0.000 description 2
- 235000007199 Panicum miliaceum Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 241001668543 Pascopyrum smithii Species 0.000 description 2
- 241001330451 Paspalum notatum Species 0.000 description 2
- 241000044541 Paspalum vaginatum Species 0.000 description 2
- 235000007195 Pennisetum typhoides Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 244000025272 Persea americana Species 0.000 description 2
- 235000008673 Persea americana Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 240000007377 Petunia x hybrida Species 0.000 description 2
- 241000275069 Phyllotreta cruciferae Species 0.000 description 2
- 241000218606 Pinus contorta Species 0.000 description 2
- 235000013267 Pinus ponderosa Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 235000008577 Pinus radiata Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 241000218621 Pinus radiata Species 0.000 description 2
- 235000008566 Pinus taeda Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 241000218679 Pinus taeda Species 0.000 description 2
- 235000010582 Pisum sativum Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 240000004713 Pisum sativum Species 0.000 description 2
- 244000292693 Poa annua Species 0.000 description 2
- 241000136254 Poa compressa Species 0.000 description 2
- 241000209049 Poa pratensis Species 0.000 description 2
- 240000006597 Poa trivialis Species 0.000 description 2
- 241000590524 Protaphis middletonii Species 0.000 description 2
- 241001657916 Proxenus mindara Species 0.000 description 2
- 240000001416 Pseudotsuga menziesii Species 0.000 description 2
- 241000736230 Puccinellia distans Species 0.000 description 2
- 241000208422 Rhododendron Species 0.000 description 2
- 241000332477 Scutellonema bradys Species 0.000 description 2
- 240000005498 Setaria italica Species 0.000 description 2
- 240000003768 Solanum lycopersicum Species 0.000 description 2
- 235000002595 Solanum tuberosum Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 244000061456 Solanum tuberosum Species 0.000 description 2
- 244000269722 Thea sinensis Species 0.000 description 2
- 244000299461 Theobroma cacao Species 0.000 description 2
- 235000009470 Theobroma cacao Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 241000218638 Thuja plicata Species 0.000 description 2
- 240000001102 Zoysia matrella Species 0.000 description 2
- 244000022203 blackseeded proso millet Species 0.000 description 2
- 235000020971 citrus fruits Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 238000004891 communication Methods 0.000 description 2
- 230000002596 correlated effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 230000000875 corresponding effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 244000013123 dwarf bean Species 0.000 description 2
- 239000002158 endotoxin Substances 0.000 description 2
- 238000005516 engineering process Methods 0.000 description 2
- 231100000613 environmental toxicology Toxicity 0.000 description 2
- 230000012010 growth Effects 0.000 description 2
- 238000003306 harvesting Methods 0.000 description 2
- 238000004519 manufacturing process Methods 0.000 description 2
- 230000007246 mechanism Effects 0.000 description 2
- 230000003287 optical effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 239000002245 particle Substances 0.000 description 2
- 235000020232 peanut Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 239000003415 peat Substances 0.000 description 2
- 239000010451 perlite Substances 0.000 description 2
- 235000019362 perlite Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 238000012216 screening Methods 0.000 description 2
- 235000013311 vegetables Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 239000010455 vermiculite Substances 0.000 description 2
- 235000019354 vermiculite Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 229910052902 vermiculite Inorganic materials 0.000 description 2
- 235000004507 Abies alba Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 235000014081 Abies amabilis Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 244000101408 Abies amabilis Species 0.000 description 1
- 244000178606 Abies grandis Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000017894 Abies grandis Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 235000004710 Abies lasiocarpa Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 240000005020 Acaciella glauca Species 0.000 description 1
- 241001133760 Acoelorraphe Species 0.000 description 1
- 241000001996 Agrotis orthogonia Species 0.000 description 1
- 241000902876 Alticini Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000001274 Anacardium occidentale Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 235000017060 Arachis glabrata Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 235000018262 Arachis monticola Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 241000047982 Axonopus Species 0.000 description 1
- 241000047987 Axonopus fissifolius Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000021533 Beta vulgaris Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 241000335053 Beta vulgaris Species 0.000 description 1
- 241000219310 Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris Species 0.000 description 1
- 241000145727 Bouteloua curtipendula Species 0.000 description 1
- 241000232315 Bouteloua gracilis Species 0.000 description 1
- 241000339490 Brachyachne Species 0.000 description 1
- 244000178993 Brassica juncea Species 0.000 description 1
- 240000002791 Brassica napus Species 0.000 description 1
- 240000008100 Brassica rapa Species 0.000 description 1
- 241000743756 Bromus inermis Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000004936 Bromus mango Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 241000544756 Bromus racemosus Species 0.000 description 1
- 241000320719 Buchloe Species 0.000 description 1
- 241000218645 Cedrus Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000013912 Ceratonia siliqua Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 240000008886 Ceratonia siliqua Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000007516 Chrysanthemum Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 244000189548 Chrysanthemum x morifolium Species 0.000 description 1
- 241001124134 Chrysomelidae Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000010523 Cicer arietinum Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 244000045195 Cicer arietinum Species 0.000 description 1
- 241001340508 Crambus Species 0.000 description 1
- 101150102464 Cry1 gene Proteins 0.000 description 1
- 241000219112 Cucumis Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000010071 Cucumis prophetarum Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 235000010799 Cucumis sativus var sativus Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 244000007835 Cyamopsis tetragonoloba Species 0.000 description 1
- 244000052363 Cynodon dactylon Species 0.000 description 1
- 206010011732 Cyst Diseases 0.000 description 1
- 241000289763 Dasygaster padockina Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000014466 Douglas bleu Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 241001585089 Egira Species 0.000 description 1
- 241000498377 Egira curialis Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000007349 Eleusine coracana Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 235000013499 Eleusine coracana subsp coracana Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 241000738498 Epitrix pubescens Species 0.000 description 1
- 241000100633 Festuca nigrescens Species 0.000 description 1
- 241000218218 Ficus <angiosperm> Species 0.000 description 1
- 240000000047 Gossypium barbadense Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000009429 Gossypium barbadense Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 235000009432 Gossypium hirsutum Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 241000578422 Graphosoma lineatum Species 0.000 description 1
- 241001480224 Heterodera Species 0.000 description 1
- 241001481225 Heterodera avenae Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000021506 Ipomoea Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 241000207783 Ipomoea Species 0.000 description 1
- 244000017020 Ipomoea batatas Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000002678 Ipomoea batatas Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 241000219729 Lathyrus Species 0.000 description 1
- 240000004322 Lens culinaris Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000014647 Lens culinaris subsp culinaris Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 241000209510 Liliopsida Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000004431 Linum usitatissimum Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 240000006240 Linum usitatissimum Species 0.000 description 1
- 241000208467 Macadamia Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000018330 Macadamia integrifolia Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 240000007575 Macadamia integrifolia Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000004456 Manihot esculenta Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 235000016735 Manihot esculenta subsp esculenta Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 235000010624 Medicago sativa Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 241001143352 Meloidogyne Species 0.000 description 1
- 241000243785 Meloidogyne javanica Species 0.000 description 1
- 241000234295 Musa Species 0.000 description 1
- 240000005561 Musa balbisiana Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000018290 Musa x paradisiaca Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 101100168995 Neurospora crassa (strain ATCC 24698 / 74-OR23-1A / CBS 708.71 / DSM 1257 / FGSC 987) cyt-1 gene Proteins 0.000 description 1
- 101100438748 Neurospora crassa (strain ATCC 24698 / 74-OR23-1A / CBS 708.71 / DSM 1257 / FGSC 987) cyt-2 gene Proteins 0.000 description 1
- 241000256259 Noctuidae Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000002725 Olea europaea Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 241000209046 Pennisetum Species 0.000 description 1
- 244000026791 Pennisetum clandestinum Species 0.000 description 1
- 244000038248 Pennisetum spicatum Species 0.000 description 1
- 244000115721 Pennisetum typhoides Species 0.000 description 1
- 244000100170 Phaseolus lunatus Species 0.000 description 1
- 241000746983 Phleum pratense Species 0.000 description 1
- 241000437063 Phyllotreta striolata Species 0.000 description 1
- 231100000674 Phytotoxicity Toxicity 0.000 description 1
- 240000000020 Picea glauca Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000008127 Picea glauca Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 241000218595 Picea sitchensis Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000005205 Pinus Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 241000218602 Pinus <genus> Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000008331 Pinus X rigitaeda Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 235000011613 Pinus brutia Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 241000018646 Pinus brutia Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000008593 Pinus contorta Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 235000011334 Pinus elliottii Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 241000142776 Pinus elliottii Species 0.000 description 1
- 244000019397 Pinus jeffreyi Species 0.000 description 1
- 241000555277 Pinus ponderosa Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000013269 Pinus ponderosa var ponderosa Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 235000013268 Pinus ponderosa var scopulorum Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 241001499740 Plantago alpina Species 0.000 description 1
- 241000209504 Poaceae Species 0.000 description 1
- 241000193943 Pratylenchus Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000008572 Pseudotsuga menziesii Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 235000005386 Pseudotsuga menziesii var menziesii Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 241000508269 Psidium Species 0.000 description 1
- 240000001679 Psidium guajava Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000013929 Psidium pyriferum Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 235000004443 Ricinus communis Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 235000011449 Rosa Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 235000004789 Rosa xanthina Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 241000109329 Rosa xanthina Species 0.000 description 1
- 241000209051 Saccharum Species 0.000 description 1
- 240000000111 Saccharum officinarum Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000007201 Saccharum officinarum Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 241001138418 Sequoia sempervirens Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000008515 Setaria glauca Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 235000007226 Setaria italica Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 241000167598 Skenella castanea Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000007230 Sorghum bicolor Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 235000009184 Spondias indica Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 235000021536 Sugar beet Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 235000006468 Thea sinensis Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 235000001484 Trigonella foenum graecum Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 244000250129 Trigonella foenum graecum Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000007218 Tripsacum dactyloides Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 240000003021 Tsuga heterophylla Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000008554 Tsuga heterophylla Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 241000722923 Tulipa Species 0.000 description 1
- 241000722921 Tulipa gesneriana Species 0.000 description 1
- 101710100170 Unknown protein Proteins 0.000 description 1
- 235000010749 Vicia faba Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 240000006677 Vicia faba Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000002098 Vicia faba var. major Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 241000219977 Vigna Species 0.000 description 1
- 240000004922 Vigna radiata Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000010721 Vigna radiata var radiata Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 235000011469 Vigna radiata var sublobata Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 235000010726 Vigna sinensis Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 235000007244 Zea mays Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 235000016383 Zea mays subsp huehuetenangensis Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 230000004913 activation Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000009418 agronomic effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 235000020224 almond Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 229940097012 bacillus thuringiensis Drugs 0.000 description 1
- 230000008901 benefit Effects 0.000 description 1
- 235000020226 cashew nut Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 230000000295 complement effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 150000001875 compounds Chemical class 0.000 description 1
- 230000001276 controlling effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 244000038559 crop plants Species 0.000 description 1
