Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-08T02:09:33.861Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetical studies on dieldrin-resistance in Musca domestica L. and Lucilia cuprina (Wied.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

A. M. Guneidy  and
J. R. Busvine
A. M. Guneidy
Affiliation:
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
J. R. Busvine
Affiliation:
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The mode of inheritance of dieldrin-resistance in house-flies, Musca domestica L., was investigated by crossing experiments, using a selected, inbred resistant colony (R) and a normally susceptible one (N). Levels of susceptibility in both colonies and in various hybrids derived from them were determined by treating batches of flies with different concentrations of dieldrin by topical application.

Reciprocal crosses gave closely similar results, which were pooled. Results obtained with males and females were analogous, but were treated separately. The F1 hybrids were intermediate in resistance and the F2 generation segregated into susceptible, hybrid and resistant individuals in the ratio 1:2:1. The F1 generation back-crossed to either parental strain gave 1:1 segregation, corresponding to NN + NR or NR + RR. After killing the more dieldrin-susceptible forms in each case, the remaining males were back-crossed again. The second back-cross to normal gave a further 1:1 segregation of susceptibles and hybrids. The second back-cross to resistant now gave all homozygous resistant forms.

These results strongly indicate monofactorial inheritance.

Two highly dieldrin-resistant colonies of the sheep blowfly Lucilia cuprina (Wied.) had been colonised, one from Australia and one from South Africa. These were crossed and the progeny maintained to the F2 generation. Tests with dieldrin on the F1 and F2 generations gave results resembling those obtained with the parents. Since there was no appearance of susceptible or hybrid forms in the F2, it is concluded that the genes in the two colonies occur on the same chromosome and are either allelic (possibly identical) or very closely linked.

Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , December 1964 , pp. 499 - 507
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1964

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abdullah, M. (1961). Inheritance of dieldrin resistance in the housefly.—J. Hered. 52 pp. 179–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abedi, Z. H. (1958). Inheritance of aldrin resistance in the Indian house-fly, Musca domestica nebulo F.—Bull. ent. Res. 49 pp. 637–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbesgaard, P. & Keiding, J. (1955). Crossing experiments with insecticide-resistant houseflies (Musca domestic L.).—Vidensk. Medd. dansk. naturh. Foren. 117 pp. 84–116.Google Scholar
Busvine, J. R. (1951). Mechanism of resistance to insecticides in houseflies.—Nature, Lond. 168 no. 4266 pp. 193–195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Busvine, J. R. (1954). Houseflies resistant to a group of chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides.—Nature, Lond. 174 no. 4434 pp. 783–785.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Busvine, J. R. (1962). A laboratory technique for measuring the susceptibility of houseflies and blowflies to insecticides.—Lab. Pract. 11 pp. 464–468.Google Scholar
Busvine, J. R. (1964). The insecticidal potency of γ-BHC and the chlorinated cyclodiene compounds and the significance of resistance to them.—Bull. ent. Res. 55 pp. 271–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busvine, J. R., Bell, J. D. & Guneidy, A. M. (1963). Toxicology and genetics of two types of insecticide resistance in Chrysomyia putoria (Wied.).—Bull. ent. Res. 54 pp. 589–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busvine, J. R. & Khan, N. H. (1955). Inheritance of BHC-resistance in the housefly.—Trans. R. Soc. trop. Med. Hyg. 49 pp. 455–459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Busvine, J. R. & Shanahan, G. J. (1961). The resistance spectrum of a dieldrin-resistant strain of the blowfly (Lucilia cuprina Wied.).—Ent exp appl. 4 pp. 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busvine, J. R. & Townsend, M. G. (1963). The significance of BHC degradation in resistant house-flies.—Bull. ent. Res. 53 pp. 763–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coker, W. Z. (1958). The inheritance of DDT resistance in Aedes aegypti.—Ann. trop. Med. Parasit. 52 pp. 443–455.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davidson, G. (1958). Studies on insecticide resistance in anopheline mosquitoes.—Bull. World Hlth Org. 18 pp. 579–621.Google Scholar
Davidson, G. (1963 a). DDT-resistance and dieldrin-resistance in Anopheles albimanus.—Bull. World Hlth Org. 28 pp. 25–33.Google ScholarPubMed
Davidson, G. (1963 b). DDT resistance and dieldrin resistance in Anopheles quadrimaculatus.—Bull. World Hlth Org. 29 pp. 177–184.Google ScholarPubMed
Davidson, G. (1964). DDT resistance and dieldrin resistance in Culex pipiens fatigans Wied.—Ann. trop. Med. Parasit. 58 pp. 180–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georghiou, G. P., March, R. B. & Printy, G. E. (1963). A study of the genetics of dieldrin-resistance in the housefly (Musca domestica L.).—Bull. World Hlth Org. 29 pp. 155–176.Google ScholarPubMed
Khan, N. H. & Brown, A. W. A. (1961). Genetical studies on dieldrin resistance in Aedes aegypti and its cross-resistance to DDT.—Bull. World Hlth Org. 24 pp. 519–526.Google ScholarPubMed
Milani, R. (1963). Genetical aspects of insecticide resistance.—Bull. World Hlth Org. 29 Suppl. pp. 77–87.Google ScholarPubMed
Shanahan, G. J. (1958). Resistance to dieldrin in Lucilia cuprina Wied., the Australian sheep blowfly.—Nature, Lond. 181 no. 4612, 860–861.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shanahan, G. J. (1960).—Genetics of resistance to dieldrin in Lucilia cuprina Wied.—Nature, Lond. 186 no. 4719 p. 181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed