4.6 Article

Evaluation of lectin-expressing transgenic sugarcane against stalkborers (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae):: Effects on life history parameters

期刊

JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY
卷 95, 期 2, 页码 469-477

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1603/0022-0493-95.2.469

关键词

Eoreuma loftini; Diatraea saccharalis; snowdrop lectin; Galanthus nivalis agglutinin; life history parameters

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The impact of snowdrop lectin (Galanthus nivalis agglutinin, GNA) expressed in transgenic sugarcane on life history parameters of Mexican rice borer [Eoreuma loftini (Dyar)] and sugarcane borer [Diatraea saccharalis (F.)] (both Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) was evaluated. In the laboratory, lyopbilized sugarcane leaf sheath tissue was incorporated in a meridic diet resulting in a GNA concentration of 0.47% of total protein, and used for insect bioassays over two successive generations. Deleterious effects of GNA were not observed on survival, weight, and developmental periods of larvae and pupae, nor on adult fecundity and egg viability of D. saccharalis. Moreover, in the first generation, addition of transgenic sugarcane tissue to the diet enhanced larval growth in D. saccharalis resulting in higher larval and pupal weight compared with diet with nontransgenic sugarcane, but this effect was not observed in the second generation. In contrast, larval survival, percent adult emergence, and female fecundity of E. toftini were significantly reduced when fed transgenic sugarcane diet compared with nontransgenic sugarcane diet. In addition, a substantial-reduction of female pupal weight of E. loftini was observed in the second generation. For both species, the only consistent effect of GNA in both generations was a reduction in adult female longevity. Life table parameters showed that GNA at the level found in the transgenic diet negatively affected development and reproduction of E. loftini, whereas it bad a nil to positive effect on development and reproduction of D. saccharalis.

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

4.6
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