Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T01:50:43.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A molecular diagnostic for endosulfan insecticide resistance in the coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Scolytidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

R.H. ffrench-Constant*
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, USA
J.C. Steichen
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, USA
L.O. Brun
Affiliation:
Institut Français de Recherche Scientifique pour le Développement en Cooperation (ORSTROM) Nouméa, New Caledonia.
*
Dr R H ffrench-Constant, Department of Ento mology, 237 Russell Laboratories, 1630 Linden Drive, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706, USA.

Abstract

The coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari) has recently evolved high levels of resistance to endosulfan and other cyclodiene-type insecticides in New Caledonia. During population outbreaks this has contributed to levels of infestation of coffee berries reaching up to 90%. Using degenerate primers in the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) we have amplified a section of the cyclodiene resistance gene Rdl from H. hampei. This gene codes for a γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) gated chloride ion channel. Here we report that resistant strains of H. hampei carry exactly the same single amino acid replacement (alanine to serine) as that found in resistant Drosophila melanogaster (Meigen) (Diptera: Drosophilidae). A molecular diagnostic based upon PCR-mediated amplification of specific alleles (PASA) is described. This technique is capable of detecting resistance or susceptibility in adults, larvae or eggs but not in susceptible females carrying resistant sperm. Its potential use in field monitoring is discussed.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

Brown, T.M. & Brogdon, W.G. (1987) Improved detection of insecticide resistance through conventional and molecular techniques. Annual Review of Entomology 32, 145162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brun, L.O., Marcillaud, C., Gaudichon, V. & Suckling, D.M. (1989) Endosulfan resistance in coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in New Caledonia. Journal of Economic Entomology 82, 13111316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brun, L.O., Marcillaud, C. & Gaudichon, V. (1990) Monitoring of endosulfan and lindane resistance in the coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in New Caledonia. Bulletin of Entomological Research 80, 129135.Google Scholar
Brun, L.O., Marcillaud, C., Gaudichon, V. & Suckling, D.M. (1991) Evaluation of a rapid bioassay for diagnosing endosulfan resistance in coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Tropical Pest Management 37, 221223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ffrench-Constant, R.H. & Devonshire, A.L. (1987) A multiple homogenizer for rapid sample preparation in immunoassays and electrophoresis. Biochem Genet 25, 493–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ffrench-Constant, R.H. & Rocheleau, T. (1992) Drosophila cyclodiene resistance gene shows conserved genomic organization with vertebrate γ-aminobutyric acidA receptors. Journal of Neurochemistry 59, 15621565.Google Scholar
ffrench-Constant, R.H. & Roush, R.T. (1990) Resistance detection and documentation: the relative roles of pesticidal and biochemical assays. pp. 438. in Roush, R.T. & Tabashnik, B.E. (Eds) Pesticide resistance in arthropods. New York, Chapman and HallCrossRefGoogle Scholar
ffrench-Constant, R.H., Mortlock, D.P., Shaffer, C.D., Macintyre, R.J. & Roush, R.T. (1991) Molecular cloning and transformation of cyclodiene resistance in Drosophila: an invertebrate GABAA receptor locus. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 88, 72097213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ffrench-Constant, R.H., Rocheleau, T.A., Steichen, J.C. & Chalmers, A.E. (1993a) A point mutation in a Drosophila GABA receptor confers insecticide resistance. Nature (London) 363, 449451.Google Scholar
ffrench-Constant, R.H., Steichen, J., Rocheleau, T.A., Aronstein, K. & Roush, R.T. (1993b) A single-amino acid substitution in a γ-aminobutyric acid subtype A receptor locus associated with cyclodiene insecticide resistance in Drosophila populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 90, 19571961.Google Scholar
Garner, H.R., Armstrong, B. & Lininger, D.M. (1993) High-throughput PCR. Biotechniques 14, 112115.Google ScholarPubMed
Kuffler, S.W. & Edwards, C. (1965) Mechanisms of gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) action and its relation to synaptic inhibition. Journal of Neurophysiology 21, 589610.Google Scholar
Otsuka, M., Iversen, L.L., Hall, Z.W. & Kravitz, E.A. (1966) Release of gamma-aminobutyric acid from inhibitory nerves of lobster. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 56, 11101115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sommer, S.S., Groszbach, A.R. & Bottema, C.D.K. (1992) PCR amplification of specific alleles (PASA) is a general method for rapidly detecting known single-base changes. Bio Techniques 12, 8287.Google Scholar
Steichen, J.C. & ffrench-Constant, R.H. (1993) Amplification of specific cyclodiene insecticide resistance alleles by the polymerase chain reaction. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 48, 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, M., Shotkoski, F. & ffrench-Constant, R. (1993a) Cloning and sequencing of the cyclodiene insecticide resistance gene from the yellow fever mosquito Aedes aegypti. FEBS Letters 325, 187190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, M., Steichen, J.C. & ffrench-Constant, R.H. (1993b) Conservation of cyclodiene insecticide resistance associated mutations in insects. Insect Molecular Biology 2, 149154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Usherwood, P.N.R. & Grundfest, H. (1965) Peripheral inhibition in skeletal muscle of insects. Journal of Neurophysiology 28, 497518.Google Scholar