Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T06:52:00.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Resistance of αAI-1 transgenic chickpea (Cicer arietinum) and cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) dry grains to bruchid beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2013

Christoph Lüthi ,
Fernando Álvarez-Alfageme ,
Jeffrey D. Ehlers ,
Thomas J.V. Higgins  and
Jörg Romeis
Christoph Lüthi
Affiliation:
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART, Reckenholzstrasse 191, 8046 Zurich, Switzerland
Fernando Álvarez-Alfageme
Affiliation:
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART, Reckenholzstrasse 191, 8046 Zurich, Switzerland
Jeffrey D. Ehlers
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, Riverside, CA 92521, USA
Thomas J.V. Higgins
Affiliation:
CSIRO Plant Industry, GPO Box 1600, Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia
Jörg Romeis*
Affiliation:
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART, Reckenholzstrasse 191, 8046 Zurich, Switzerland
*
*Author for correspondence Phone: +41 (0)44 377 72 99 Fax: +41 (0)44 377 72 01 E-mail: joerg.romeis@art.admin.ch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Dry grain legume seeds possessing αAI-1, an α-amylase inhibitor from common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris), under the control of a cotyledon-specific promoter have been shown to be highly resistant to several important bruchid pest species. One transgenic chickpea and four cowpea lines expressing αAI-1, their respective controls, as well as nine conventional chickpea cultivars were assessed for their resistance to the bruchids Acanthoscelides obtectus (Say), Callosobruchus chinensis L. and Callosobruchus maculatus F. All transgenic lines were highly resistant to both Callosobruchus species. A. obtectus, known to be tolerant to αAI-1, was able to develop in all transgenic lines. While the cotyledons of all non-transgenic cultivars were highly susceptible to all bruchids, C. chinensis and C. maculatus larvae suffered from significantly increased mortality rates inside transgenic seeds. The main factor responsible for the partial resistance in the non-transgenic cultivars was deduced to reside in the seed coat. The αAI-1 present in seeds of transgenic chickpea and cowpea lines significantly increases their resistance to two important bruchid pest species (C. chinensis and C. maculatus) essentially to immunity. To control αAI-1 tolerant bruchid species such as A. obtectus and to avoid the development of resistance to αAI-1, varieties carrying this transgene should be protected with additional control measures.

