Inheritance mode and metabolic mechanism of the sulfoximine insecticide sulfoxaflor resistance in Oxycarenus hyalinipennis (Costa)

Abstract

BACKGROUND Dusky cotton bug (DCB), Oxycarenus hyalinipennis (Costa) (Hemiptera: Lygaeidae), is a key insect pest of cotton. It causes huge losses to cotton and many other economically important crops. Sulfoxaflor is a newly introduced systemic insecticide that is effective against many sap‐feeding insect pests such as aphids, whiteflies and true bugs. The present study was designed to characterize the inheritance of sulfoxaflor resistance in DCB. Moreover, the role of synergists in reducing sulfoxaflor resistance in DCB was also assessed. RESULTS A field population of DCB has developed 1132.0‐fold resistance to sulfoxaflor after 11 selected generations in the laboratory. Nonsignificant difference of reciprocal crosses was observed depending on the LC50 (median lethal concentration) values (95% confidence intervals overlapped), suggesting an autosomal mode of sulfoxaflor resistance inheritance. The degree of dominance of 0.7 for F1 (Sulfo‐Sel Pop ♀ × Lab‐Pop♂) and 0.6 for F1'(Sulfo‐Sel Pop ♂ × Lab‐Pop♀), respectively, suggested that sulfoxaflor resistance was incompletely dominant. According to the monogenic model, the number of genes involved to induce sulfoxaflor resistance revealed that sulfoxaflor resistance was polygenic in nature. The realized heritability (h2) value for sulfoxaflor resistance was 0.2. The synergists experiment indicated that esterases were involved in the sulfoxaflor resistance mechanism in DCB. CONCLUSIONS The current results indicate that there is autosomal, incompletely dominant and polygenic inheritance of sulfoxaflor resistance in DCB. Our results would be helpful in delaying sulfoxaflor resistance against DCB in the field. © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry

Realized Heritability, Risk Assessment, and Inheritance Pattern in Earias vittella (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Resistant to Dipel (Bacillus thuringiensis Kurstaki)

“…Normally, the polygenic type of resistance grows slowly and dilutes quickly by the breeding of susceptible and resistant individuals in comparison with the monogenic type of resistance [ 31 , 72 ]. This dilution of resistant alleles by hybridization boosts the flow of susceptible alleles [ 58 , 73 ]. In this study, the backcrosses revealed polygenic nature of Dipel resistance in E. vittella .…”

Sulfoxaflor resistance in Oxycarenus hyalinipennis (Costa) induces negligible cross‐resistance to other tested insecticides: stability, risk assessment, and fitness cost

“…Our previous study showed that the inheritance of resistance to sulfoxaflor was incompletely dominant and polygenic under laboratory conditions. 41 Furthermore, synergism bioassays indicated that synergists such as DEF (S,S,S-butyl phosphorotrithioate) had significantly increased the toxicity of sulfoxaflor while PBO (piperonylbutoxide) did not alter the susceptibility of O. hyalinipennis in the Sulfo-Sel Pop. 41 The current results of this study indicate that the O. hyalinipennis has the ability to develop resistance to many insecticides.…”

“…41 Furthermore, synergism bioassays indicated that synergists such as DEF (S,S,S-butyl phosphorotrithioate) had significantly increased the toxicity of sulfoxaflor while PBO (piperonylbutoxide) did not alter the susceptibility of O. hyalinipennis in the Sulfo-Sel Pop. 41 The current results of this study indicate that the O. hyalinipennis has the ability to develop resistance to many insecticides. 7,22,60 Therefore, the Field-Pop of O. hyalinipennis was selected with sulfoxaflor under the continuous laboratory conditions for 18 generations and showed 3064.92-fold and 107.69-fold resistance in a selected strain compared to the UNSel-Pop and Field-Pop, respectively.…”

“…The study of reciprocal crosses also indicated that incomplete degree of dominance. Previously, O. hyalinipennis developed resistance levels of 1134.0-fold to sulfoxaflor, 41 55.64-fold to bifenthrin, 7 140-fold to imidacloprid 23 and 149.06-fold to chlorfenapyr 22 when subjected to laboratory selections. Moreover, N. lugens 21 and M. persicae 20 after constant selection to sulfoxaflor displayed 123.63-fold and 199.0-fold resistance, respectively, compared to a susceptible laboratory strain.…”

“…Intrinsic rate of natural increase (r m ) was computed as determined by Birch 52 r m =R0=DT * Data of concentrations from G 2 to G 12 has been published. 41 In this formula, DT represents egg to adult developmental time. Biotic potential (Bp) was found as computed by Roush and Plapp 53…”