Novel genetic basis of resistance to Bt toxin Cry1Ac in Helicoverpa zea
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Crops genetically engineered to produce insecticidal proteins from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis have advanced pest management, but their benefits are diminished when pests evolve resistance. Elucidating the genetic basis of pest resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis toxins can improve resistance monitoring, resistance management, and the design of new insecticides. Here, we investigated the genetic basis of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis toxin Cry1Ac in the lepidopteran Helicoverpa zea, one of the most damaging crop pests in the United States. To facilitate this research, we built the first chromosome-level genome assembly for this species, which has 31 chromosomes containing 375 Mb and 15,482 predicted proteins. Using a genome-wide association study, fine-scale mapping, and RNA-seq, we identified a 250-kb quantitative trait locus on chromosome 13 that was strongly associated with resistance in a strain of Helicoverpa zea that had been selected for resistance in the field and lab. The mutation in this quantitative trait locus contributed to but was not sufficient for resistance, which implies alleles in more than one gene contributed to resistance. This quantitative trait locus contains no genes with a previously reported role in resistance or susceptibility to Bacillus thuringiensis toxins. However, in resistant insects, this quantitative trait locus has a premature stop codon in a kinesin gene, which is a primary candidate as a mutation contributing to resistance. We found no changes in gene sequence or expression consistently associated with resistance for 11 genes previously implicated in lepidopteran resistance to Cry1Ac. Thus, the results reveal a novel and polygenic basis of resistance.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold
Jumper, J., Evans, R., Pritzel, A., Green, T., Figurnov, M., Ronneberger, O., Tunyasuvunakool, K., Bates, R., Žídek, A., Potapenko, A., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2 · Cited by 43,764 · see citing works
Optimizing pyramided transgenic Bt crops for sustainable pest management
Carrière, Y., Crickmore, N., & Tabashnik, B. E. (2015) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.3099 · Cited by 388 · see citing works
Self-citationGenetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control
Romeis, J., Naranjo, S. E., Meissle, M., & Shelton, A. M. (2019) · Biological Control · doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2018.10.001 · Cited by 231 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Benowitz, K. M., Allan, C. W., Degain, B. A., Li, X., Fabrick, J. A., Tabashnik, B. E., Carrière, Y., & Matzkin, L. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Arizona (US)
- Department of Entomology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA
- Agricultural Research Service (US)
- Corresponding author
- Benowitz, Kyle M
- ORCID
- Venue
- Genetics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2022-03-02
- Volume
- 221
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 0016-6731 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-2631
- PMC
- PMC9071530
- OpenAlex
- W4214913712
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7
- FWCI
- 2.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
- Locations
- Genetics (publishedVersion)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (2020-67013-31924)
- Biotechnology Risk Assessment Research (2020-33522-32268)
- Corteva Agriscience, and the Cotton Insect Resistance Management (IRM) Technical Subcommittee of the Agricultural Biotechnology Stewardship Technical Committee
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Insect Resistance and Genetics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetically Modified Organisms Research
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Insect-Plant Interactions and Control
- Keywords
- corn earworm, Cry1Ac resistance, Bacillus thuringiensis toxin, Bt resistance, genetic basis of resistance, quantitative trait loci, polygenic resistance, chromosome-level genome assembly, genome-wide association study, resistance management, insecticide resistance
- MeSH terms
- Bacillus thuringiensis Toxins, Animals, Bacillus thuringiensis, Bacterial Proteins, Zea mays, Endotoxins, Hemolysin Proteins, Insecticide Resistance, Insecticides, Larva, Moths, Plants, Genetically Modified, Genome-Wide Association Study
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