4.6 Review Book Chapter

Mechanisms of Resistance to Insecticidal Proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis

Journal

ANNUAL REVIEW OF ENTOMOLOGY, VOL 66, 2021
Volume 66, Issue -, Pages 121-140

Publisher

ANNUAL REVIEWS
DOI: 10.1146/annurev-ento-052620-073348

Keywords

Bacillus thuringiensis; Cry protein; Vip3 protein; resistance mechanism; receptor

Categories

Funding

  1. Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Foundational Program competitive grant [2018-67013-27820]
  2. US Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture [NC-246]
  3. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
  4. Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities [RTI2018-095204-B-C21]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Insecticidal proteins from Bt bacterium are widely used as successful alternatives to synthetic pesticides, but the evolution of resistance in target pests remains a major threat. High-level resistance to Bt sprays is limited in the field, but several lepidopteran and coleopteran species have developed practical resistance to Bt proteins produced in transgenic plants.
Insecticidal proteins from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) are used in sprayable formulations or produced in transgenic crops as the most successful alternatives to synthetic pesticides. The most relevant threat to sustainability of Bt insecticidal proteins (toxins) is the evolution of resistance in target pests. To date, high-level resistance to Bt sprays has been limited to one species in the field and another in commercial greenhouses. In contrast, there are currently seven lepidopteran and one coleopteran species that have evolved practical resistance to transgenic plants producing insecticidal Bt proteins. In this article, we present a review of the current knowledge on mechanisms of resistance to Bt toxins, with emphasis on key resistance genes and field-evolved resistance, to support improvement of Bt technology and its sustainability.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available