- 208000031513 cyst Diseases 0.000 description 1
- 230000001461 cytolytic effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000013500 data storage Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000013461 design Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000001514 detection method Methods 0.000 description 1
- 235000005489 dwarf bean Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 241001233957 eudicotyledons Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000013305 food Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 230000006870 function Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000007274 generation of a signal involved in cell-cell signaling Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000002068 genetic effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 235000021331 green beans Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 230000036541 health Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000003709 image segmentation Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000011534 incubation Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000005764 inhibitory process Effects 0.000 description 1
- 239000004973 liquid crystal related substance Substances 0.000 description 1
- 235000014684 lodgepole pine Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 238000002595 magnetic resonance imaging Methods 0.000 description 1
- 235000009973 maize Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 101150023613 mev-1 gene Proteins 0.000 description 1
- 239000000203 mixture Substances 0.000 description 1
- 238000012986 modification Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000004048 modification Effects 0.000 description 1
- 235000002252 panizo Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 230000003071 parasitic effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000004382 potting Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000008569 process Effects 0.000 description 1
- 235000003499 redwood Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 235000000673 shore pine Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 241000894007 species Species 0.000 description 1
- 238000010561 standard procedure Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000003068 static effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000003325 tomography Methods 0.000 description 1
- 231100000816 toxic dose Toxicity 0.000 description 1
- 238000012549 training Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000013526 transfer learning Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000001131 transforming effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 235000001019 trigonella foenum-graecum Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 235000015112 vegetable and seed oil Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 230000000007 visual effect Effects 0.000 description 1
Images
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G01—MEASURING; TESTING
- G01N—INVESTIGATING OR ANALYSING MATERIALS BY DETERMINING THEIR CHEMICAL OR PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
- G01N23/00—Investigating or analysing materials by the use of wave or particle radiation, e.g. X-rays or neutrons, not covered by groups G01N3/00 – G01N17/00, G01N21/00 or G01N22/00
- G01N23/02—Investigating or analysing materials by the use of wave or particle radiation, e.g. X-rays or neutrons, not covered by groups G01N3/00 – G01N17/00, G01N21/00 or G01N22/00 by transmitting the radiation through the material
- G01N23/04—Investigating or analysing materials by the use of wave or particle radiation, e.g. X-rays or neutrons, not covered by groups G01N3/00 – G01N17/00, G01N21/00 or G01N22/00 by transmitting the radiation through the material and forming images of the material
- G01N23/046—Investigating or analysing materials by the use of wave or particle radiation, e.g. X-rays or neutrons, not covered by groups G01N3/00 – G01N17/00, G01N21/00 or G01N22/00 by transmitting the radiation through the material and forming images of the material using tomography, e.g. computed tomography [CT]
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G01—MEASURING; TESTING
- G01N—INVESTIGATING OR ANALYSING MATERIALS BY DETERMINING THEIR CHEMICAL OR PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
- G01N23/00—Investigating or analysing materials by the use of wave or particle radiation, e.g. X-rays or neutrons, not covered by groups G01N3/00 – G01N17/00, G01N21/00 or G01N22/00
- G01N23/02—Investigating or analysing materials by the use of wave or particle radiation, e.g. X-rays or neutrons, not covered by groups G01N3/00 – G01N17/00, G01N21/00 or G01N22/00 by transmitting the radiation through the material
- G01N23/06—Investigating or analysing materials by the use of wave or particle radiation, e.g. X-rays or neutrons, not covered by groups G01N3/00 – G01N17/00, G01N21/00 or G01N22/00 by transmitting the radiation through the material and measuring the absorption
- G01N23/083—Investigating or analysing materials by the use of wave or particle radiation, e.g. X-rays or neutrons, not covered by groups G01N3/00 – G01N17/00, G01N21/00 or G01N22/00 by transmitting the radiation through the material and measuring the absorption the radiation being X-rays
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G01—MEASURING; TESTING
- G01N—INVESTIGATING OR ANALYSING MATERIALS BY DETERMINING THEIR CHEMICAL OR PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
- G01N23/00—Investigating or analysing materials by the use of wave or particle radiation, e.g. X-rays or neutrons, not covered by groups G01N3/00 – G01N17/00, G01N21/00 or G01N22/00
- G01N23/02—Investigating or analysing materials by the use of wave or particle radiation, e.g. X-rays or neutrons, not covered by groups G01N3/00 – G01N17/00, G01N21/00 or G01N22/00 by transmitting the radiation through the material
- G01N23/06—Investigating or analysing materials by the use of wave or particle radiation, e.g. X-rays or neutrons, not covered by groups G01N3/00 – G01N17/00, G01N21/00 or G01N22/00 by transmitting the radiation through the material and measuring the absorption
- G01N23/18—Investigating the presence of flaws defects or foreign matter
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G01—MEASURING; TESTING
- G01N—INVESTIGATING OR ANALYSING MATERIALS BY DETERMINING THEIR CHEMICAL OR PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
- G01N33/00—Investigating or analysing materials by specific methods not covered by groups G01N1/00 - G01N31/00
- G01N33/0098—Plants or trees
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06T—IMAGE DATA PROCESSING OR GENERATION, IN GENERAL
- G06T7/00—Image analysis
- G06T7/0002—Inspection of images, e.g. flaw detection
- G06T7/0004—Industrial image inspection
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06T—IMAGE DATA PROCESSING OR GENERATION, IN GENERAL
- G06T7/00—Image analysis
- G06T7/0002—Inspection of images, e.g. flaw detection
- G06T7/0012—Biomedical image inspection
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06T—IMAGE DATA PROCESSING OR GENERATION, IN GENERAL
- G06T7/00—Image analysis
- G06T7/60—Analysis of geometric attributes
- G06T7/62—Analysis of geometric attributes of area, perimeter, diameter or volume
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G01—MEASURING; TESTING
- G01N—INVESTIGATING OR ANALYSING MATERIALS BY DETERMINING THEIR CHEMICAL OR PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
- G01N2223/00—Investigating materials by wave or particle radiation
- G01N2223/03—Investigating materials by wave or particle radiation by transmission
- G01N2223/04—Investigating materials by wave or particle radiation by transmission and measuring absorption
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G01—MEASURING; TESTING
- G01N—INVESTIGATING OR ANALYSING MATERIALS BY DETERMINING THEIR CHEMICAL OR PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
- G01N2223/00—Investigating materials by wave or particle radiation
- G01N2223/30—Accessories, mechanical or electrical features
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G01—MEASURING; TESTING
- G01N—INVESTIGATING OR ANALYSING MATERIALS BY DETERMINING THEIR CHEMICAL OR PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
- G01N2223/00—Investigating materials by wave or particle radiation
- G01N2223/40—Imaging
- G01N2223/401—Imaging image processing
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G01—MEASURING; TESTING
- G01N—INVESTIGATING OR ANALYSING MATERIALS BY DETERMINING THEIR CHEMICAL OR PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
- G01N2223/00—Investigating materials by wave or particle radiation
- G01N2223/40—Imaging
- G01N2223/419—Imaging computed tomograph
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G01—MEASURING; TESTING
- G01N—INVESTIGATING OR ANALYSING MATERIALS BY DETERMINING THEIR CHEMICAL OR PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
- G01N2223/00—Investigating materials by wave or particle radiation
- G01N2223/60—Specific applications or type of materials
- G01N2223/646—Specific applications or type of materials flaws, defects
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06T—IMAGE DATA PROCESSING OR GENERATION, IN GENERAL
- G06T2207/00—Indexing scheme for image analysis or image enhancement
- G06T2207/10—Image acquisition modality
- G06T2207/10072—Tomographic images
- G06T2207/10081—Computed x-ray tomography [CT]
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06T—IMAGE DATA PROCESSING OR GENERATION, IN GENERAL
- G06T2207/00—Indexing scheme for image analysis or image enhancement
- G06T2207/10—Image acquisition modality
- G06T2207/10116—X-ray image
Definitions
- the present embodiments generally relate to methods of non-destructively imaging plant root damage by insect root herbivores and evaluating the efficacy of insecticidal materials associated with the roots of plants against the insect root herbivores, useful for automated high throughput bioassays.
- the present embodiments also relate to comparing root volume, root length, root growth rate, root branching morphology, or root depth distribution of plants to access phytotoxicity of a trait.
- Corn rootworm ( Diabrotica spp.) can cause considerable damage to maize plants.
- annual yield losses and control costs for western corn rootworm ( D. virgifera virgifera ) and northern corn rootworm ( D. barber ) were estimated to exceed $1 billion in 2002 (Mitchell, Gray, & Steffey, 2002).
- the primary approach to controlling corn rootworm involves using transgenic insect control traits and application of insecticides.
- Root Nodal Injury Score See e.g. Oleson, J D, et al., J Econ Entomol., 98(1):1-8 (2005). Similar methods for manual scoring are also used for assessment of the efficacy of non-transgenic methods of control related to materials such as seed treatments.
- Manual assessment and scoring may involve a considerable amount of handwork and human interpretation/training, as well as direct plant manipulation that may cause damage to a plant by, for example, pulling roots and/or washing roots.
- a non-destructive assessment method amenable to automation is desirable for increasing throughput and improving overall plant vigor, agronomics and seed set.
- Methods are provided for non-destructively assessing damage to plant roots from insect root herbivores.
- methods are provided for non-destructively determining the resistance of plant roots to insect herbivory, comprising subjecting root tissue of a candidate plant comprising at least one insecticidal material associated with said root tissue to at least one insect root herbivore, obtaining a non-destructive image of roots of said candidate plant, and generating a root nodal injury score.
- a method of non-destructively assaying the efficacy of an insecticidal material to prevent insect root herbivory comprising subjecting root tissue of a candidate plant comprising at least one insecticidal material associated with said root tissue to at least one insect root herbivore, presenting the candidate plant to a non-destructive imaging apparatus and obtaining a non-destructive image of roots of said candidate plant.
- a root nodal injury score may then be determined based on the non-destructively obtained image.
- methods are provided for assaying the activity of insecticidal materials using an automated system.
- methods are provided relating to assaying the activity of insecticidal compounds using an automated system comprising providing a candidate plant with at least one insect root herbivore; transporting the candidate plant to an imaging apparatus for imaging of the roots of the candidate plant; generating a non-destructive image of roots of the candidate plant, and generating a root nodal injury score.
- the candidate plant is presented to the non-destructive imaging apparatus using an automated movement system, such as for example, a transportation or conveyor belt.
- an automated movement system such as for example, a transportation or conveyor belt.
- the methods disclosed herein may be used in a high-throughput manner to evaluate the root systems of numerous candidate plants.
- the methods have at least two non-destructive imaging apparatuses, each with an automated movement system, capable of imaging the root systems of multiple candidate plants sequentially or simultaneously.
- the non-destructive imaging apparatus may comprise an X-ray imager or magnetic resonance imager (MRI).
- the non-destructive image may be generated by X-ray computed tomography (CT).
- the insect root herbivore is a Coleopteran insect, such as a member of the Diabrotica species, for example Diabrotica virgifera LeConte (western corn rootworm); D. barberi Smith and Lawrence (northern corn rootworm); or D. undecimpunctata howardi Barber (southern corn rootworm).
- the insecticidal material comprises an insecticidal protein expressed in or applied to root tissue of a candidate plant; a double-stranded RNA generated in or applied to root tissue of a candidate plant; a biological insecticide, for example insecticidal microbes or nematodes; or a chemical insecticide applied to the root tissue of a candidate plant.
- FIG. 1 3D reconstructions of root structures distinguishing differential treatment effects across genotypes.
- FIG. 2 CT derived corn rootworm nodal injury scores correlated with manually assessed corn rootworm nodal injury scores.
- FIG. 3 X-ray CT image data at various time points for the continuous evaluation of root damage.
- FIG. 4 Comparison of nodal injury scores generated via CT scan and nodal injury score produced via destructive measurement.
- FIG. 5 Comparison of Root Volumetric data and Nodal Injury Score.
- an element means one or more elements.
- IC-50 or inhibition concentration
- EC-50 or effective concentration each may be used interchangeably, and refers to the concentration at which the larvae size (as may be determined by the larvae pixel area) is half way between the maximum size (the zero dose control), and the smallest size (the most toxic dose).
- a method for non-destructively determining the resistance of plant roots to insect herbivory comprising subjecting root tissue of a candidate plant comprising at least one insecticidal material associated with said root tissue to at least one insect root herbivore, obtaining a non-destructive image of roots of said candidate plant, and generating a root nodal injury score or other determination of the effects of the insecticidal material associated with said root tissue.
