What is Open Access?
Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.
Our Authors and Editors
We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.
Content Alerts
Brief introduction to this section that descibes Open Access especially from an IntechOpen perspective
How it Works Manage preferences
Contact
Want to get in touch? Contact our London head office or media team here
Careers
Our team is growing all the time, so we’re always on the lookout for smart people who want to help us reshape the world of scientific publishing.
Home > Books > Current Progress in Biological Research
Open access
Written By
Canan Usta
Submitted: 14 April 2012 Published: 24 April 2013
DOI: 10.5772/55786
From the Edited Volume
Current Progress in Biological Research
Edited by Marina Silva-Opps
Book Details Order Print
To purchase hard copies of this book, please contact the representative in India:
CBS Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd. www.cbspd.com | customercare@cbspd.com
Author Information
Canan Usta
- Gaziosmanpasa University, Natural Sciences and Art Faculty Department of Biology, Turkey
*Address all correspondence to:
1. Introduction
In this section, the topic in biological control of pests considered. will take place. There has been an increased interest in biological control agents in last decade. More number of biocontrol agents was screened for their efficacy and environmental impact including mammalian safety. Many organisms have been investigated as potential agents for vector mosquito control, including viruses, fungi, bacteria, protozoa, nematodes, invertebrate predators and fish. However, most of these agents were shown to be of little operational use, largely because of the difficulty in multiplying them in large quantities. Some species of organisms, those that have been introduced from elsewhere may be pest to other organisms as well. They are pests to the extend which efforts must have been made to control them both in terrestrial and aquatic/freshwater environments [1]. Prior to the advent of chemical pesticides, predators which are natural enemies of those specific pests, were an important subject in biological sciences with respect to agriculture and forest pest control.
Pesticides that include insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides are employed in modern agriculture to control pests and to increase crop yield. In both developed and developing countries, the use of chemical pesticides has increased dramatically during the last few decades. Control of pests with synthetic chemicals results in several problems. The residues ofthese synthetic insecticides cause toxic effects on wild life (e.g.,birds, beneficial insects like honeybees). These chemical insecticides also induce harmful chemical changes on non-target insects/pests on their predators, parasites, etc. They can also be harmful to humans and domestic animals. Other environmental concern is the contamination of ground water [2]
In addition, there have been several recent research on biological control of marine pests [3]. The introduction of marine pests to new habitats is as old as nautical experience. Atlantic shipworms were quite possibly the first for the applicaiton of some new predator, Mytilus gallprovincialis, and the western Atlantic populations of the European green crab have planted themselves so firmly as a neutralized part of the biota. Many other introductions, such as polychaetes, amphipods are cryptic and have been considered species with natural cosmopolitan distributions [4]
Agriculture and forests form an important resource to sustain global economical, environmental and social system. For this reason, the global challenge is to secure high and quality yields and to make agricultural produce environmentally compatible. Chemical means of plant protection occupy the leading place as regards their total volume of application in integrated pest management and diseases of plants. But pesticides cause toxicity to humans and warm-blooded animals.
Despite many years of effective control by conventional agrochemical insecticides, a number of factors are threatening the effectiveness and continued use of these agents. These include the development of insecticide resistance and use-cancellation or de-registration of some insecticides due to human health and environmental concerns. Therefore, an eco-friendly alternative is the need of the hour. Improvement in pest control strategies represents one method to generate higher quality and greater quantity of agricultural products. Therefore, there is a need to develop biopesticides which are effective, biodegradable and do not leave any harmful effect on environment [5].
2. Biological pesticides
The biopesticides are certain types of pesticides derived from such natural materials as animals, plants, bacteria, and certain minerals. For example, canola oil and baking soda have pesticidal applications and are considered biopesticides. Even at the end of 2001, there were approximately 195 registered biopesticide active ingredients and 780 products. Biopesticides are biochemical pesticides that are naturally occurring substances that control pests by nontoxic mechanisms. They are living organisms (natural enemies) or their products (phytochemicals, microbial products) or byproducts (semiochemicals) which can be used for the management of pests that are injurious to crop plants. Biopesticides have an important role in crop protection, although most commonly in combination with other tools including chemical pesticides as part of Bio-intensive Integrated Pest Management.
