Selection for imidacloprid resistance in Nilaparvata lugens : cross‐resistance patterns and possible mechanisms
Zewen Liu, Han Zhaojun, Wang Yinchang, Zhang Lingchun, Zhang Hong-wei, Liu Chengjun
Abstract
Zewen Liu, Han Zhaojun, Wang Yinchang, Zhang Lingchun, Zhang Hong-wei, Liu Chengjun
Abstract
A field population of brown planthoppers (Nilaparvata lugens Stål) was collected and selected for imidacloprid resistance in the laboratory. The resistance increased by 11.35 times in 25 generations and the resistance ratio reached 72.83 compared with a laboratory susceptible strain. The selected resistant strain showed obvious cross-resistance to all the acetylcholine receptor targeting insecticides tested (monosultap 1.44-fold, acetamiprid 1.61-fold, imidacloprid homologues JS599 2.46-fold and JS598 3.17-fold), but not to others. Further study demonstrated that TPP and DEM had no synergism on imidacloprid. However, PBO displayed significant synergism in some different strains, and the synergism increased with resistance (S strain 1.20, field population 1.43 and R strain 2.93). PBO synergism to cross-resistant insecticides was also found in the resistant strain (monosultap 1.25, acetamiprid 1.39, JS598 1.94 and JS599 2.02). We concluded that esterase and glutathione S-transferase play little role in imidacloprid detoxification. The increase of the P450-monooxygenases detoxification is an important mechanism for imidacloprid resistance and target resistance may also exist in this species.
OpenAlex reports 183 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
A field population of brown planthoppers (Nilaparvata lugens Stål) was collected and selected for imidacloprid resistance in the laboratory. The resistance increased by 11.35 times in 25 generations and the resistance ratio reached 72.83 compared with a laboratory susceptible strain. The selected resistant strain showed obvious cross-resistance to all the acetylcholine receptor targeting insecticides tested (monosultap 1.44-fold, acetamiprid 1.61-fold, imidacloprid homologues JS599 2.46-fold and JS598 3.17-fold), but not to others. Further study demonstrated that TPP and DEM had no synergism on imidacloprid. However, PBO displayed significant synergism in some different strains, and the synergism increased with resistance (S strain 1.20, field population 1.43 and R strain 2.93). PBO synergism to cross-resistant insecticides was also found in the resistant strain (monosultap 1.25, acetamiprid 1.39, JS598 1.94 and JS599 2.02). We concluded that esterase and glutathione S-transferase play little role in imidacloprid detoxification. The increase of the P450-monooxygenases detoxification is an important mechanism for imidacloprid resistance and target resistance may also exist in this species.
Key concepts: Imidacloprid, Acetamiprid, Biology, Cross-resistance, Strain (injury), Population, Esterase, Toxicology