- the candidate plant is presented to the imaging apparatus by an automated movement system, such as for example a conveyor belt system.
- a method for non-destructively assaying the efficacy of an insecticidal material to insect root herbivory comprising subjecting root tissue of a candidate plant comprising at least one insecticidal material associated with said root tissue to at least one insect root herbivore, presenting the candidate plant to a non-destructive imaging apparatus, obtaining a non-destructive image of roots of said candidate plant, and generating a root nodal injury score or other determination of the effects of the insecticidal material associated with said root tissue.
- the candidate plant is presented to the imaging apparatus by an automated movement system, such as for example a conveyor belt system.
- Methods are provided for assaying the activity of insecticidal materials using an automated system.
- methods are provided relating to assaying the activity of insecticidal materials using an automated system comprising providing at least one candidate plant in a container; transporting by automated means said container to an imaging device for imaging of the roots of the candidate plant; and obtaining an image of the roots of the candidate plant for measuring or determining a corn rootworm nodal injury score or other determination of the effects of the insecticidal material associated with said root tissue.
- the method further includes the step of infesting insects or insect eggs into a plant container comprising a candidate plant.
- the method relates to infesting more than one insect or insect egg per plant.
- the method relates to infesting a predetermined number of insects or insect eggs equally into a plurality of candidate plants.
- a candidate plant contains an insecticidal material.
- the insecticidal material comprises at least one of the group consisting of an insecticidal protein, an insecticidal silencing element or double stranded RNA, a biological insecticide, for example insecticidal microbes or nematodes; or an insecticidal chemistry, or combinations thereof.
- the plant container may comprise an identifying code, such as for example a barcode or an RFID chip.
- the automated system can further comprise at least one barcode or RFID chip reader as is known in the art, which can be communicatively coupled to a computer or other processing equipment as further disclosed herein.
- the plant container is a white, clear, opaque, or other colored plant container.
- a method for non-destructively determining the resistance of plant roots to insect root herbivores comprises subjecting root tissue of a candidate plant comprising at least one insecticidal material associated with said root tissue to at least one insect root herbivore, obtaining a non-destructive image of roots of said candidate plant, and generating a root nodal injury score or other determination of the effects of the insecticidal material associated with said root tissue.
- the non-destructive image may be obtained using an imaging system comprising x-ray equipment or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) equipment configured to produce images and identify shapes, patterns, orientation, and or other characteristics of objects.
- the measurement comprises detecting and/or recording root patterns of a candidate plant in a plant container.
- the detecting and/or recording of the root patterns of a candidate plant comprises comparing two or more images from a time interval of a candidate plant in a plant container.
- the two or more images can be compared using imaging software stored on an imaging computer as further disclosed herein.
- imaging software can be configured to produce an output corresponding to a visual overlay of discrete images, taken at various times during the time interval, with such output being presented on a display device positioned in communication with a processor of the imaging computer.
- the displayed output can create a reference value that can be used to measure changes in root patterns, root mass (or area), or root nodes in the presence of insect root herbivores over time.
- the measurement comprises a metric measurement.
- the metric measurement can be determined using imaging software stored on a computer as further disclosed herein, with the imaging software being configured to determine the size, length, or volume of roots of a candidate plant or a portion thereof by processing a previously captured image of the roots of a candidate plant or a portion thereof.
- the CT scan image is obtained from a soil medium comprising about 38% peat, about 51% Bark, about 8% Perlite, and about 3% Vermiculite. In another embodiment, the image is obtained from a soil medium comprising about 77% Peat, about 16% Perlite, and about 7% Vermiculite. In another embodiment, the moisture content of the soil medium at the time of CT scan imaging ranges from about 10% to about 40%. In another embodiment, the candidate plant is subjected to evaluation using an MRI-based system.
- the method relates to determining the efficacy or insecticidal activity of an insecticidal material associated with roots of a candidate plant, such as an insecticidal protein, an insecticidal silencing element or double stranded RNA, a non-protein insecticidal chemical, a native trait or characteristic of a plant that confers resistance or tolerance to insect herbivory.
- the test substance is a new insecticidal protein, a shuffled variant, or a domain swapped insecticidal protein.
- the insecticidal protein is an unknown protein or a protein of unknown toxicity or insecticidal activity to insects.
- the assay comprises the use of a positive control test plant comprising an insecticidal protein, wherein the toxicity of the positive control insecticidal protein is known.
- the toxicity of a test protein is determined by determining an IC-50, EC-50 or an LC-50 of the test protein.
- the method relates to determining the effect of an insecticidal protein, an insecticidal silencing element or double stranded RNA, or a non-protein insecticidal chemical, trait or insecticide, on root development. In another embodiment, the method relates to determining the effect of a native trait or characteristic of a plant on root development.
- Roots of transgenic plants expressing pesticidal proteins may be evaluated for resistance to herbivory against one or more insect pests.
- the pesticidal protein has activity against below-ground insect pests.
- the pesticidal proteins are selected from, but are not limited to: insecticidal proteins such as; an AfIP-1A and/or AfIP-1B polypeptide of U.S. Pat. No.
- an automated root imaging system can comprise at least one automated movement system as further disclosed herein.
- the automated movement system can have its own processing circuitry, which can be configured to control operation of the automated movement system and other system components as disclosed herein.
- the processing circuitry of the automated movement system can comprise a central control (master) computer. Plants may be transported to and from the scanner manually, or via an automated handling/logistics system incorporated into the growing environment that is in operative communication with the X-ray scanner.
- the imaging system can further comprise at least one imaging assembly.
- the imaging assembly can comprise a camera, an X-ray or MRI system, and one or more sensors.
- the imaging apparatus can comprise a stage configured to receive and support a pot comprising a candidate plant while a camera, X-ray or MRI system captures images of one or more candidate plants.
- the image is generated using a helical scan, in which the imaging sensor rotates around a candidate plant that is held in a stationary position.
- the image is generated using a stationary imaging sensor while a candidate plant is rotated before the imaging sensor.
- the imaging apparatus can be communicatively coupled to processing circuitry, which can permit selective control of the operation (e.g., activation and image acquisition parameters) of the imaging apparatus.
- the processing circuitry of the imaging apparatus can be communicatively coupled (e.g., integrally connected or wirelessly connected) to processing circuitry of an automated movement system using conventional mechanisms.
- Each imaging system can have its own processing circuitry (e.g., a computer) that is configured to permit selective control of the operation of the imaging system.
- the processing circuitry of each imaging system can be communicatively coupled (e.g., integrally connected or wirelessly connected) to processing circuitry of an automated movement system using conventional mechanisms, such as ActiveX control and/or serial port connection.
- the automated imaging system can comprise at least one bar code or RFID chip reader positioned at selected locations within the system to permit tracking of the locations of individual candidate plants.
- Each bar code reader can comprise processing circuitry that is configured to transmit information concerning the detection and scanning of bar codes (e.g., time, location, plant identification and the like).
- each bar code reader can be communicatively coupled to an automated movement system.
- each bar code reader can be communicatively coupled to a master computer or remote computing device.
- imaging operations it is contemplated that all steps of the imaging process can be performed in an automated manner. Where specific structure for performing a step is not provided in the description, it is understood that such step can be performed by corresponding processing circuitry as disclosed herein, which can control operation of system components or conduct analysis in an automated manner.
- Image segmentation algorithms have been developed that are useful for identifying roots of candidate plants in pots comprising soil. See Metzner, R., et al., Direct comparison or MRI and X-ray CT technologies for 3D imaging of root systems in soil: potential and challenges for root trait quantification, Plant Methods, 11:17 (2015); Douarre, C., et al., Transfer Learning from Synthetic Data Applied to Soil-Root Segmentation in X-ray Tomography Images, J. Imaging, 4(5):65 (2018).
- the methods and systems disclosed herein may implement a machine, computer system or equivalent, within which a set of instructions for causing the computer or machine to perform any one or more of the protocols or methodologies of the invention may be executed.
- the machine may be connected (e.g., networked) to other machines, e.g., in a Local Area Network (LAN), an intranet, an extranet, the Internet, or in cloud computing, or any equivalents thereof.
- the machine may operate in the capacity of a server or a client machine in a client-server network environment, or as a peer machine in a peer-to-peer (or distributed) network environment.
- the machine may be a personal computer (PC), a tablet PC a web appliance, a server, cloud computing, or any machine or infrastructure capable of executing a set of instructions (sequential or otherwise) that specify actions to be taken by that machine.
- PC personal computer
- tablet PC a web appliance
- server cloud computing
- machine shall also be taken to include any collection of machines, computers or products of manufacture that individually or jointly execute a set (or multiple sets) of instructions to perform any one or more of the methodologies of the invention.
- the computer further comprises a network interface device (adapter).
- the computer also may include a display device, which can be a video display unit (display device, e.g., a liquid crystal display (LCD) or a cathode ray tube (CRT)).
- the computer also may include a human-machine interface, which can include, for example, an alphanumeric input device (e.g., a keyboard), a cursor control device (e.g., a mouse), and a signal generation device (e.g., a speaker).
- an alphanumeric input device e.g., a keyboard
- a cursor control device e.g., a mouse
- a signal generation device e.g., a speaker
- the computer may also include an input/output interface.
- the data storage device (e.g., drive unit) comprises a computer-readable storage medium on which is stored one or more sets of instructions (e.g., software) embodying any one or more of the protocols, methodologies or functions of this invention.
- the instructions may also reside, completely or at least partially, within the main memory and/or within the processor during execution thereof by the computer, the main memory and the processor also constituting machine-accessible storage media.
- the instructions may further be transmitted or received over a network via the network interface device.
- the computer-readable storage medium is used to store data structure sets that define user identifying states and user preferences that define user profiles.
- Data structure sets and user profiles may also be stored in other sections of computer system, such as static memory.
- the term “machine-accessible storage medium” can be taken to include a single medium or multiple media (e.g., a centralized or distributed database, and/or associated caches and servers) that store the one or more sets of instructions.
- the term “machine-accessible storage medium” can also be taken to include any medium that is capable of storing, encoding or carrying a set of instructions for execution by the machine and that cause the machine to perform any one or more of the methodologies of the present invention.
- the term “machine-accessible storage medium” shall accordingly be taken to include, but not be limited to, solid-state memories, and optical and magnetic media.
- information and signals are represented using any technology and/or technique known in the art.
- data, instructions, commands, information, signals, bits, symbols, and chips used to practice the compositions (devices, computers) and methods of the invention can be represented by voltages, currents, electromagnetic waves, magnetic fields or particles, optical fields or particles, or any combination thereof.
- the various illustrative logical blocks, modules, circuits, and algorithm steps used to describe exemplary embodiments can be implemented as electronic hardware, computer software, or combinations of both.
- various illustrative components, blocks, modules, circuits, and steps have been described above generally in terms of their functionality. Whether such functionality is implemented as hardware or software depends upon the particular application and design constraints imposed on the overall system. Skilled artisans may implement the described functionality in varying ways for each particular application, but such implementation decisions should not be interpreted as causing a departure from the scope of the present disclosure.
- the embodiments may be used for root analysis of any plant species, including, but not limited to, monocots and dicots.
- plants of interest include, but are not limited to, corn ( Zea mays ), Brassica sp. (e.g., B. napus, B. rapa, B.