Keywords

Acanthoscelides obtectusbruchid managementCallosobruchus chinensisCallosobruchus maculatusGM legumesstored product protection
Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 103 , Issue 4 , August 2013 , pp. 373 - 381
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Altabella, T. & Chrispeels, M.J. (1990) Tobacco plants transformed with the bean αAI gene express an inhibitor of insect α-amylase in their seeds. Plant Physiology 93, 805–810.Google Scholar
Álvarez-Alfageme, F., Lüthi, C. & Romeis, J. (2012) Characterization of digestive enzymes of bruchid parasitoids – initial steps for environmental risk assessment of genetically modified legumes. PLoS ONE 7, e36862.Google Scholar
Chrispeels, M.J. & Raikhel, N.V. (1991) Lectins, lectin genes, and their role in plant defense. Plant Cell 3, 1–9.Google Scholar
De Sousa-Majer, M.J., Hardie, D.C., Turner, N.C. & Higgins, T.J.V. (2007) Bean α-amylase inhibitors in transgenic peas inhibit development of pea weevil larvae. Journal of Economic Entomology 100, 1416–1422.Google Scholar
Edde, P.A. & Amatobi, C.I. (2003) Seed coat has no value in protecting cowpea seed against attack by Callosobruchus maculatus (F.). Journal of Stored Products Research 39, 1–10.Google Scholar
Erler, F., Ceylan, F., Erdemir, T. & Toker, C. (2009) Preliminary results on evaluation of chickpea, Cicer arietinum, genotypes for resistance to the pulse beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus. Journal of Insect Science 9, 1–7.Google Scholar
Fricke, C. & Arnqvist, G. (2007) Rapid adaptation to a novel host in a seed beetle (Callosobruchus maculatus): the role of sexual selection. Evolution 61, 440–454.Google Scholar
Gil, J. & Cubero, J.I. (1993) Inheritance of seed coat thickness in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and its evolutionary implications. Plant Breeding 111, 257–260.Google Scholar
Graham, P.H. & Vance, C.P. (2003) Legumes: importance and constraints to greater use. Plant Physiology 131, 872–877.Google Scholar
Higgins, T.J.V., Gollasch, S., Molvig, L., Moore, A., Popelka, C., Watkins, P., Armstrong, J., Mahon, R., Ehlers, J., Huesing, J., Margam, V., Shade, R. & Murdock, L. (2013) Genetic transformation of cowpea for protection against bruchids and caterpillars. pp. 133–139 in Innovative Research Along the Cowpea Value Chain. Proceedings of the Fifth World Cowpea Conference on Improving Livelihoods in the Cowpea Value Chain Through Advancement in Science, Saly, 27 September–1 October 2010 Ibadan, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture.Google Scholar
Ignacimuthu, S. & Prakash, S. (2006) Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of chickpea with α-amylase inhibitor gene for insect resistance. Journal of Biosciences 31, 339–345.Google Scholar
Ishimoto, M. & Kitamura, K. (1989) Growth inhibitory effects of α-amylase inhibitor from the kidney bean, Phaseolus vulgaris (L) on 3 species of bruchids (Coleoptera, Bruchidae). Applied Entomology and Zoology 24, 281–286.Google Scholar
Ishimoto, M. & Kitamura, K. (1992) Tolerance to the seed α-amylase inhibitor by the two insect pests of the common bean, Zabrotes subfasciatus and Acanthoscelides obtectus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Applied Entomology and Zoology 27, 243–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishimoto, M., Sato, T., Chrispeels, M.J. & Kitamura, K. (1996) Bruchid resistance of transgenic azuki bean expressing seed α-amylase inhibitor of common bean. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 79, 309–315.Google Scholar
Keneni, G., Bekele, E., Getu, E., Imtiaz, M., Damte, T., Mulatu, B. & Dagne, K. (2011) Breeding food legumes for resistance to storage insect pests: potential and limitations. Sustainability 3, 1399–1415.Google Scholar
Ladizinsky, G. & Hymowitz, T. (1979) Seed protein electrophoresis in taxonomic and evolutionary studies. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 54, 145–151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larkin, P. & Scowcroft, W. (1981) Somaclonal variation – a novel source of variability from cell cultures for plant improvement. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 60, 197–214.Google Scholar
Lattanzio, V., Terzano, R., Cicco, N., Cardinali, A., Di Venere, D. & Linsalata, V. (2005) Seed coat tannins and bruchid resistance in stored cowpea seeds. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 85, 839–846.Google Scholar
Lüthi, C., Álvarez-Alfageme, F. & Romeis, J. (2010) The potential of transgenic legumes in integrated bruchid management: assessing the impact on bruchid parasitoids. pp. 979–984in Proceedings of the 10th International Working Conference on Stored Product Protection, 27 June to 2 July 2010, Berlin, Julius-Kühn-Archiv.Google Scholar
Moreno, M.-T. & Cubero, J.I. (1978) Variation in Cicer arietinum L. Euphytica 27, 465–485.Google Scholar
Morton, R.L., Schroeder, H.E., Bateman, K.S., Chrispeels, M.J., Armstrong, E. & Higgins, T.J.V. (2000) Bean α-amylase inhibitor 1 in transgenic peas (Pisum sativum) provides complete protection from pea weevil (Bruchus pisorum) under field conditions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 97, 3820–3825.Google Scholar
Moussa, B., Lowenberg-DeBoer, J., Fulton, J. & Boys, K. (2011) The economic impact of cowpea research in West and Central Africa: a regional impact assessment of improved cowpea storage technologies. Journal of Stored Products Research 47, 147–156.Google Scholar
Murdock, L.L., Seck, D., Ntoukam, G., Kitch, L. & Shade, R.E. (2003) Preservation of cowpea grain in sub-Saharan Africa – Bean/Cowpea CRSP contributions. Field Crops Research 82, 169–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murdock, L.L., Coulibaly, O., Higgins, T.J.V., Huesing, J.E., Ishiyaku, M. & Sithole-Niang, I. (2008) Cowpea. pp. 23–56in Kole, C. & Hall, T.C. (Eds) A Compendium of Transgenic Crop Plants Vol. 3: Transgenic Legume Grains and Forages. Hoboken, Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Murdock, L.L., Margam, V., Baoua, I., Balfe, S. & Shade, R.E. (2012) Death by desiccation: effects of hermetic storage on cowpea bruchids. Journal of Stored Products Research 49, 166–170.Google Scholar
