4.5 Article

Increased pathogenicity against coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) by Metarhizium anisopliae expressing the scorpion toxin (AaIT) gene

期刊

JOURNAL OF INVERTEBRATE PATHOLOGY
卷 99, 期 2, 页码 220-226

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jip.2008.05.004

关键词

coffee; coffee berry borer; biocontrol; Metaihizium anisopliae; AaIT; scorpion neurotoxin; Androctonus austialis insect toxin

类别

资金

  1. University of Maryland
  2. National Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Coffee berry borer (CBB) is the Worlds most devastating coffee pest causing an estimated US$500 million worth of losses annually through damage and control costs. Beauveria bassiona and Metarhizium anisopliae have been employed to control this pest but their low virulence (slow kill and large inoculums) is an important factor constraining their use. M. anisopliae (AaIT-Ma549) has been modified to express the scorpion toxin (AaIT) in insect hemolymph and this greatly increased pathogenicity against Manduca sexta and Aedes aegypti. Here, we demonstrate that AaIT-Ma549 was also dramatically more virulent against CBB, and we provide a much more comprehensive analysis of infection processes and post-mortality development than in the previous research. We evaluated several spore concentrations (10(1) through 10(7) spores/ml) of both the wild type and recombinant strain. At concentrations of 10(1), 10(1) and 10(3) spores/ml, the recombinant strain significantly increased mortality of CBB by 32.2%. 56.6% and 24.6%, respectively. The medial lethal concentration (LC50) was reduced 15.7-fold and the average survival time (AST) was reduced by 20.1 % to 2.98 +/- 0.1 days with 10(7) spores/ml. This is the first occasion that an entomopathogenic fungus has been found to kill CBB in less than 3 days. However, AaIT-Ma549 produces significantly fewer spores on cadavers than the parental strain. (c) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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