- juncea particularly those Brassica species useful as sources of seed oil, alfalfa ( Medicago sativa ), rice ( Oryza sativa ), rye ( Secale cereale ), sorghum ( Sorghum bicolor, Sorghum vulgare ), millet (e.g., pearl millet ( Pennisetum glaucum ), proso millet ( Panicum miliaceum ), foxtail millet ( Setaria italica ), finger millet ( Eleusine coracana )), sunflower ( Helianthus annuus ), safflower (Carthamus tinctorius), wheat ( Triticum aestivum ), soybean ( Glycine max ), tobacco ( Nicotiana tabacum ), potato ( Solanum tuberosum ), peanuts ( Arachis hypogaea ), cotton ( Gossypium barbadense, Gossypium hirsutum ), sweet potato ( Ipomoea batat
- Vegetables include tomatoes ( Lycopersicon esculentum ), lettuce (e.g., Lactuca sativa ), green beans ( Phaseolus vulgaris ), lima beans ( Phaseolus limensis ), peas ( Lathyrus spp.), and members of the genus Cucumis such as cucumber ( C. sativus ), cantaloupe ( C. cantalupensis ), and musk melon ( C. melo ).
- tomatoes Lycopersicon esculentum
- lettuce e.g., Lactuca sativa
- green beans Phaseolus vulgaris
- lima beans Phaseolus limensis
- peas Lathyrus spp.
- members of the genus Cucumis such as cucumber ( C. sativus ), cantaloupe ( C. cantalupensis ), and musk melon ( C. melo ).
- Ornamentals include azalea ( Rhododendron spp.), hydrangea ( Macrophylla hydrangea ), hibiscus ( Hibiscus rosasanensis ), roses ( Rosa spp.), tulips ( Tulipa spp.), daffodils ( Narcissus spp.), petunias ( Petunia hybrida ), carnation ( Dianthus caryophyllus ), poinsettia ( Euphorbia pulcherrima ), and chrysanthemum .
- Conifers that may be employed in practicing the embodiments include, for example, pines such as loblolly pine ( Pinus taeda ), slash pine ( Pinus elliotii ), ponderosa pine ( Pinus ponderosa ), lodgepole pine ( Pinus contorta ), and Monterey pine ( Pinus radiata ); Douglas-fir ( Pseudotsuga menziesii ); Western hemlock ( Tsuga canadensis ); Sitka spruce ( Picea glauca ); redwood ( Sequoia sempervirens ); true firs such as silver fir ( Abies amabilis ) and balsam fir ( Abies balsamea ); and cedars such as Western red cedar ( Thuja plicata ) and Alaska yellow-cedar ( Chamaecyparis nootkatensis ). Plants of the embodiments include crop plants (for example, corn, alfalfa, sunflower
- Turf grasses include, but are not limited to: annual bluegrass ( Poa annua ); annual ryegrass ( Lolium multiflorum ); Canada bluegrass ( Poa compressa ); Chewing's fescue ( Festuca rubra ); colonial bentgrass ( Agrostis tenuis ); creeping bentgrass ( Agrostis palustris ); crested wheatgrass ( Agropyron desertorum ); fairway wheatgrass ( Agropyron cristatum ); hard fescue ( Festuca longifolia ); Kentucky bluegrass ( Poa pratensis ); orchardgrass ( Dactylis glomerata ); perennial ryegrass ( Lolium perenne ); red fescue ( Festuca rubra ); redtop ( Agrostis alba ); rough bluegrass ( Poa trivialis ); sheep fescue ( Festuca ovina ); smooth bromegrass ( Bromus inermis ); tall fescue ( Festuca arundinace
- Plants of interest include grain plants that provide seeds of interest, oil-seed plants, and leguminous plants.
- Seeds of interest include grain seeds, such as corn, wheat, barley, rice, sorghum, rye, millet, etc.
- Oil-seed plants include cotton, soybean, safflower, sunflower, Brassica , maize, alfalfa, palm, coconut, flax, castor, olive, etc.
- Leguminous plants include beans and peas. Beans include guar, locust bean, fenugreek, soybean, garden beans, cowpea, mung bean, lima bean, fava bean, lentils, chickpea, etc.
- the methods are useful for assessing efficacy of insecticidal materials against certain insects selected from the orders Coleoptera, Diptera, Lepidoptera, Homoptera, and Hemiptera, particularly Coleoptera.
- Larvae of the order Lepidoptera include, but are not limited to, cutworms; Agrotis ipsilon Hufnagel (black cutworm); A. orthogonia Morrison (western cutworm); A. subterranea Fabricius (granulate cutworm); Athetis mindara Barnes and Mcdunnough (rough skinned cutworm); Euxoa messoria Harris (darksided cutworm); Egira ( Xylomyges ) curialis Grote (citrus cutworm); borers; Crambus caliginosellus Clemens (corn root webworm); and Elasmopalpus lignosellus Zeller (lesser cornstalk borer).
- Diabrotica virgifera LeConte western corn rootworm
- D. barberi Smith and Lawrence noden corn rootworm
- D. undecimpunctata howardi Barber southern corn rootworm
- Chaetocnema pulicaria Melsheimer corn flea beetle
- Phyllotreta cruciferae Goeze Cerifer flea beetle
- Phyllotreta striolata stripped flea beetle
- Colaspis brunnea Fabricius grape colaspis
- maggots including, but not limited to: Delia platura Meigen (seedcorn maggot); and D. radicum (cabbage maggot).
- Agronomically important members from the order Homoptera further include, but are not limited to: A. maidiradicis Forbes (corn root aphid).
- Agronomically important species of interest from the order Hemiptera include, but are not limited to: S. castanea (root stink bug).
- Nematodes include parasitic nematodes such as root-knot, cyst and lesion nematodes, including Heterodera spp., Meloidogyne spp. and Globodera spp.; particularly members of the cyst nematodes, including, but not limited to, Heterodera glycines (soybean cyst nematode); Heterodera schachtii (beet cyst nematode); Heterodera avenae (cereal cyst nematode) and Globodera rostochiensis and Globodera pailida (potato cyst nematodes).
- Lesion nematodes include Pratylenchus spp.
- Plants were conducted to screen maize plants for feeding by D. virgifera .
- Plants consisted of a corn inbred with at least one transgene expressing at least one insecticidal protein in roots, or a wild type seed-grown plant of the same genetic background without the transgene to serve as a negative control.
- Plants were grown in 3.78 L plastic pots, maintained in controlled environment (80-82F, 16:8 L:D) and watered as needed.
- At the V2-V3 leaf stage plants were infested with approximately 400 non-diapausing D. virgifera virgifera eggs (two infestations of ⁇ 200 eggs one week apart). Plants were scored for D.
- virgifera virgifera feeding 19-21 days after the first infestation To assign insect feeding scores, plants were removed from the pot and potting media was washed away from the crown and the root given a manual node-injury-score by an evaluator (CRWNIS) (Oleson et al. 2005, Journal of Economic Entomology 98:1, p. 1-8.). Plants may be placed back into their container, repotted and grown for seed production.
- CRWNIS evaluator
- Quantification took the form of manual evaluation and scoring of the segmented image in the manner of Oleson, et. al. Additionally, further analysis and scoring of the segmented data was done automatically via algorithm. In this case additional features measured or extrapolated from the segmented data set, including but not limited to; root volume, length, branching morphology, depth distribution, etc., may be included in the analyses.
- CT image datasets were generated for 3 different treatments:
- Candidate plants were grown as described above in Example 1 in a controlled growth environment and X-ray imaged to generate 3D volumes for root segmentation. The candidate plants were then destructively harvested, including root washing. for manual scoring of the corn rootworm nodal injury score. After completion of the CT image processing, the segmented 3D image data sets were then visually scored for corn rootworm nodal injury score and compared to the standard manual scores obtained from destructive harvesting.
- 3D reconstructions of the root structure were of sufficient quality to distinguish differential treatment effect across genotypes.
- CT image derived corn rootworm nodal injury scores correlated well with manually derived, destructively-harvested corn rootworm nodal injury scores.
- Results of the CT assessment indicate that the scanning method is capable of sufficiently reconstructing 3D root datasets to reliably allow for an image-derived corn rootworm nodal injury score that correlates well with the manual corn rootworm nodal injury score obtained from destructive harvesting.
- root mass may offer some indication of whether insecticidal material (applied or transgenic) has an impact on insect root herbivory.
- nodal injury scores obtained from the X-ray CT allow for the continuous evaluation of root damage at earlier time points than the previous destructive evaluation methods, indicating that the +14-day time point can produce scores complementary to those obtained at +21 days, whereas the +7-day measurement appears to be too early in both root development and feeding progression and therefore may have a limited value. Additionally, evaluation of X-ray CT derived root volume and length across the time-course provide new insight into root growth rate and feeding progression as relates to the effects of insecticidal material.
- Example 2 Whole plant greenhouse bioassays were conducted to screen maize plants for feeding by D. virgifera , where the plants were raised and infested in the same manner as set forth in Examples 1 & 2. To evaluate efficacy of candidate transgenes expressing at least one insecticidal protein in roots, candidate plants were raised, infested, scanned via CT using a 3D helical scan approach, and assigned feeding scores in the same manner as set forth in Example 2.
- Candidate plants consisted of 33 treatments:
- Roots were non-destructively imaged with a CT scanner and the data was reconstructed and segmented to reveal the root structures as set forth in Example 2.
- 36 scans were suppressed due to technical faults in some combination of raw image acquisition, reconstruction, or root segmentation.
- resultant segmented root images were assigned a root nodal injury score, and in this case, each root image was assigned a nodal injury score by two independent evaluators applying the scoring method of Oleson et al. (2005).
- To cross-validate the CT derived nodal injury scores each plant was then destructively harvested, including root washing, for manual scoring of the corn rootworm nodal injury score.
- nodal injury scores generated via CT data for both independent evaluators show at high level of agreement with the nodal injury score produced via destructive measurement. This is apparent both on an individual plant basis and for the aggregate of each treatment.
- a “pass/fail” threshold was set at a nodal injury score level of 0.5. By this metric, agreement between the CT derived and destructively derived scores at the treatment level for C1-C31 was 100%.
- Segmented root image datasets described in Example 5 were further evaluated for correlation of Root Volume to destructively derived nodal injury score.
- Total root volume was derived from each of the segmented images, as set forth in Example 4.
- comparison of the CT derived volume to the manual nodal injury score demonstrates relationships that can be used to augment the nodal injury score evaluation, and to potentially streamline the candidate efficacy assay as described in Example 5.
- CT volume data indicate that all individual plants with volume in excess of 21,00 mm3 fall below the 0.5 nodal injury score threshold set for pass/fail, representing 48 plants, or 26% of plants evaluated via CT. This indicates that volumetric data from the CT image could be used to effectively pre-screen candidate plants; with plants above the indicated volume threshold expected to pass and therefore not needing further evaluation. Additionally, all negative control plants, and the Transgenic treatment that failed the nodal injury score threshold, cluster together, with modest overlap in volume as compared to plants below the nodal injury score pass threshold. This indicates potential value in CT derived volumetric data as potential component of future automated analysis methods.
Landscapes
- Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
- Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- Life Sciences & Earth Sciences (AREA)
- General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- Chemical & Material Sciences (AREA)
- General Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
- Immunology (AREA)
- Analytical Chemistry (AREA)
- Biochemistry (AREA)
- Pathology (AREA)
- Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
- Computer Vision & Pattern Recognition (AREA)
- Radiology & Medical Imaging (AREA)
- Nuclear Medicine, Radiotherapy & Molecular Imaging (AREA)
- Quality & Reliability (AREA)
- Botany (AREA)
- Wood Science & Technology (AREA)
- Food Science & Technology (AREA)
- Medicinal Chemistry (AREA)
- Toxicology (AREA)
- Medical Informatics (AREA)
- Pulmonology (AREA)
- Geometry (AREA)
- Analysing Materials By The Use Of Radiation (AREA)
Abstract
The present embodiments generally relate to methods of non-destructively imaging plant root damage by insect root herbivores and evaluating the efficacy of insecticidal materials associated with the roots of plants against the insect root herbivores, useful for automated high throughput bioassays.
