4.6 Article

Genetics of resistance to phosphine in Rhyzopertha dominica (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae)

Journal

JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY
Volume 95, Issue 4, Pages 862-869

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1603/0022-0493-95.4.862

Keywords

Rhyzopertha dominica; phosphine; resistance; genetics

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The inheritance of resistance to phosphine was studied in two strains of the lesser grain borer, Rhyzopertha dominica (F.). labeled 'Weak-R' and 'Strong-R'. These strains were purified versions of field-selected populations collected in Queensland, Australia, Weak-R and Strong-R were, respectively, 23.4 times (20-h exposure) and 600 times (48-h exposure) resistant to phosphine compared with a reference susceptible strain (S-strain). Each -R strain was crossed with the S-strain and the response to phosphine was measured in their respective F-1, F-2, and F-1-backcross (F-1-BC) progenies. Data from testing of reciprocal F-1 progeny indicated that resistance in Weak-R was autosomal and incompletely recessive with a degree of dominance -0.96. Modified chi-square analysis and contingency analysis of the observed response to phosphine of F-1-BC and F-2 progenies rejected the hypothesis of single gene inheritance of resistance. Analysis of the response of the F-1, F-2, and F-1-BC progeny from the Strong-R x S-strain cross also rejected the null hypothesis for single gene resistance. Resistance in the Strong-R strain was autosomal and incompletely recessive with a degree of dominance of -0.64. The Weak-R and Strong-R strains were then crossed. Analysis of the F-1 and F-2 progenies of this reciprocal cross revealed that the strong resistance phenotype was coded by a combination of the genes already present in the Weak-R genotype plus an extra major, incompletely recessive gene, There was also evidence of a minor dominant gene present in approximate to5% of Strong-R individuals.

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