They are biological pesticides based on pathogenic microorganisms specific to a target pest offer an ecologically sound and effective solution to pest problems. They pose less threat to the environment and to human health. The most commonly used biopesticides are living organisms, which are pathogenic for the pest of interest. These include biofungicides (
The advantages of using biopesticides ( in place of other chemical ones are based on these factors:
Ecological benefit; inherently less harmful and less environmental load.
Target specificity; designed to affect only one specific pest or, in somecases, a few target organisms,
Environmental beneficiency; often effective in very small quantities and often decompose quickly, thereby resulting in lower exposures and largely avoiding the pollution problems.
Suitability; when used as a component of an integrated pest management (IPM) programs, biopesticides can contribute greatly.
3. Microbial pesticides
They come from naturally occurring or genetically altered bacteria, fungi,algae, viruses or protozoans. Microbial control agents can be effective and used as alternatives to chemical insecticides. A microbial toxin can be defined as a biological toxin material derived from a microorganism, such as a bacterium or fungus. Pathogenic effect of those microorganisms on the target pests are so species specific. The effect by microbial entomopathogens occurs by invasion through the integument or gut of the insect, followed by multiplication of the pathogen resulting in the death of the host, e.g., insects. Studies have demonstrated that the pathogens produce insecticidal toxin important in pathogenesis. Most of the toxins produced by microbial pathogens which have been identified are peptides, but they vary greatly in terms of structure, toxicity and specificity. [7].
These microbial pesticides offer an alternative to chemical insecticides with increased target specificity and ecological safety so that they are used either uniqly or in combination with other pest management programmes. One definition for integrated pest management (IPM) which is most relevant to this practice comes from Flint and van den Bosch [1981]: "It is a ecologically based pest control strategy that relies heavily on natural mortality factors and seeks out control tactics that disrupt these factors as little as possible. Ideally, an integrated pest management program considers all available pest control actions, including no action, and evaluates the potential interaction among various control tactics, cultural practices, weather, other pests, and the crop to be protected"[8].
These microbials as biocontrol agents present u beneficiancy. They have efficiency and safety for humans and other nontarget organisms. They leave less or no residue in food. They are ecologically safe, so that other natural enemies are free of their threatening, leading to preservation of other natural enemies, and increased biodiversity in managed ecosystem. So, microbial agents are highly specific against target pests so they facilitate the survival of beneficial insects in treated crops. This may be the main reason that microbial insecticides are being developed as biological control agents during the last three decades.
Microorganism e.g., a bacterium, fungus, virus or protozoan as the active ingredient can control many different kinds of pests, although each separate active ingredient is relatively specific for its target pest. For example, there are fungi that control certain weeds, and other fungi that kill specific insects. One bacterial species like
3.1. Advantages of microbial insecticides
Individual products differ in important ways, but the following list of beneficial characteristics applies to microbial insecticides in general.
The organisms used in microbial insecticides are essentially nontoxic and nonpathogenic to wildlife, humans, and other organisms not closely related to the target pest. The safety offered by microbial insecticides is their greatest strength.
The toxic action of microbial insecticides is often specific to a single group or species of insects, and this specificity means that most microbial insecticides do not directly affect beneficial insects (including predators or parasites of pests) in treated areas.
If necessary, most microbial insecticides can be used in conjunction with synthetic chemical insecticides because in most cases the microbial product is not deactivated or damaged by residues of conventional insecticides. (Follow label directions concerning any limitations.)
Because their residues present no hazards to humans or other animals, microbial insecticides can be applied even when a crop is almost ready for harvest.
In some cases, the pathogenic microorganisms can become established in a pest population or its habitat and provide control during subsequent pest generations or seasons.