Description
- This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/858,660, filed Jun. 7, 2019, which is hereby incorporated herein in its entirety by reference.
- The present embodiments generally relate to methods of non-destructively imaging plant root damage by insect root herbivores and evaluating the efficacy of insecticidal materials associated with the roots of plants against the insect root herbivores, useful for automated high throughput bioassays. The present embodiments also relate to comparing root volume, root length, root growth rate, root branching morphology, or root depth distribution of plants to access phytotoxicity of a trait.
- Corn rootworm (Diabrotica spp.) can cause considerable damage to maize plants. Before corn-rootworm-resistant biotech traits were available on the market, annual yield losses and control costs for western corn rootworm (D. virgifera virgifera) and northern corn rootworm (D. barber) were estimated to exceed $1 billion in 2002 (Mitchell, Gray, & Steffey, 2002). The primary approach to controlling corn rootworm involves using transgenic insect control traits and application of insecticides. The potential exists for rootworm populations to develop resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis traits. Therefore, there remains a need to identify and develop new traits to provide adequate plant root protection against insect root herbivores.
- The effect of proteins on rootworms may be assessed by transforming plants with potential resistance genes and infesting the soil of these plants with rootworm. After some incubation time, the root system damage of a plant extracted from the soil may be visually assessed, by manually assigning a plant a so-called Root Nodal Injury Score (See e.g. Oleson, J D, et al., J Econ Entomol., 98(1):1-8 (2005)). Similar methods for manual scoring are also used for assessment of the efficacy of non-transgenic methods of control related to materials such as seed treatments.
- Manual assessment and scoring may involve a considerable amount of handwork and human interpretation/training, as well as direct plant manipulation that may cause damage to a plant by, for example, pulling roots and/or washing roots. A non-destructive assessment method amenable to automation is desirable for increasing throughput and improving overall plant vigor, agronomics and seed set.
- Methods are provided for non-destructively assessing damage to plant roots from insect root herbivores. In one embodiment, methods are provided for non-destructively determining the resistance of plant roots to insect herbivory, comprising subjecting root tissue of a candidate plant comprising at least one insecticidal material associated with said root tissue to at least one insect root herbivore, obtaining a non-destructive image of roots of said candidate plant, and generating a root nodal injury score.
- In another embodiment is provided a method of non-destructively assaying the efficacy of an insecticidal material to prevent insect root herbivory, comprising subjecting root tissue of a candidate plant comprising at least one insecticidal material associated with said root tissue to at least one insect root herbivore, presenting the candidate plant to a non-destructive imaging apparatus and obtaining a non-destructive image of roots of said candidate plant. A root nodal injury score may then be determined based on the non-destructively obtained image.
- The methods disclosed herein contemplate that the steps may be conducted manually, the steps may be automated, or some combination thereof. Methods are provided for assaying the activity of insecticidal materials using an automated system. In some embodiments, methods are provided relating to assaying the activity of insecticidal compounds using an automated system comprising providing a candidate plant with at least one insect root herbivore; transporting the candidate plant to an imaging apparatus for imaging of the roots of the candidate plant; generating a non-destructive image of roots of the candidate plant, and generating a root nodal injury score.
- In one embodiment, the candidate plant is presented to the non-destructive imaging apparatus using an automated movement system, such as for example, a transportation or conveyor belt. The methods disclosed herein may be used in a high-throughput manner to evaluate the root systems of numerous candidate plants. In one embodiment, the methods have at least two non-destructive imaging apparatuses, each with an automated movement system, capable of imaging the root systems of multiple candidate plants sequentially or simultaneously.
- The non-destructive imaging apparatus may comprise an X-ray imager or magnetic resonance imager (MRI). The non-destructive image may be generated by X-ray computed tomography (CT).
- In one embodiment, the insect root herbivore is a Coleopteran insect, such as a member of the Diabrotica species, for example Diabrotica virgifera LeConte (western corn rootworm); D. barberi Smith and Lawrence (northern corn rootworm); or D. undecimpunctata howardi Barber (southern corn rootworm). In another embodiment, the insecticidal material comprises an insecticidal protein expressed in or applied to root tissue of a candidate plant; a double-stranded RNA generated in or applied to root tissue of a candidate plant; a biological insecticide, for example insecticidal microbes or nematodes; or a chemical insecticide applied to the root tissue of a candidate plant.
-
FIG. 1 : 3D reconstructions of root structures distinguishing differential treatment effects across genotypes. -
FIG. 2 : CT derived corn rootworm nodal injury scores correlated with manually assessed corn rootworm nodal injury scores. -
FIG. 3 : X-ray CT image data at various time points for the continuous evaluation of root damage. -
FIG. 4 : Comparison of nodal injury scores generated via CT scan and nodal injury score produced via destructive measurement. -
FIG. 5 : Comparison of Root Volumetric data and Nodal Injury Score. - The embodiments of the invention are not limited by the exemplary methods and materials disclosed, and any methods and materials similar or equivalent to those described can be used in the practice or testing of embodiments of this invention. Numeric ranges are inclusive of the numbers defining the range.
- The articles “a” and “an” are used to refer to one or more than one (i.e., to at least one) of the grammatical object of the article. For example, “an element” means one or more elements.
- As used herein, “IC-50” or inhibition concentration, and “EC-50” or effective concentration each may be used interchangeably, and refers to the concentration at which the larvae size (as may be determined by the larvae pixel area) is half way between the maximum size (the zero dose control), and the smallest size (the most toxic dose). (See Ritz (2010) Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 29:220-229, Ali and Luttrell (2009) Journal of Economic Entomology 102:1935-1947, Brvault et al. (2009), Journal of Economic Entomology 102:2301-2309, Kerr and Meador (1996), Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 15:395-401, Marcon et al (1999) Journal of Economic Entomology 92:279-229).
- In one embodiment of the invention, a method is provided for non-destructively determining the resistance of plant roots to insect herbivory, comprising subjecting root tissue of a candidate plant comprising at least one insecticidal material associated with said root tissue to at least one insect root herbivore, obtaining a non-destructive image of roots of said candidate plant, and generating a root nodal injury score or other determination of the effects of the insecticidal material associated with said root tissue. In one embodiment, the candidate plant is presented to the imaging apparatus by an automated movement system, such as for example a conveyor belt system.
- In another embodiment, a method is provided for non-destructively assaying the efficacy of an insecticidal material to insect root herbivory, comprising subjecting root tissue of a candidate plant comprising at least one insecticidal material associated with said root tissue to at least one insect root herbivore, presenting the candidate plant to a non-destructive imaging apparatus, obtaining a non-destructive image of roots of said candidate plant, and generating a root nodal injury score or other determination of the effects of the insecticidal material associated with said root tissue. In one embodiment, the candidate plant is presented to the imaging apparatus by an automated movement system, such as for example a conveyor belt system.
- Methods are provided for assaying the activity of insecticidal materials using an automated system. In an embodiment, methods are provided relating to assaying the activity of insecticidal materials using an automated system comprising providing at least one candidate plant in a container; transporting by automated means said container to an imaging device for imaging of the roots of the candidate plant; and obtaining an image of the roots of the candidate plant for measuring or determining a corn rootworm nodal injury score or other determination of the effects of the insecticidal material associated with said root tissue.
- In another embodiment, the method further includes the step of infesting insects or insect eggs into a plant container comprising a candidate plant. In another embodiment, the method relates to infesting more than one insect or insect egg per plant. In one embodiment, the method relates to infesting a predetermined number of insects or insect eggs equally into a plurality of candidate plants.
- In a further embodiment, a candidate plant contains an insecticidal material. In one embodiment the insecticidal material comprises at least one of the group consisting of an insecticidal protein, an insecticidal silencing element or double stranded RNA, a biological insecticide, for example insecticidal microbes or nematodes; or an insecticidal chemistry, or combinations thereof.
- In one embodiment, the plant container may comprise an identifying code, such as for example a barcode or an RFID chip. In this embodiment, it is contemplated that the automated system can further comprise at least one barcode or RFID chip reader as is known in the art, which can be communicatively coupled to a computer or other processing equipment as further disclosed herein. In one embodiment the plant container is a white, clear, opaque, or other colored plant container.
- In another embodiment, a method is provided for non-destructively determining the resistance of plant roots to insect root herbivores. In one embodiment, the method of non-destructively determining the resistance of plant roots to insect root herbivory comprises subjecting root tissue of a candidate plant comprising at least one insecticidal material associated with said root tissue to at least one insect root herbivore, obtaining a non-destructive image of roots of said candidate plant, and generating a root nodal injury score or other determination of the effects of the insecticidal material associated with said root tissue. The non-destructive image may be obtained using an imaging system comprising x-ray equipment or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) equipment configured to produce images and identify shapes, patterns, orientation, and or other characteristics of objects. In one embodiment, the measurement comprises detecting and/or recording root patterns of a candidate plant in a plant container.
- In a further embodiment, the detecting and/or recording of the root patterns of a candidate plant comprises comparing two or more images from a time interval of a candidate plant in a plant container. In this embodiment, the two or more images can be compared using imaging software stored on an imaging computer as further disclosed herein. For example, such imaging software can be configured to produce an output corresponding to a visual overlay of discrete images, taken at various times during the time interval, with such output being presented on a display device positioned in communication with a processor of the imaging computer. In use, it is contemplated that the displayed output can create a reference value that can be used to measure changes in root patterns, root mass (or area), or root nodes in the presence of insect root herbivores over time. In another embodiment, the measurement comprises a metric measurement. In this embodiment, it is contemplated that the metric measurement can be determined using imaging software stored on a computer as further disclosed herein, with the imaging software being configured to determine the size, length, or volume of roots of a candidate plant or a portion thereof by processing a previously captured image of the roots of a candidate plant or a portion thereof.
- In one embodiment, the CT scan image is obtained from a soil medium comprising about 38% peat, about 51% Bark, about 8% Perlite, and about 3% Vermiculite. In another embodiment, the image is obtained from a soil medium comprising about 77% Peat, about 16% Perlite, and about 7% Vermiculite. In another embodiment, the moisture content of the soil medium at the time of CT scan imaging ranges from about 10% to about 40%. In another embodiment, the candidate plant is subjected to evaluation using an MRI-based system.
- In one embodiment, the method relates to determining the efficacy or insecticidal activity of an insecticidal material associated with roots of a candidate plant, such as an insecticidal protein, an insecticidal silencing element or double stranded RNA, a non-protein insecticidal chemical, a native trait or characteristic of a plant that confers resistance or tolerance to insect herbivory. In one embodiment, the test substance is a new insecticidal protein, a shuffled variant, or a domain swapped insecticidal protein. In another embodiment, the insecticidal protein is an unknown protein or a protein of unknown toxicity or insecticidal activity to insects. In a further embodiment, the assay comprises the use of a positive control test plant comprising an insecticidal protein, wherein the toxicity of the positive control insecticidal protein is known. In one embodiment, the toxicity of a test protein is determined by determining an IC-50, EC-50 or an LC-50 of the test protein.
- In one embodiment, the method relates to determining the effect of an insecticidal protein, an insecticidal silencing element or double stranded RNA, or a non-protein insecticidal chemical, trait or insecticide, on root development. In another embodiment, the method relates to determining the effect of a native trait or characteristic of a plant on root development.
