4.7 Article

Fly-Tox: A panel of transgenic flies expressing pest and pollinator cytochrome P450s

Journal

PESTICIDE BIOCHEMISTRY AND PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 169, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.pestbp.2020.104674

Keywords

Drosophila; Transgenic; Cytochrome P450; Toxicology; Insecticide

Funding

  1. European Research Council (ERC)
  2. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme [646625-P450RESIST, 773902-SUPERPEST]
  3. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) [15076182]
  4. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council's Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund [BBS/OS/CP/000001]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There is an on-going need to develop new insecticides that are not compromised by resistance and that have improved environmental profiles. However, the cost of developing novel compounds has increased significantly over the last two decades. This is in part due to increased regulatory requirements, including the need to screen both pest and pollinator insect species to ensure that pre-existing resistance will not hamper the efficacy of a new insecticide via cross-resistance, or adversely affect non-target insect species. To add to this problem the collection and maintenance of toxicologically relevant pest and pollinator species and strains is costly and often difficult. Here we present Fly-Tox, a panel of publicly available transgenic Drosophila melanogaster lines each containing one or more pest or pollinator P450 genes that have been previously shown to metabolise insecticides. We describe the range of ways these tools can be used, including in predictive screens to avoid preexisting cross-resistance, to identify potential resistance-breaking inhibitors, in the initial assessment of potential insecticide toxicity to bee pollinators, and identifying harmful pesticide-pesticide interactions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available