4.7 Article

Stability of EPSPS gene copy number in Hordeum glaucum Steud (barley grass) in the presence and absence of glyphosate selection

期刊

PEST MANAGEMENT SCIENCE
卷 77, 期 7, 页码 3080-3087

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/ps.6367

关键词

gene amplification; glyphosate resistance; 5‐ enolpyruvylshikimate‐ 3‐ phosphate synthase; gene copy stability

资金

  1. University of Adelaide Australia (Adelaide Scholarship International)
  2. Grains Research and Development Corporation [UA00158]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gene amplification has been shown to provide resistance to glyphosate in some weed species, with EPSPS gene copies increasing in H. glaucum populations under glyphosate selection. The correlation between EPSPS copy number and glyphosate resistance suggests a dependence on glyphosate selection.
BACKGROUND Gene amplification has been shown to provide resistance to glyphosate in several weed species, including Hordeum glaucum populations in South Australia. The stability of 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) gene copies in resistant populations in the presence or absence of glyphosate selection has not been determined. RESULTS Applying glyphosate to a cloned plant resulted in an increase in resistance and EPSPS copy number in the progeny of that plant compared to the untreated clone. The LD50 (herbicide concentration required for 50% mortality) increased by 75% to 79% in the progeny of the treated clones compared to the untreated in both populations (YP-17 and YP-16). EPSPS copy number estimates were higher in treated individuals compared to untreated individuals with an average of seven copies compared to six in YP-16 and 11 compared to six in YP-17. There was a positive correlation (R-2 = 0.78) between EPSPS copy number and LD50 of all populations. CONCLUSION EPSPS gene copy number and resistance to glyphosate increased in H. glaucum populations under glyphosate selection, suggesting the number of EPSPS gene copies present is dependent on glyphosate selection.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据