- Roots of transgenic plants expressing pesticidal proteins may be evaluated for resistance to herbivory against one or more insect pests. In a preferred embodiment, the pesticidal protein has activity against below-ground insect pests. In one embodiment, the pesticidal proteins are selected from, but are not limited to: insecticidal proteins such as; an AfIP-1A and/or AfIP-1B polypeptide of U.S. Pat. No. 9,475,847; a PIP-47 polypeptide of US Publication Number US20160186204; an IPD045 polypeptide, an IPD064 polypeptide, an IPD074 polypeptide, an IPD075 polypeptide, and an IPD077 polypeptide of PCT Publication Number WO 2016/114973; an IPD084 polypeptide, an IPD085 polypeptide, an IPD086 polypeptide, and an IPD089 polypeptide of PCT Publication Number WO2018084936A1; PIP-72 polypeptide of US Patent Publication Number US20160366891; an IPD098 polypeptide and an IPD109 polypeptide of PCT Publication Number WO 2018/232072; an IPD079 polypeptide of PCT Publication Number WO2017/23486; an IPD082 polypeptide of PCT Publication Number WO 2017/105987, an IPD090 polypeptide of PCT Publication Number WO 2017/192560, an IPD093 polypeptide of PCT Publication Number WO 2018/111551; an IPD101 polypeptide of PCT Publication Number WO 2018/118811, and S-endotoxins including, but not limited to, the Cry1, Cry3, Cry6, Cry7, Cry8, Cry14, Cry18, Cry22, Cry23, Cry26, Cry 28, Cry34, Cry35, Cry36, Cry37, Cry38, Cry43, Cry45, Cry55, and Cry75 classes of S-endotoxin genes and the B. thuringiensis cytolytic Cyt1 and Cyt2 genes.
- In one embodiment, an automated root imaging system can comprise at least one automated movement system as further disclosed herein. The automated movement system can have its own processing circuitry, which can be configured to control operation of the automated movement system and other system components as disclosed herein. Optionally, the processing circuitry of the automated movement system can comprise a central control (master) computer. Plants may be transported to and from the scanner manually, or via an automated handling/logistics system incorporated into the growing environment that is in operative communication with the X-ray scanner.
- In another embodiment, the imaging system can further comprise at least one imaging assembly. In this embodiment, the imaging assembly can comprise a camera, an X-ray or MRI system, and one or more sensors. The imaging apparatus can comprise a stage configured to receive and support a pot comprising a candidate plant while a camera, X-ray or MRI system captures images of one or more candidate plants. In one embodiment, the image is generated using a helical scan, in which the imaging sensor rotates around a candidate plant that is held in a stationary position. In another embodiment, the image is generated using a stationary imaging sensor while a candidate plant is rotated before the imaging sensor.
- The imaging apparatus can be communicatively coupled to processing circuitry, which can permit selective control of the operation (e.g., activation and image acquisition parameters) of the imaging apparatus. In use, the processing circuitry of the imaging apparatus can be communicatively coupled (e.g., integrally connected or wirelessly connected) to processing circuitry of an automated movement system using conventional mechanisms.
- Multiple automated imaging systems operating simultaneously or sequentially are contemplated herein. Each imaging system can have its own processing circuitry (e.g., a computer) that is configured to permit selective control of the operation of the imaging system. In use, the processing circuitry of each imaging system can be communicatively coupled (e.g., integrally connected or wirelessly connected) to processing circuitry of an automated movement system using conventional mechanisms, such as ActiveX control and/or serial port connection.
- In a further embodiment, the automated imaging system can comprise at least one bar code or RFID chip reader positioned at selected locations within the system to permit tracking of the locations of individual candidate plants. Each bar code reader can comprise processing circuitry that is configured to transmit information concerning the detection and scanning of bar codes (e.g., time, location, plant identification and the like). Optionally, each bar code reader can be communicatively coupled to an automated movement system. Additionally, or alternatively, each bar code reader can be communicatively coupled to a master computer or remote computing device.
- In the description of imaging operations provided herein, it is contemplated that all steps of the imaging process can be performed in an automated manner. Where specific structure for performing a step is not provided in the description, it is understood that such step can be performed by corresponding processing circuitry as disclosed herein, which can control operation of system components or conduct analysis in an automated manner.
- Image segmentation algorithms have been developed that are useful for identifying roots of candidate plants in pots comprising soil. See Metzner, R., et al., Direct comparison or MRI and X-ray CT technologies for 3D imaging of root systems in soil: potential and challenges for root trait quantification, Plant Methods, 11:17 (2015); Douarre, C., et al., Transfer Learning from Synthetic Data Applied to Soil-Root Segmentation in X-ray Tomography Images, J. Imaging, 4(5):65 (2018).
- In alternative embodiments, the methods and systems disclosed herein, in whole or in part, may implement a machine, computer system or equivalent, within which a set of instructions for causing the computer or machine to perform any one or more of the protocols or methodologies of the invention may be executed. In alternative embodiments, the machine may be connected (e.g., networked) to other machines, e.g., in a Local Area Network (LAN), an intranet, an extranet, the Internet, or in cloud computing, or any equivalents thereof. The machine may operate in the capacity of a server or a client machine in a client-server network environment, or as a peer machine in a peer-to-peer (or distributed) network environment. The machine may be a personal computer (PC), a tablet PC a web appliance, a server, cloud computing, or any machine or infrastructure capable of executing a set of instructions (sequential or otherwise) that specify actions to be taken by that machine. The term “machine” shall also be taken to include any collection of machines, computers or products of manufacture that individually or jointly execute a set (or multiple sets) of instructions to perform any one or more of the methodologies of the invention.
- In alternative embodiments the computer further comprises a network interface device (adapter). The computer also may include a display device, which can be a video display unit (display device, e.g., a liquid crystal display (LCD) or a cathode ray tube (CRT)). The computer also may include a human-machine interface, which can include, for example, an alphanumeric input device (e.g., a keyboard), a cursor control device (e.g., a mouse), and a signal generation device (e.g., a speaker). In addition to the human-machine interface, the computer may also include an input/output interface.
- In alternative embodiments, the data storage device (e.g., drive unit) comprises a computer-readable storage medium on which is stored one or more sets of instructions (e.g., software) embodying any one or more of the protocols, methodologies or functions of this invention. The instructions may also reside, completely or at least partially, within the main memory and/or within the processor during execution thereof by the computer, the main memory and the processor also constituting machine-accessible storage media. The instructions may further be transmitted or received over a network via the network interface device.
- In alternative embodiments the computer-readable storage medium is used to store data structure sets that define user identifying states and user preferences that define user profiles. Data structure sets and user profiles may also be stored in other sections of computer system, such as static memory.
- In alternative embodiments, while the computer-readable storage medium in an exemplary embodiment is a single medium, the term “machine-accessible storage medium” can be taken to include a single medium or multiple media (e.g., a centralized or distributed database, and/or associated caches and servers) that store the one or more sets of instructions. In alternative embodiments the term “machine-accessible storage medium” can also be taken to include any medium that is capable of storing, encoding or carrying a set of instructions for execution by the machine and that cause the machine to perform any one or more of the methodologies of the present invention. In alternative embodiments the term “machine-accessible storage medium” shall accordingly be taken to include, but not be limited to, solid-state memories, and optical and magnetic media.
- In alternative embodiments, information and signals are represented using any technology and/or technique known in the art. For example, data, instructions, commands, information, signals, bits, symbols, and chips used to practice the compositions (devices, computers) and methods of the invention can be represented by voltages, currents, electromagnetic waves, magnetic fields or particles, optical fields or particles, or any combination thereof.
- In alternative embodiments, the various illustrative logical blocks, modules, circuits, and algorithm steps used to describe exemplary embodiments can be implemented as electronic hardware, computer software, or combinations of both. To clearly illustrate this interchangeability of hardware and software, various illustrative components, blocks, modules, circuits, and steps have been described above generally in terms of their functionality. Whether such functionality is implemented as hardware or software depends upon the particular application and design constraints imposed on the overall system. Skilled artisans may implement the described functionality in varying ways for each particular application, but such implementation decisions should not be interpreted as causing a departure from the scope of the present disclosure.
- The algorithms and displays presented herein are not inherently related to any particular computer or other apparatus. Various general-purpose systems may be used with programs in accordance with the teachings herein, or it may prove convenient to construct a more specialized apparatus to perform the method steps. In addition, the present disclosure is not described with reference to any particular programming language. In alternative embodiments, a variety of programming languages are used to implement the embodiments of the invention as described herein.
- The embodiments may be used for root analysis of any plant species, including, but not limited to, monocots and dicots. Examples of plants of interest include, but are not limited to, corn (Zea mays), Brassica sp. (e.g., B. napus, B. rapa, B. juncea), particularly those Brassica species useful as sources of seed oil, alfalfa (Medicago sativa), rice (Oryza sativa), rye (Secale cereale), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor, Sorghum vulgare), millet (e.g., pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum), proso millet (Panicum miliaceum), foxtail millet (Setaria italica), finger millet (Eleusine coracana)), sunflower (Helianthus annuus), safflower (Carthamus tinctorius), wheat (Triticum aestivum), soybean (Glycine max), tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum), potato (Solanum tuberosum), peanuts (Arachis hypogaea), cotton (Gossypium barbadense, Gossypium hirsutum), sweet potato (Ipomoea batatus), cassava (Manihot esculenta), coffee (Coffea spp.), coconut (Cocos nucifera), pineapple (Ananas comosus), citrus trees (Citrus spp.), cocoa (Theobroma cacao), tea (Camellia sinensis), banana (Musa spp.), avocado (Persea americana), fig (Ficus casica), guava (Psidium guajava), mango (Mangifera indica), olive (Olea europaea), papaya (Carica papaya), cashew (Anacardium occidentale), macadamia (Macadamia integrifolia), almond (Prunus amygdalus), sugar beets (Beta vulgaris), sugarcane (Saccharum spp.), oats, barley, vegetables ornamentals, and conifers.
- Vegetables include tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum), lettuce (e.g., Lactuca sativa), green beans (Phaseolus vulgaris), lima beans (Phaseolus limensis), peas (Lathyrus spp.), and members of the genus Cucumis such as cucumber (C. sativus), cantaloupe (C. cantalupensis), and musk melon (C. melo). Ornamentals include azalea (Rhododendron spp.), hydrangea (Macrophylla hydrangea), hibiscus (Hibiscus rosasanensis), roses (Rosa spp.), tulips (Tulipa spp.), daffodils (Narcissus spp.), petunias (Petunia hybrida), carnation (Dianthus caryophyllus), poinsettia (Euphorbia pulcherrima), and chrysanthemum. Conifers that may be employed in practicing the embodiments include, for example, pines such as loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), slash pine (Pinus elliotii), ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), and Monterey pine (Pinus radiata); Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii); Western hemlock (Tsuga canadensis); Sitka spruce (Picea glauca); redwood (Sequoia sempervirens); true firs such as silver fir (Abies amabilis) and balsam fir (Abies balsamea); and cedars such as Western red cedar (Thuja plicata) and Alaska yellow-cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis). Plants of the embodiments include crop plants (for example, corn, alfalfa, sunflower, Brassica, soybean, cotton, safflower, peanut, sorghum, wheat, millet, tobacco, etc.), such as corn and soybean plants.