They also enhance the root and plant growth by way of encouraging the beneficial soil microflora. By this way they take a part in the increase of the crop yield.
3.2. Disadvantages of microbial insecticides
Naturally there are also the limitations which are listed below, but do not prevent the successful use of microbial insecticides. These factors just provide users to choose effective microbial products and take necessary steps to achieve successful results.
Because a single microbial insecticide is toxic to only a specific species or group of insects, each application may control only a portion of the pests present in a field and garden. If other types of pests are present in the treated area, they will survive and may continue to cause damage. Conventional insecticides are subject to similar limitations because they too are not equally effective against all pests. This is because of selectivity indeed and this negative aspect is often more noticeable for both general predators, chemicals and microbials. On the other hand predators and chemicals may be danger for other beneficial insects in threatened area.
Heat, desiccation (drying out), or exposure to ultraviolet radiation reduces the effectiveness of several types of microbial insecticides. Consequently, proper timing and application procedures are especially important for some products.
Special formulation and storage procedures are necessary for some microbial pesticides. Although these procedures may complicate the production and distribution of certain products, storage requirements do not seriously limit the handling of microbial insecticides that are widely available. (Store all pesticides, including microbial insecticides, according to label directions.)
Because several microbial insecticides are pest-specific, the potential market for these products may be limited. Their development, registration, and production costs cannot be spread over a wide range of pest control sales. Consequently, some products are not widely available or are relatively expensive (several insect viruses, for example).
BACTERIA | |||
Bactur®, Bactospeine®, Bioworm®, Caterpillar Killer®, Dipel®, Futura®, Javelin®, SOK-Bt®, Thuricide®, Topside®, Tribactur®, Worthy Attack® | caterpillars (larvae of moths and butterflies) | Effective for foliage-feeding caterpillars (and Indian meal moth in stored grain). Deactivated rapidly in sunlight; apply in the evening or on overcast days and direct some spray to lower surfaces or leaves. Does not cycle extensively in the environment. | |
Aquabee®, Bactimos®, Gnatrol®, LarvX®, Mosquito Attack®, Skeetal®, Teknar®, Vectobac® | larvae of | Effective against larvae only. Active only if ingested. | |
Foil® M-One® M-Track®, Novardo® Trident® | larvae of Colorado potato beetle, elm leaf beetle adults | Effective against Colorado potato beetle larvae and the elm leaf beetle. Like other | |
Certan® | wax moth caterpillars | Used only for control of was moth infestations in honeybee hives. | |
Doom¨, Japidemic¨,® Milky Spore Disease, Grub Attack® | larvae (grubs) of Japanese beetle | The main Illinois lawn grub (the annual white grub, | |
Vectolex CG®, Vectolex WDG® | larvae of | Active only if ingested, for use against | |
FUNGI | |||
Botanigard®, Mycotrol®, Naturalis® | aphids, fungus gnats, mealy bugs, mites, thrips, whiteflies | Effective against several pests. High moisture requirements, lack of storage longevity, and competition with other soil microorganisms are problems that remain to be solved. | |
Laginex® | larvae of most pest mosquito species | Effective against larvae of most pest mosquito species; remains infective in the environment through dry periods. A main drawback is its inability to survive high summertime temperatures. | |
PROTOZOA | |||
NOLO Bait®, Grasshopper Attack® | European cornborer caterpillars, grasshoppers and mormon crickets | Useful for rangeland grasshopper control. Active only if ingested. Not recommended for use on a small scale, such as backyard gardens, because the disease is slow acting and grasshoppers are very mobile. Also effective against caterpillars. | |
VIRUSES | |||
Gypsy moth nuclear plyhedrosis (NPV) | Gypchek® virus | gypsy moth caterpillars | All of the viral insecticides used for control of forest pests are produced and used exclusively by the U.S. Forest Service. |
Tussock moth NPV | TM Biocontrol-1® | tussock moth caterpillars | |
Pine sawfly NPV | Neochek-S® | pine sawfly larvae | |
Codling moth granulosis virus (GV) | (see comments) | codling moth caterpillars | Commercially produced and marketed briefly, but no longer registered or available. Future re-registration is possible. Subject to rapid breakdown in ultraviolet light. |
ENTOMOGENOUS NEMATODES | |||
Biosafe®, Ecomask®, Scanmask®, also sold generically (wholesale and retail), Vector® | larvae of a wide variety of soil-dwelling and boring insects | ||
currently available on a wholesale basis for large scale operations | larvae of a wide variety of soil-dwelling and boring insects | Not commonly available by retail in the U.S.; this species is used more extensively in Europe. Available by wholesale or special order for research or large-scale commercial uses. | |
PATHOGEN | |||
Nematac®S | late nymph and adult stages of mole crickets |
Table 1.
