4.5 Article

Inheritance mode, cross-resistance and realized heritability of pyriproxyfen resistance in a field strain of Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae)

期刊

ACTA TROPICA
卷 142, 期 -, 页码 149-155

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2014.11.016

关键词

IGRS; Inheritance; House fly; Cross-resistance; Realized heritability

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pyriproxyfen is a growth regulator used for the control of different insect pests, including Musca domestica. To assess the risk of resistance and to develop a strategy for resistance management, a field strain of M. domestica was exposed to pyriproxyfen in the laboratory for 30 generations. The inheritance mode, realized heritability of pyriproxyfen resistance and cross-resistance to other insecticides were assessed. Prior to the selection process, the field strain exhibited a resistance ratio (RR) of 25.7, 7.31, 7.67, and 27-fold for pyriproxyfen, methoxyfenozide, cyromazine and lufenuron, respectively, when compared to the pyriproxyfen susceptible strain (Pyri-Sus). After continuous selection with pyriproxyfen, the pyriproxyfen-resistant strain (Pyri-Res) became 206-fold more resistant than the Pyri-Sus strain. The overlapping confidence limits of LC50 values of F-1 (Pyri-Res male x Pyri-Sus female) and F-1(dagger) (Pyri-Res female x Pyri-Sus male) suggested an autosomal and completely dominant mode of resistance to pyriproxyfen. Monogenic test of inheritance showed that resistance to pyriproxyfen was governed by multiple genes. The Pyri-Res strain showed very low cross resistance to methoxyfenozide, cyromazine, and lufenuron. The estimated realized heritability was 0.02, 0.05, 0.03 and 0.04 for pyriproxyfen, methoxyfenozide, cyromazine, and lufenuron, respectively. It was concluded that pyriproxyfen resistance in M. domestica was autosomaIly inherited, completely dominant and polygenic. These results would be helpful for the design of an improved control strategy against M. domestica. (C) 2014 Elsevier BM. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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