- Turf grasses include, but are not limited to: annual bluegrass (Poa annua); annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum); Canada bluegrass (Poa compressa); Chewing's fescue (Festuca rubra); colonial bentgrass (Agrostis tenuis); creeping bentgrass (Agrostis palustris); crested wheatgrass (Agropyron desertorum); fairway wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum); hard fescue (Festuca longifolia); Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis); orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata); perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne); red fescue (Festuca rubra); redtop (Agrostis alba); rough bluegrass (Poa trivialis); sheep fescue (Festuca ovina); smooth bromegrass (Bromus inermis); tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea); timothy (Phleum pratense); velvet bentgrass (Agrostis canina); weeping alkaligrass (Puccinellia distans); western wheatgrass (Agropyron smithii); Bermuda grass (Cynodon spp.); St. Augustine grass (Stenotaphrum secundatum); Zoysia grass (Zoysia spp.); Bahia grass (Paspalum notatum); carpet grass (Axonopus affinis); centipede grass (Eremochloa ophiuroides); kikuyu grass (Pennisetum clandesinum); seashore paspalum (Paspalum vaginatum); blue gramma (Bouteloua gracilis); buffalo grass (Buchloe dactyloids); sideoats gramma (Bouteloua curtipendula).
- Plants of interest include grain plants that provide seeds of interest, oil-seed plants, and leguminous plants. Seeds of interest include grain seeds, such as corn, wheat, barley, rice, sorghum, rye, millet, etc. Oil-seed plants include cotton, soybean, safflower, sunflower, Brassica, maize, alfalfa, palm, coconut, flax, castor, olive, etc. Leguminous plants include beans and peas. Beans include guar, locust bean, fenugreek, soybean, garden beans, cowpea, mung bean, lima bean, fava bean, lentils, chickpea, etc.
- In some embodiments, the methods are useful for assessing efficacy of insecticidal materials against certain insects selected from the orders Coleoptera, Diptera, Lepidoptera, Homoptera, and Hemiptera, particularly Coleoptera.
- Larvae of the order Lepidoptera include, but are not limited to, cutworms; Agrotis ipsilon Hufnagel (black cutworm); A. orthogonia Morrison (western cutworm); A. subterranea Fabricius (granulate cutworm); Athetis mindara Barnes and Mcdunnough (rough skinned cutworm); Euxoa messoria Harris (darksided cutworm); Egira (Xylomyges) curialis Grote (citrus cutworm); borers; Crambus caliginosellus Clemens (corn root webworm); and Elasmopalpus lignosellus Zeller (lesser cornstalk borer).
- Of interest are larvae and adults of the order Coleoptera including rootworms and flea beetles in the family Chrysomelidae, including, but not limited to: Diabrotica virgifera LeConte (western corn rootworm); D. barberi Smith and Lawrence (northern corn rootworm); D. undecimpunctata howardi Barber (southern corn rootworm); Chaetocnema pulicaria Melsheimer (corn flea beetle); Phyllotreta cruciferae Goeze (Crucifer flea beetle); Phyllotreta striolata (stripped flea beetle); and Colaspis brunnea Fabricius (grape colaspis).
- Adults and immatures of the order Diptera are of interest, including maggots including, but not limited to: Delia platura Meigen (seedcorn maggot); and D. radicum (cabbage maggot).
- Agronomically important members from the order Homoptera further include, but are not limited to: A. maidiradicis Forbes (corn root aphid).
- Agronomically important species of interest from the order Hemiptera include, but are not limited to: S. castanea (root stink bug).
- Nematodes include parasitic nematodes such as root-knot, cyst and lesion nematodes, including Heterodera spp., Meloidogyne spp. and Globodera spp.; particularly members of the cyst nematodes, including, but not limited to, Heterodera glycines (soybean cyst nematode); Heterodera schachtii (beet cyst nematode); Heterodera avenae (cereal cyst nematode) and Globodera rostochiensis and Globodera pailida (potato cyst nematodes). Lesion nematodes include Pratylenchus spp.
- Methods for measuring the activity of an insecticidal material as a reference point are known in the art. See, for example, Czapla and Lang, (1990) J. Econ. Entomol. 83:2480-2485; Andrews, et al., (1988) Biochem. J. 252:199-206; Marrone, et al., (1985) J. of Economic Entomology 78:290-293 and U.S. Pat. No. 5,743,477, all of which are herein incorporated by reference in their entirety. For purposes of an insecticidal protein, generally the protein is mixed and used in feeding assays. See, for example Marrone, et al., (1985) J. of Economic Entomology 78:290-293. Such assays can include contacting a food source with one or more insects and determining the insect's ability to survive.
- Although the foregoing embodiments of the invention have been described in some detail by way of illustration and example for clarity of understanding, certain changes and modifications are encompassed within the scope of the appended claims.
- The methods will be further understood by reference to the following non-limiting Examples. The following Examples are provided for illustrative purposes only. The Examples are included solely to aid in a more complete understanding of the described embodiments of the invention. The Examples do not limit the scope of the embodiments of the invention described or claimed.
- Whole plant greenhouse bioassays were conducted to screen maize plants for feeding by D. virgifera. Plants consisted of a corn inbred with at least one transgene expressing at least one insecticidal protein in roots, or a wild type seed-grown plant of the same genetic background without the transgene to serve as a negative control. Plants were grown in 3.78 L plastic pots, maintained in controlled environment (80-82F, 16:8 L:D) and watered as needed. At the V2-V3 leaf stage, plants were infested with approximately 400 non-diapausing D. virgifera virgifera eggs (two infestations of ˜200 eggs one week apart). Plants were scored for D. virgifera virgifera feeding 19-21 days after the first infestation. To assign insect feeding scores, plants were removed from the pot and potting media was washed away from the crown and the root given a manual node-injury-score by an evaluator (CRWNIS) (Oleson et al. 2005, Journal of Economic Entomology 98:1, p. 1-8.). Plants may be placed back into their container, repotted and grown for seed production.
- Whole plant greenhouse bioassays were conducted to screen maize plants for feeding by D. virgifera virgifera, where the plants were raised and infested in the same manner as set forth in Example 1. To assign insect feeding scores, plants were transported to an X-ray CT scanner, and the pot volume was scanned using a 3D helical scan approach. After scanning, the plants were returned to the growing environment. The CT scanner data was used to reconstruct the 3D pot volume, after which the roots were distinguished (segmented) from the soil using segmentation algorithms to reveal the relevant root structure. After segmentation of the root structure, a quantification method related the observed 3D structure to a usable root nodal injury score. Quantification took the form of manual evaluation and scoring of the segmented image in the manner of Oleson, et. al. Additionally, further analysis and scoring of the segmented data was done automatically via algorithm. In this case additional features measured or extrapolated from the segmented data set, including but not limited to; root volume, length, branching morphology, depth distribution, etc., may be included in the analyses.
- To compare the method of CT based root damage assessment verses traditionally derived nodal injury scores, CT image datasets were generated for 3 different treatments:
-
- a. Rootworm infested plants with strong positive insect herbivore protectant
- b. Rootworm infested plants with a moderate positive insect herbivore protectant
- c. Rootworm infested Wild Type plants with no protection
- Candidate plants were grown as described above in Example 1 in a controlled growth environment and X-ray imaged to generate 3D volumes for root segmentation. The candidate plants were then destructively harvested, including root washing. for manual scoring of the corn rootworm nodal injury score. After completion of the CT image processing, the segmented 3D image data sets were then visually scored for corn rootworm nodal injury score and compared to the standard manual scores obtained from destructive harvesting.
- As depicted in
FIG. 1 , 3D reconstructions of the root structure were of sufficient quality to distinguish differential treatment effect across genotypes. As shown inFIG. 2 , CT image derived corn rootworm nodal injury scores correlated well with manually derived, destructively-harvested corn rootworm nodal injury scores. - Results of the CT assessment indicate that the scanning method is capable of sufficiently reconstructing 3D root datasets to reliably allow for an image-derived corn rootworm nodal injury score that correlates well with the manual corn rootworm nodal injury score obtained from destructive harvesting.
- By conducting multiple CT scans across the course of root pest feeding, it is possible that a more precise assessment of per plant root growth and root damage can be obtained over a given time course. Previous manual assessment may prevent continual evaluation of plant root growth/mass due to both the disruption of the insect lifecycle and the impact on plant health as a result of the invasive scoring procedure.
- Using the non-destructive methodology disclosed herein, it is possible to track the progression of root damage across time. Additionally, information provided on root mass may offer some indication of whether insecticidal material (applied or transgenic) has an impact on insect root herbivory.
- To evaluate multiple measurements of nodal injury score and CT derived root traits, 3 sets of 15 candidate plants each were grown with standard root worm assay as described in International Application Publication Number WO2017/066094, incorporated herein by reference, in a controlled growth environment and X-ray imaged to generate 3D volumes for root segmentation. The candidate plants were also destructively harvested, including root washing, for manual scoring of corn rootworm nodal injury score. However, in this example, the individual sets of candidate plants were non-destructively imaged and destructively scored at the following time points: 1.) at infestation +7 days; 2.) at infestation +14 days; and, 3.) at infestation +21 days.
- For all three time points, X-ray CT image datasets were generated for 3 different treatments:
-
- a. Rootworm infested plants with a strong positive insect herbivore protectant
- b. Rootworm infested plants with a moderate positive insect herbivore protectant
- c. Rootworm infested Wild Type plants with no protection
- As shown in
FIG. 3 , nodal injury scores obtained from the X-ray CT allow for the continuous evaluation of root damage at earlier time points than the previous destructive evaluation methods, indicating that the +14-day time point can produce scores complementary to those obtained at +21 days, whereas the +7-day measurement appears to be too early in both root development and feeding progression and therefore may have a limited value. Additionally, evaluation of X-ray CT derived root volume and length across the time-course provide new insight into root growth rate and feeding progression as relates to the effects of insecticidal material. - Whole plant greenhouse bioassays were conducted to screen maize plants for feeding by D. virgifera, where the plants were raised and infested in the same manner as set forth in Examples 1 & 2. To evaluate efficacy of candidate transgenes expressing at least one insecticidal protein in roots, candidate plants were raised, infested, scanned via CT using a 3D helical scan approach, and assigned feeding scores in the same manner as set forth in Example 2. Candidate plants consisted of 33 treatments:
-
- A. Rootworm infested plants with strong positive insect herbivore protectant
- B. Rootworm infested Wild Type plants with no protection
- C. Rootworm infested inbred plants with at least one transgene expressing at least one insecticidal protein in roots. 31 independent transgene treatments were evaluated.
- A total of 218 test plants were evaluated; 20 treatment A positive controls, 40 treatment B negative controls, and 158 treatment C transgenic plants—consisting of 31 independent transgene treatments, each consisting of up to 6 plants.
- Plants were non-destructively imaged with a CT scanner and the data was reconstructed and segmented to reveal the root structures as set forth in Example 2. Of the original 218 plants scanned, 36 scans were suppressed due to technical faults in some combination of raw image acquisition, reconstruction, or root segmentation. As previously described, resultant segmented root images were assigned a root nodal injury score, and in this case, each root image was assigned a nodal injury score by two independent evaluators applying the scoring method of Oleson et al. (2005). To cross-validate the CT derived nodal injury scores, each plant was then destructively harvested, including root washing, for manual scoring of the corn rootworm nodal injury score.