Nukenine, E.N. (2010) Stored product protection in Africa : past, present and future. pp. 26–41in Proceedings of the 10th International Working Conference on Stored Product Protection, 27 June to 2 July, Berlin, Julius-Kühn-Archiv.Google Scholar
Pelegrini, P.B., Lay, F.T., Murad, A.M., Anderson, M.A. & Franco, O.L. (2008) Novel insights on the mechanism of action of α-amylase inhibitors from the plant defensin family. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics 73, 719–729.Google Scholar
Pellegrineschi, A. (1997) In vitro plant regeneration via organogenesis of cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.]. Plant Cell Reports 17, 89–95.Google Scholar
Phillips, T.W. & Throne, J.E. (2010) Biorational approaches to managing stored-product insects. Annual Reviews in Entomology 55, 375–397.Google Scholar
Popelka, J.C., Gollasch, S., Moore, A., Molvig, L. & Higgins, T.J.V. (2006) Genetic transformation of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) and stable transmission of the transgenes to progeny. Plant Cell Reports 25, 304–312.Google Scholar
Romeis, J., Sharma, H.C., Sharma, K.K., Das, S. & Sarmah, B.K. (2004) The potential of transgenic chickpeas for pest control and possible effects on non-target arthropods. Crop Protection 23, 923–938.Google Scholar
Romeis, J., Bartsch, D., Bigler, F., Candolfi, M.P., Gielkens, M.M.C., Hartley, S.E., Hellmich, R.L., Huesing, J.E., Jepson, P.C., Layton, R., Quemada, H., Raybould, A., Rose, R.I., Schiemann, J., Sears, M.K., Shelton, A.M., Sweet, J., Vaituzis, Z. & Wolt, J.D. (2008) Assessment of risk of insect-resistant transgenic crops to nontarget arthropods. Nature Biotechnology 26, 203–208.Google Scholar
Sanon, A., Ouedraogo, A.P., Tricault, Y., Credland, P.F. & Huignard, J. (1998) Biological control of bruchids in cowpea stores by release of Dinarmus basalis (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) adults. Environmental Entomology 27, 717–725.Google Scholar
Sarmah, B.K., Moore, A., Tate, W., Molvig, L., Morton, R.L., Rees, D.P., Chiaiese, P., Chrispeels, M.J., Tabe, L.M. & Higgins, T.J.V. (2004) Transgenic chickpea seeds expressing high levels of a bean α-amylase inhibitor. Molecular Breeding 14, 73–82.Google Scholar
Schmale, I., Wäckers, F.L., Cardona, C. & Dorn, S. (2003) Combining parasitoids and plant resistance for the control of the bruchid Acanthoscelides obtectus in stored beans. Journal of Stored Products Research 39, 401–411.Google Scholar
Schroeder, H.E., Gollasch, S., Moore, A., Tabe, L.M., Craig, S., Hardie, D.C., Chrispeels, M.J., Spencer, D. & Higgins, T.J.V. (1995) Bean α-amylase inhibitor confers resistance to the pea weevil (Bruchus pisorum) in transgenic peas (Pisum sativum L.). Plant Physiology 107, 1233–1239.Google Scholar
Shade, R.E., Schroeder, H.E., Pueyo, J.J., Tabe, L.M., Murdock, L.L., Higgins, T.J.V. & Chrispeels, M.J. (1994) Transgenic pea seeds expressing the α-amylase inhibitor of the common bean are resistant to bruchid beetles. Nature Biotechnology 12, 793–796.Google Scholar
Shade, R.E., Murdock, L.L. & Kitch, L.W. (1999) Interactions between cowpea weevil (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) populations and Vigna (Leguminosae) species. Journal of Economic Entomology 92, 740–745.Google Scholar
Singh, B.B., Singh, S.R. & Adjadi, O. (1985) Bruchid resistance in cowpea. Crop Science 25, 736–739.Google Scholar
Singh, K.B. (1997) Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Field Crops Research 53, 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, S.R. (1977) Cowpea cultivars resistant to insect pests in world germplasm collection. Tropical Grain Legume Bulletin 9, 3–6.Google Scholar
Solleti, S.K., Bakshi, S., Purkayastha, J., Panda, S.K. & Sahoo, L. (2008) Transgenic cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) seeds expressing a bean α-amylase inhibitor 1 confer resistance to storage pests, bruchid beetles. Plant Cell Reports 27, 1841–1850.Google Scholar
Southgate, B.J. (1979) Biology of the bruchidae. Annual Review of Entomology 24, 449–473.Google Scholar
Souza, A.J., Santos, P.O., Pinto, M.S.T., Wermelinger, T.T., Ribeiro, E.S., Souza, S.C., Deus, M.F., Souza, M.C., Xavier-Filho, J., Fernandes, K.V.S. & Oliveira, A.E.A. (2011) Natural seed coats provide protection against penetration by Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) larvae. Crop Protection 30, 651–657.Google Scholar
Tucić, N., Mikuljanac, S. & Stojković, O. (1997) Genetic variation and covariation among life history traits in populations of Acanthoscelides obtectus maintained on different hosts. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 85, 247–256.Google Scholar
van Huis, A. (1991) Biological methods of bruchid control in the tropics: a review. Insect Science and its Application 12, 87–102.Google Scholar
Velten, G., Rott, A.S., Conde Petit, B.J., Cardona, C. & Dorn, S. (2008) Improved bruchid management through favorable host plant traits and natural enemies. Biological Control 47, 133–140.Google Scholar
Zhu-Salzman, K. & Zeng, R.S. (2008) Molecular mechanisms of insect adaptation to plant defense: lessons learned from a bruchid beetle. Insect Science 15, 477–481.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Lüthi Supplementary Material

Figure S1

Download Lüthi Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 100.9 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Lüthi Supplementary Material

Table S1

Download Lüthi Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 66.9 KB