Microbial Insecticides: A summary of products and their uses.
(Agricultural Entomology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. ENY-275 IN081)
3.2.1. Entomopathogenic fung
Entomopathogenic fungi are important natural regulators of insect populations and have potential as mycoinsecticide agents against diverse insect pests in agriculture. These fungi infect their hosts by penetrating through the cuticle, gaining access to the hemolymph, producing toxins, and grow by utilizing nutrients present in the haemocoel to avoid insect immune responses [10]. Entomopathogenic fungi may be applied in the form of conidia or mycelium which sporulates after application. The use of fungal entomopathogens as alternative to insecticide or combined application of insecticide with fungal entomopathogens could be very useful for insecticide resistant management [13].
The commercial mycoinsecticide ‘Boverin’ based on
The use of the insect-pathogenic fungus
3.2.2. Viral pesticides
There are more than 1600 different viruses which infect 1100 species of insects and mites. A special group of viruses, called baculovirus, to which about 100 insect species are susceptible, accounts for more than 10 percent of all insect pathogenic viruses. Baculoviruses are rod-shaped particles which contain DNA. Most viruses are enclosed in a protein coat to make up a virus inclusion body. Alkaline condition of insect's midgut dissolves the protein covering and the viral particles are released from the inclusion body. These particles fuse with the midgut epithelial cells, multiply rapidly and eventually kill the host. But, viral pesticides are more expensive than chemical agents. Furthermore, many baculoviruses are host specific. Therefore they cannot be used to control several different pests. The action of baculoviruses on insect larvae is too slow to satisfy farmers. These viral preparations are not stable under the ultraviolet rays of the sun. Efforts are being made to encapsulate baculoviruses with UV protectants to ensure a longer field-life.
First well-documented introduction of baculovirus into the environment which resulted in effective suppression of a pest occurred accidentally before the World War II. Along with a parasitoid imported to Canada to suppress spruce sawfly
NPVs and GVs are used as pesticides but the group based on nucleopolyhedrosis viruses is much larger. The first viral insecticide Elcar™ was introduced by Sandoz Inc. in 1975Elcar™ was a preparation of
The well-known success of employing baculovirus as a biopesticide is the case of
3.2.3. Protozoa
Protozoan pathogens naturally infect a wide range of insect hosts. Although these pathogens can kill their insect hosts, many are more important for their chronic, debilitating effects. One important and common consequence of protozoan infection is a reduction in the number of offspring produced by infected insects. Although protozoan pathogens play a significant role in the natural limitation of insect populations, few appear to be suited for development as insecticides.