- As depicted in
FIG. 4 , nodal injury scores generated via CT data for both independent evaluators show at high level of agreement with the nodal injury score produced via destructive measurement. This is apparent both on an individual plant basis and for the aggregate of each treatment. For purposes of screening treatment efficacy, a “pass/fail” threshold was set at a nodal injury score level of 0.5. By this metric, agreement between the CT derived and destructively derived scores at the treatment level for C1-C31 was 100%. - Segmented root image datasets described in Example 5 were further evaluated for correlation of Root Volume to destructively derived nodal injury score. Total root volume was derived from each of the segmented images, as set forth in Example 4. As depicted in
FIG. 5 , comparison of the CT derived volume to the manual nodal injury score demonstrates relationships that can be used to augment the nodal injury score evaluation, and to potentially streamline the candidate efficacy assay as described in Example 5. - Examination of the CT volume data indicate that all individual plants with volume in excess of 21,00 mm3 fall below the 0.5 nodal injury score threshold set for pass/fail, representing 48 plants, or 26% of plants evaluated via CT. This indicates that volumetric data from the CT image could be used to effectively pre-screen candidate plants; with plants above the indicated volume threshold expected to pass and therefore not needing further evaluation. Additionally, all negative control plants, and the Transgenic treatment that failed the nodal injury score threshold, cluster together, with modest overlap in volume as compared to plants below the nodal injury score pass threshold. This indicates potential value in CT derived volumetric data as potential component of future automated analysis methods.
Claims (25)
1. A method of non-destructively determining the resistance of candidate plant roots to insect herbivory, comprising subjecting root tissue of the candidate plant comprising at least one insecticidal material associated with said root tissue to at least one insect root herbivore, obtaining a non-destructive image of roots of said candidate plant, wherein the candidate plant roots are substantially embedded in the soil, and determining the resistance of the candidate plant roots to insect herbivory based on injury to the root tissue.
2. The method of claim 1 , comprising obtaining the non-destructive image using X-ray computed tomography.
3. The method of claim 1 , comprising obtaining the root images of at least two candidate plants simultaneously or sequentially.
4. The method of claim 1 , wherein the injury to the root tissue results in a determination of a root nodal injury score.
5. The method of claim 1 , comprising determining the injury to the root tissue by measuring root volume, root length, root growth rate, root branching morphology, or root depth distribution.
6. The method of claim 1 , comprising generating the root nodal injury score by a processor, wherein said processor receives a digital image and generates a root nodal injury score.
7. The method of claim 1 , wherein the insect root herbivore is a Diabrotica species.
8. The method of claim 7 , wherein said Diabrotica species is selected from the group consisting of Diabrotica virgifera, Diabrotica undecimpunctata howardi, and Diabrotica barberi.
9. The method of claim 1 , wherein the insecticidal material is selected from the group consisting of an insecticidal protein, a double-stranded RNA, a chemical insecticide, and a biological insecticide.
10. A method of non-destructively assaying the efficacy of an insecticidal material to insect root herbivory, comprising subjecting root tissue of a candidate plant comprising at least one insecticidal material associated with said root tissue to at least one insect root herbivore, presenting the candidate plant to a non-destructive imaging apparatus, obtaining a non-destructive image of roots of said candidate plant, and generating a root nodal injury score.
11. The method of claim 10 , comprising presenting the candidate plant to the imaging apparatus in a pot.
12. The method of claim 10 , comprising presenting the candidate plant to the imaging apparatus by an automated movement system.
13. The method of claim 12 , wherein the automated movement system comprises a transportation belt.
14. The method of claim 10 , wherein the imaging apparatus comprises an X-ray imager.
15. The method of claim 10 , wherein the non-destructive image is obtained using X-ray computed tomography.
16. The method of claim 10 , comprising obtaining the root images of at least two candidate plants simultaneously or sequentially.
17. The method of claim 10 , comprising manually generating the root nodal injury score using the non-destructive image.
18. The method of claim 10 , comprising generating the root nodal injury score by a processor, wherein said processor receives a digital image and generates a root nodal injury score.
19. The method of claim 10 , wherein the insect root herbivore is a Diabrotica species.
20. The method of claim 19 , wherein said Diabrotica species is selected from the group consisting of Diabrotica virgifera, Diabrotica undecimpunctata howardi, and Diabrotica barberi.
21. The method of claim 10 , wherein the insecticidal material is selected from the group consisting of an insecticidal protein, a double-stranded RNA, a chemical insecticide, and a biological insecticide.
22. The method of claim 1 or claim 10 , wherein the candidate plant is selected from corn, Brassica sp., alfalfa, rice, sorghum, millet, sunflower, safflower, wheat, soybean, and tobacco.
23. The method of claim 1 or claim 10 , comprising obtaining additional non-destructive images of roots of said candidate plant at two or more time intervals.
24. The method of claim 23 , wherein the two or more images are compared using imaging software.
25. The method of claim 5 , comprising determining the injury to the root tissue by a processor, the method further comprising manually using the non-destructive image to generate the root nodal injury score.
Priority Applications (1)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US18/327,316 US20230408426A1 (en) | 2019-06-07 | 2023-06-01 | Non-destructive assessment of corn rootworm damage |
Applications Claiming Priority (4)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US201962858660P | 2019-06-07 | 2019-06-07 | |
US16/893,148 US11333618B1 (en) | 2019-06-07 | 2020-06-04 | Non-destructive assessment of corn rootworm damage |
US17/659,753 US11703463B2 (en) | 2019-06-07 | 2022-04-19 | Non-destructive assessment of corn rootworm damage |
US18/327,316 US20230408426A1 (en) | 2019-06-07 | 2023-06-01 | Non-destructive assessment of corn rootworm damage |
Related Parent Applications (1)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US17/659,753 Continuation US11703463B2 (en) | 2019-06-07 | 2022-04-19 | Non-destructive assessment of corn rootworm damage |
Publications (1)
Publication Number | Publication Date |
---|---|
US20230408426A1 true US20230408426A1 (en) | 2023-12-21 |
Family
ID=81588870
Family Applications (3)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US16/893,148 Active US11333618B1 (en) | 2019-06-07 | 2020-06-04 | Non-destructive assessment of corn rootworm damage |
US17/659,753 Active US11703463B2 (en) | 2019-06-07 | 2022-04-19 | Non-destructive assessment of corn rootworm damage |
US18/327,316 Abandoned US20230408426A1 (en) | 2019-06-07 | 2023-06-01 | Non-destructive assessment of corn rootworm damage |
Family Applications Before (2)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US16/893,148 Active US11333618B1 (en) | 2019-06-07 | 2020-06-04 | Non-destructive assessment of corn rootworm damage |
US17/659,753 Active US11703463B2 (en) | 2019-06-07 | 2022-04-19 | Non-destructive assessment of corn rootworm damage |
Country Status (1)
Country | Link |
---|---|
US (3) | US11333618B1 (en) |
Families Citing this family (1)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US11333618B1 (en) * | 2019-06-07 | 2022-05-17 | Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. | Non-destructive assessment of corn rootworm damage |
Citations (1)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US11333618B1 (en) * | 2019-06-07 | 2022-05-17 | Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. | Non-destructive assessment of corn rootworm damage |
Family Cites Families (7)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
EP1788859B1 (en) | 2004-09-16 | 2014-03-19 | CropDesign N.V. | Root evaluation |
US20150353949A1 (en) | 2012-01-11 | 2015-12-10 | The Australian National University | Method for modulating plant root architecture |
WO2014100237A2 (en) | 2012-12-20 | 2014-06-26 | Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. | Non-destructive imaging of crop plants |
CA2901875A1 (en) * | 2013-03-15 | 2014-09-25 | Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. | Methods for evaluating insect resistance in a plant |
WO2015006675A2 (en) | 2013-07-11 | 2015-01-15 | Blue River Technology, Inc. | Method for automatic phenotype measurement and selection |
CA3004350A1 (en) * | 2015-11-24 | 2017-06-01 | Hi Fidelity Genetics Llc | Methods and devices for non-invasive root phenotyping |
US10859479B2 (en) * | 2017-12-21 | 2020-12-08 | Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. | Non-destructive stalk and root contact sensor with variable rate tensioner |
-
2020
- 2020-06-04 US US16/893,148 patent/US11333618B1/en active Active
-
2022
- 2022-04-19 US US17/659,753 patent/US11703463B2/en active Active
-
2023
- 2023-06-01 US US18/327,316 patent/US20230408426A1/en not_active Abandoned
Patent Citations (1)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US11333618B1 (en) * | 2019-06-07 | 2022-05-17 | Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. | Non-destructive assessment of corn rootworm damage |
Also Published As
Publication number | Publication date |
---|---|
US11703463B2 (en) | 2023-07-18 |
US20220307993A1 (en) | 2022-09-29 |
US11333618B1 (en) | 2022-05-17 |
Similar Documents
Publication | Publication Date | Title |
---|---|---|
Overton et al. | Global crop impacts, yield losses and action thresholds for fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda): A review | |
Fleming et al. | Effects of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis cotton on insecticide use, heliothine counts, plant damage, and cotton yield: a meta-analysis, 1996-2015 | |
US20230408426A1 (en) | Non-destructive assessment of corn rootworm damage | |
Nayak et al. | Application of statistical tools for data analysis and interpretation in rice plant pathology | |
Balog et al. | Rove beetle (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) communities in transgenic Bt (MON810) and near isogenic maize | |
Musser et al. | Survey of predators and sampling method comparison in sweet corn | |
Abdala‐Roberts et al. | Effects of plant intraspecific diversity across three trophic levels: Underlying mechanisms and plant traits | |
Riggi et al. | Pollen beetle mortality is increased by ground-dwelling generalist predators but not landscape complexity | |
Lang et al. | Laboratory tests with Lepidoptera to assess non-target effects of Bt maize pollen: analysis of current studies and recommendations for a standardised design | |
Sandanayaka et al. | Potential use of electrical penetration graph (EPG) technology for biosecurity incursion response decision making | |
Gallet et al. | The variety mixture strategy assessed in a G× G experiment with rice and the blast fungus Magnaporthe oryzae | |
Wade et al. | Temporal variation in arthropod sampling effectiveness: the case for using the beat sheet method in cotton | |
Asiimwe et al. | Transgenic cotton expressing Mpp51Aa2 does not adversely impact beneficial non-target hemiptera in the field | |
US20110077929A1 (en) | Method and system for modeling durability of insecticidal crop traits | |
Sun et al. | Transgenic expression of Bt in rice does not affect feeding behavior and population density of the brown planthopper, Nilaparvata lugens Stål (Hemiptera: Delphacidae). | |
Dutta et al. | Distribution of phytopathogenic bacteria in infested seeds | |
Fishel et al. | Introduction to crop scouting | |
Heidari et al. | How bottom-up effects of different tomato cultivars affect population responses of Tuta absoluta (Lep.: Gelechiidae): A case study on host plant resistance | |
Naseri et al. | Population density and spatial distribution pattern of Empoasca decipiens (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) on different bean species | |
Toews et al. | Fidelity of external boll feeding lesions to internal damage for assessing stink bug damage in cotton | |
Esquivel et al. | The cotton boll: Temporal susceptibility of the boll wall to stylet penetration by hemipteran pests | |
Naranjo et al. | Characterizing and estimating the effect of heteropteran predation | |
Svobodová et al. | Importance of functional classification in the use of carabids for the environmental risk assessment of the GE crops and other agricultural practices | |
Shepard et al. | Sampling insects and diseases in rice | |
ZHAO et al. | Effects of insect-resistant transgenic cotton on ground-dwelling beetle assemblages (Coleoptera) |
Legal Events
Date | Code | Title | Description |
---|---|---|---|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: PIONEER HI-BRED INTERNATIONAL, INC., IOWA Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:BRUCK, DENNY JOSEPH;GADE, KALEY J.;LU, ALBERT L.;AND OTHERS;SIGNING DATES FROM 20200602 TO 20201113;REEL/FRAME:064674/0859 |
|
STPP | Information on status: patent application and granting procedure in general |
Free format text: NON FINAL ACTION MAILED |
|
STCB | Information on status: application discontinuation |
Free format text: ABANDONED -- FAILURE TO RESPOND TO AN OFFICE ACTION |