CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 262Insect Resistance and GeneticsInsect-Plant Interactions and ControlInsect Pest Control Strategies

Bean α-amylase inhibitor 1 in transgenic peas ( Pisum sativum ) provides complete protection from pea weevil ( Bruchus pisorum ) under field conditions

Open access
Morton, Roger L., Schroeder, Hart E., Bateman, Kaye S., Chrispeels, Maarten J., Armstrong, Eric, Higgins, Thomas J. V.·2000·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.070054597PMC PMC18100
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Two alpha-amylase inhibitors, called alphaAI-1 and alphaAI-2, that share 78% amino acid sequence identity and have a differential specificity toward mammalian and insect alpha-amylases are present in different accessions of the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Using greenhouse-grown transgenic peas (Pisum sativum), we have shown previously that expression of alphaAI-1 in pea seeds can provide complete protection against the pea weevil (Bruchus pisorum). Here, we report that alphaAI-1 also protects peas from the weevil under field conditions. The high degree of protection is explained by our finding that alphaAI-1 inhibits pea bruchid alpha-amylase by 80% over a broad pH range (pH 4.5-6.5). alphaAI-2, on the other hand, is a much less effective inhibitor of pea bruchid alpha-amylase, inhibiting the enzyme by only 40%, and only in the pH 4.0-4.5 range. Nevertheless, this inhibitor was still partially effective in protecting field-grown transgenic peas against pea weevils. The primary effect of alphaAI-2 appeared to be a delay in the maturation of the larvae. This contrasts with the effect of alphaAI-1, which results in larval mortality at the first or second instar. These results are discussed in relationship to the use of amylase inhibitors with different specificities to bring about protection of crops from their insect pests or to decrease insect pest populations below the economic injury level.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.070054597

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The alpha-amylase inhibitor αAI-1 from green bean has been introduced into various other legumes and provides very high levels of protection from certain susceptible bruchid species.

    “A compound that is of particular interest is the alpha-amylase inhibitor αAI-1 from the green bean that has been introduced into various other legumes and shown to provide very high levels of protection from certain (susceptible) bruchid (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) species (Lüthi et al., 2013a;Morton et al., 2000).”

    From Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control (2019) · cites this paper as Morton et al., 2000

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. [3]Chrispeels M J. In: Advances in Insect Control. The Role of Transgenic Plants. Carozzi N, Koziel M, editors. London: Taylor & Francis; 1997. pp. 139–156. [Google Scholar]
  2. [4]Ho M F, Whitaker J R. J Food Biochem. 1993;17:15–33. [Google Scholar]
  3. [5]Ho M F, Whitaker J R. J Food Biochem. 1993;17:35–52. [Google Scholar]
  4. [6]Ishimoto M, Kitamura K. Appl Entomol Zool. 1989;24:281–286. [Google Scholar]
  5. [7]Suzuki K, Ishimoto M, Kikuchi F, Kitamura K. Jpn J Breeding. 1993;43:257–265. [Google Scholar]
  6. [10]Fory L F, Finardi-Filho F, Quintero C M, Osborn T C, Cardona C, Chrispeels M J, Mayer M S. J Econ Entomol. 1996;89:204–210. [Google Scholar]
  7. [11]Skaife S H. Union of South Africa Department of Biology Bulletin. Pretoria: South African Department of Agriculture; 1918. pp. 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  8. [12]Brindley T A. J Econ Entomol. 1933;26:1058–1062. [Google Scholar]
  9. [13]Larson A O, Brindley T A, Hinman F G. J Econ Entomol. 1933;26:1063–1068. [Google Scholar]
  10. [14]Shade R E, Schroeder H E, Pueyo J J, Tabe L M, Murdock L L, Higgins T J V, Chrispeels M J. Bio/Technology. 1994;12:793–796. [Google Scholar]
  11. [18]Morton R L, Gollasch S, Schroeder H E, Bateman K S, Higgins T J V. In: Handbook of Transgenic Food Plants. Khachatourians G, Nip W-H, editors. New York: Dekker; 2000. , in press. [Google Scholar]
  12. [20]Hardie D C. Ph.D. thesis. Adelaide, Australia: Univ. of Adelaide; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  13. [21]Bernfeld P. Methods Enzymol. 1955;1:149–158. [Google Scholar]
  14. [22]Gomoru G. Methods Enzymol. 1955;1:138–146. [Google Scholar]
  15. [25]Chrispeels M J, Grossi de Sa M F, Higgins T J V. Seed Sci Res. 1998;8:257–263. [Google Scholar]
  16. [26]Marshall J J, Lauda C M. J Biol Chem. 1975;250:8030–8037. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. [27]Ishimoto M, Kitamura K. Appl Entomol Zool. 1992;27:243–251. [Google Scholar]
  18. [28]Powers J R, Whitaker J R. J Food Biochem. 1977;1:239–260. [Google Scholar]
  19. [29]Lagadic L. Comp Biochem Physiol. 1994;108:249–253. [Google Scholar]
  20. [30]Baker J E. Insect Biochem. 1983;13:421–428. [Google Scholar]
  21. [31]Cheng M S, Feng G, Zen K C, Richardson M, Valdes-Rodriguez S, Reek G R, Kramer K J. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 1992;22:261–268. [Google Scholar]
  22. [33]Silva C P, Terra W R, Xavier-Filho J, Grossi de Sa M F, Lopes A R, Pontes E G. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 1999;29:355–366. [Google Scholar]
  23. [37]Savaiano D A, Powers J R, Costello M J, Whitaker J R, Clifford A J. Nut Rep Int. 1977;15:443–449. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Morton, R. L., Schroeder, H. E., Bateman, K. S., Chrispeels, M. J., Armstrong, E., & Higgins, T. J. V.
Affiliations
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU)
ORCID
Higgins, Thomas J. V.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2000-04-04
Volume
97
Issue
8
Pages
3820-3825
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.070054597
PMC
PMC18100
OpenAlex
W2110091705
Cited by
262
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 15
FWCI
3.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Insect Resistance and Genetics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Insect-Plant Interactions and Control
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Insect Pest Control Strategies
Keywords
alpha-amylase inhibitors, pea weevil, Bruchus pisorum, larval mortality, insect pest control, crop protection
MeSH terms
alpha-Amylases, Animals, Insecta, Larva, Fabaceae, Pest Control, Biological, Plant Proteins, Plants, Medicinal, Trypsin Inhibitors, Pisum sativum, Plants, Genetically Modified

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review