As an other example, the Microsporidia include species promising for biological control. Microsporidian infections in insects are thought to be common and responsible for naturally occurring low to moderate insect mortality. But these are indeed slow acting organisms, taking days or weeks to make harm their host. Frequently they reduce host reproduction or feeding rather than killing the pest outright. Microsporidia often infect a wide range of insects. Some microsporidia are being investigated as microbial insecticides, and at least one is available commercially, but the technology is new and work is needed to perfect the use of these organisms [12]
3.2.4. Microscopic nematods
To be accurate, nematodes are not microbial agents. Instead, they are multicellular roundworms. Nematodes used in insecticidal products are, however, nearly microscopic in size, and they are used much like the truly microbial products discussed previously. Nematodes are simple roundworms. Colorless, unsegmented, and lacking appendages, nematodes may be free-living, predaceous, or parasitic. Many of the parasitic species cause important diseases of plants, animals, and humans. Other species are beneficial in attacking insect pests, mostly sterilizing or otherwise debilitating their hosts. A very few cause insect death but these species tend to be difficult (e.g., tetradomatids) or expensive (e.g. mermithids) to mass produce, have narrow host specificity against pests of minor economic importance, possess modest virulence (e.g., sphaeruliids) or are otherwise poorly suited to exploit for pest control purposes. The only insect-parasitic nematodes possessing an optimal balance of biological control attributes are entomopathogenic or insecticidal nematodes in the genera
The entomogenous nematodes
The infectious stage of these nematodes is the third juvenile stage often referred to as the J3 stage or the "dauer" larvae. Nematodes in this stage survive without feeding in moist soil and similar habitats, sometimes for extended periods.
3.2.5. Bacterial biopesticides
Bacterial biopesticides are the most common and cheaper form of microbial pesticides. As an insecticide they are generally specific to individual species of moths and butterflies, as well as species of beetles, flies and mosquitoes. To be effective they must come into contact with the target pest, and may require ingestion to be effective. Bacteria in biological pesticides survive longer in the open than previously believed. Bacterial pathogens used for insect control are spore-forming, rod-shaped bacteria in the genus
First of all,
Bacterial insecticides must be eaten to be effective; they are not contact poisons. Insecticidal products comprised of a single
3.2.6. Bacillus thuringiensis , BT
The
There are different strains of
Their study has shown that Bt spores can survive both on the ground and in animals. What’s more, wind, rain and animals can carry them to neighbouring areas. In the splashing rain drops they can even “hop” from the ground up onto leaves - another means of transport. Bt bacteria are also known to be able to easily transfer their toxicity genes to other bacteria in the application area.
When the bacteria were sprayed on cabbage plants, and they were found to have killed all the cabbage white butterfly larvae. In addition, though, the field study revealed that the bacteria are able to survive for a considerable time. After spraying, by far the majority of the spores were found to be present in the upper two centimetres of the soil,
In the present era of transgenic technology, insecticidal toxins of
Scientists Per Damgaard and Jørgen Eilenberg at the Royal Agricultural University in Denmark, have also observed examples of spores germinating in living but weakened flies. The flies were already suffering from a severe fungal infection of the lower abdomen, and it was exactly there that the spores germinated. They showed that, the bacterial spores germinate well in dead insects, as the two scientists confirmed by feeding spore and toxin-treated food to larvae of the large cabbage white butterfly.
Under good growth conditions a spore can produce up to a thousand million new spores in a single insect larva.
“There are no previous examples of the spores reproducing in living organisms, although they appear to be able to do so in dead flies. The advantage for the bacterium is that the spores can be spread when the fly moves around,” continue Bjarne Munk Hansen and Jens Chr. Pedersen.
Cry 1A(b) | Striped stem borer and leaf folder | Fujimoto et al. (1993) |
Cry 1A(b) | Yellow stem borer and striped stem borer | Wunn et al. (1996) |
Cry 1A(b) | Yellow stem borer and striped stem borer | Ghareyazie et al. (1997) |
Cry 1A(b) | Yellow stem borer | Datta et al. (2002) |
Cry 1A(b) | Yellow stem borer | Alam et al. (1999) |
Cry 1A(b)/ Cry 1A(c) | Leaffolder and yellow stem borer | Tu et al. (2000) |
Cry 1A(b)/ Cry 1A(c) | Yellow stem borer | Ramesh et al. (2004) |
Cry 1A(c) | Yellow stem borer | Nayak et al. (1997) |
Cry 1A(c) | Yellow stem borer | Khanna and Raina (2002) |
Cry 1A(c) | Striped stem borer | Liu et al. (2002) |
Cry 2A | Leaffolder and yellow stem borer | Maqbool et al. (1998) |
Cry 2A/ Cry 1A(c) | Leaffolder and yellow stem borer | Maqbool et al. (2001) |
Cry 1Ie | Corn borer | Liu et al., 2004 |
Table 2.
