4.5 Article

Does insecticide resistance alone account for the low genetic variability of asexually reproducing populations of the peach-potato aphid Myzus persicae?

期刊

HEREDITY
卷 94, 期 6, 页码 630-639

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/sj.hdy.6800673

关键词

drift; insecticide resistance; kdr; overproduced esterases; AchE; microevolution

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The typical life cycle of aphids includes several parthenogenetic generations and a single sexual generation ( cyclical parthenogenesis), but some species or populations are totally asexual ( obligate parthenogenesis). Genetic variability is generally low in these asexually reproducing populations, that is, few genotypes are spread over large geographic areas. Both genetic drift and natural selection are often invoked to account for this low genetic variability. The peach-potato aphid, Myzus persicae, which encompasses both cyclical and obligate parthenogens, has developed several insecticide resistance mechanisms as a consequence of intense insecticide use since the 1950s. We collected asexually reproducing M. persicae from oilseed rape and examined genetic variability at eight microsatellite loci and three insecticide resistance genes to determine whether their genetic structure was driven by drift and/or selection. We identified only 16 multilocus microsatellite genotypes among 255 individuals. One clone, which combined two insecticide resistance mechanisms, was frequently detected in all populations whatever their location over a large geographical area ( the northern half of France). These unexpected findings suggest that drift is not the unique cause of this low variability. Instead, the intensification of both insecticide treatments and oilseed rape cultivation may have favored a few genotypes. Thus, we propose that selective pressures resulting from human activities have considerably modified the genetic structure of M. persicae populations in northern France in a relatively short period of time.

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