Successful examples to show
Insects can be infected with many species of bacteria but those belonging to the genus Bacillus, as alreadily mentioned, are most widely used as pesticides.
The first developed
In most countries of the world, products are available for control of caterpillars (var.
Also, a relatively new mechanism of action of Cry toxins have been proposed which involves the activation of Mg2+-dependent signal cascade pathway that is triggered by the interaction of the monomeric 3-domain Cry toxin with the primary receptor, the cadherin protein BT-R1 [26 ]. The triggering of the Mg2+-dependent pathway has a knock-on effect and initiates a series of cytological events that include membrane blebbing, appearance of nuclear ghosts, and cell swelling followed by cell lysis. The Mg2+-dependent signal cascade pathway activation by Cry toxins have been shown to be analogous to similar effect imposed by other pore forming toxins on their host cells when they are applied at subnanomolar concentration [37, 38]
Though the two mechanisms of action seem to differ, with series of downstream events following on from toxin binding to receptors on target cell membranes, there is a degree of commonality in that initially the crystals have to be solubilised in vivo or in vitro, and activated by proteases before and/or after binding to receptors such as cadherin [39, 40]
4. Plant-Incorporated-Protectants (PIPs)
One approach, to reduce destruction of crops by phytophagous arthropod pests, is to genetically modify plants to express genes encoding insecticidal toxins. The adoption of genetically modified (GM) crops has increased dramatically in the last 11 years. Genetically modified (GM) plants possess a gene or genes that have been transferred from a different species.
The production of transgenic plants that express insecticidal δ-endotoxins derived from the soil bacterium
Corn | European corn borer | Koziel et al. (1993) | |
Soybean | Bollworm and Bud worm | Stewart (1996) | |
Tobacco | Cotton bollworm | De Cosa et al. (2001) | |
Sugar cane | Stem borer | Arencibia et al. (1997) | |
Potato | Douches et al. (1998) | ||
Alfalfa | Leaf worm | Strizhov et al. (1996) | |
Tomato | B. thuringiensis (k) | Tobacco hornworm, tomato pink worm and tomato fruit worm | Dellannay et al. (1989) |
Brassica | Pod borer | Stewart (1996) | |
Cotton | Lepidoptera | Stewart(2001), Chitkowski et al. (2003) | |
Pink Bollworm | Tabashnik et al. (2002) |
Table 3.
Development of some other
5. Bacillus thuringiensis applications in agriculture
5.1. Bacillus sphaericus , BS
Entomopathogenic bacteria, namely
The first reported
It has terminally located sphearical spores. One of the phenotypic characthers examined was patogenicity of some of them to mosquito larvae. A pro-toxin produced during sporulation as in the case of BT, causes fatal cellular alterations when ingested by larvae of some dipteran species. This bacterium has been used to control
Abbott Laboratories has recently formulated a commercial product (Vectolex) of
5.2. Systematics of the Bacillus sphaericus Neide
According to one the old view
5.3. Mode of living of Bacillus spp. and Bacillus sphaericus Neide
The growth of
5.4. Endospore formation of Bacillus sphaericus Neide
Endospore formation is a trait found in several microorganisms, which can provide positive benefits to agriculture and varying affects in humans as well. Species of
5.5. Growth Cycle of B. sphaericus and production extra-cellular enzymes
During their growth cycle, strains of
Because
5.6. Pathogenicity and properties of toxins of B. Sphaericus
The bulk of toxicity in Bs comes from the second toxin which is produced at the time of sporulation and it accumulates in the sporangium as a parasporal body, parasporal crystal packed with bacterial spores, in much the same way as that found in
The two major protein subunits, the 42 and 51 kDa, are both required for full activity and maximum toxicity if they are present in equimolar amounts, suggesting a ‘binary toxin’ mode of action. Studies on the mode of action of Bin toxin suggested that BinB is responsible for the initial binding to the surface of midgut epithelial cells and that BinA confers toxicity. It was also reported that the BinA compound alone can confer toxicity at high doses These two protein subunits are hom*ologous, with 25% identity and four conserved regions between their sequences. P51 is the primary component of binding to the
6. Mode of action of the crystal toxin
The mode of action of
6.1. Binding to a specific receptor in the brush- border membrane fractions
After ingestion of the spore-crystal complex by mosquito larvae, the protein crystal matrix quickly dissolves in the lumen of the anterior stomach through the combined action of midgut proteinases and the high pH
6.2. The effectiveness of the toxin
Differences in susceptibility between mosquito species seem to differences at the cellular level.The binding of the crystal proteins, P42 and P51 depend on each other. In addition, the internalization of toxin only seems to occur when both components are present. The hyphothesis that a single receptor is involved in the toxin binding was confirmed by in vitro binding assays using radio-labeled activated crystal toxin and midgut brush-border membrane fractions isolated from susceptible mosquito larva It is assumed that the P42 component is the toxic moiety and the P51 is the binding component, the
6.3. Mtx1: Vegetative growth mosquitocidal toxin single protein of 100 kDa
Toxicity
In initial experiments, activity of the protoxin was demonstrated against larvae of the mosquitoe,
7. Comparison of The Two Important Insect pathogens of Bacillius
Though
The development of a larvicide for use in public health programmes demands selectivity. It should be active against the target species without affecting humans and other non-target populations. The development of a biological larvicide is a process similar to that of the chemical insecticides in that it aims to identify the ideal concentration and form of administration in the field. Formulation is the process used to convert a technical slurry or powder containing the active ingredient produced by the bacterium into a useful and use larvicide compatible with existing application systems. It should also ensure biological stability of the active ingredient and must have an adequate shelf life. It should be easily produced and administered, conveniently stored, and economic [51,52].
8. Resistance of insects to mosquitoe toxin
It was recently found that the decomposition of organic matter present in aquatic bodies by bacteria lead to the evolution of certain volatile compounds, which attract and/or stimulate gravid female mosquitoes to lay eggs. This finding is a clear indication that bacteria are in great association with mosquito species.
The risk of emergence of resistance should be considered when designing application strategies.
One mechanism of resistance is the reduced binding of the toxin to the midgut receptor sites. As genes for production of insecticidal compounds are added to crop plants, developpers devise methods of preventing or managing insecticide resıstance in target pests. The mechanism of resistance to
Despite the reports of the resistance, the future of
Development of mosquitoe larval resistance against the toxin of commercial microbial larvicide
Depending on the formulation and environmental conditions,
On the other hand, there still exist some resistance or there are some other factors effecting the toxin in the application medium. The effects of aquatic bacterial proteases have been determined only in one study yet. In that study, about 500 bacterial isolates have been obtained from different aquatic mosquito habitats in Turkiye, and then the B. s. larvacidal toxin proteins have been exposed to these extracellular proteases of these bacterial isolates to establish the preliminary screening of the possible effect of these proteases on the B.s. binary toxin proteins. In this study, it was found that, there are also the effects of the environmental microorganisms specifically bacteria due to their extracellular proteases released in the area naturally, so that the B.s. toxin effectiveness in controlling the mosquitoes, especially
9. Conclusion
The increasing of biological control due to both ecological beneficiancies including the human health as part of world ecology, has been renewed.
The demand for bio-pesticides is rising steadily in all parts of the world. When used in Integrated Pest Management systems, biopesticides' efficacy can be equal to or better than conventional products, especially for crops like fruits, vegetables, nuts and flowers. By combining performance and safety, biopesticides perform efficaciously while providing the flexibility of minimum application restrictions, superior residue and resistance management potential, and human and environmental safety benefits.
In the study in which the sensitivity of the Bs crystal binary toxin to extracellular proteaese of the aquatic microorganisms were detected, it was shown that there are also the effects of the environmental microorganisms due to their extracellular proteases released in the toxin application area naturally. So that, the Bs toxin effectiveness in the controlling the mosquitoes, especially
In the future other studies can be done as well to detect the type and charactheristics of the effective proteases released into the Bs toxin application areas, so that the preventive manıpulatıons of the Bs toxin protein or some other genetic derivations of the toxin protein may well b eestablished, so that the specific proteaeses would not be able to effct the toxin, while the toxin still can kill the mosquito spp. It is very likely that in future their role will be more significant in agriculture and forestry. Biopesticides clearly have a potential role to play in development of future integrated pest management strategies Hopefully, more rational approach will be gradually adopted towards biopesticides in the near future and short-term profits from chemical pesticides will not determine the fate of biopesticides [62].
References
- 1.
Papendick RI, Elliott LF, and Dahlgren RB (1986), Environmental consequences of modern production agriculture: How can alternative agriculture address these issues and concerns? American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 1, Issue 1, Pgs 3-10. Retrieved on 2007-10-10 - 2.
Lacey, L.A. and Siegel, J.P. 2000. “Safety and Ecotoxicology of Entomopathogenic Bacteria”, in Entomopatgenic Bacteria: From Laboratory to Field Application - 3.
Armand M. Kuris, Lafferty, K. D. 2000. Biological Control of Marine Pests, Ecology, Vol 77 (7) pp. 1989-2000 - 4.
Chapman, J. W. 1988. Invasion of the Northeast Pacific by Asian and Atlantic Gammaridean Amphipod Crustaceans, Including a New Species of Corophium. J. Of crustacean Biology 8: 364-382 - 5.
G.M. Nicholson, (2007). Fighting the global pest problem: Preface to the special Toxicon issue on insecticidal toxins and their potential for insect pest control, Toxicon, 2007, vol.49, pp.413–422. - 6.
S. Gupta and A.K. Diksh*t, Biopesticides: An ecofriendly approach for pest control. Journal of Biopesticides, 2010, vol. 3(1), 186 – 188. - 7.
Burges, H.D. 1981. Safety, Safety Testing and Quality Control of Microbial Pesticides. Microbial control of pests and plant diseases. London, Academic Press Inc. 738-768. - 8.
Flint, M. L. and R. Van den Bosch. 1981. Introduction to integrated pest management. Plenum Press, New York, 240 pp. - 9.
Lacey, L.A., Frutos, R., Kaya, H.K. and Vail, P. 2001. Insect pathogens as biological control agents: Do they have a future? Biological Control 21: 230-248 - 10.
Meadows, M.P. (1993). Bacillus thuringiensis in the environment - ecology and risk assessment. In: Entwistle, P.F.; Cory, J.S.; Bailey, M.J. and Higgs, S. eds.Bacillus thuringiensis : an environmental biopesticide; theory and practice. Chichester, John Wiley, USA. pp.193-220. - 11.
M.A. Hoy, Myths, models and mitigation of resistance to pesticides. In: Insecticide Resistance: From Mechanisms to Management (Denholm, I., Pickett, J.A. and Devonshire, A.L., eds.), New York, CABI Publishing, 1999, pp.111-119 - 12.
Hoffmann, M.P. and Frodsham, A.C. (1993) Natural Enemies of Vegetable Insect Pests. Cooperative Extension, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. 63 pp. - 13.
A.E. Hajeck and St. Leger, Interactions between fungal pathogens and insect hosts, Annual Review of Entomology, 1994, vol.39, pp.293 - 322. - 14.
P. Ferron, Modification of the development of Beauveria tenella mycosis inMelolontha melolontha larvae by means of reduced doses of organophosphorus insecticides, Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 1971,vol. 14, pp.457 – 466 - 15.
W.B. Shia and M.G. Feng, Lethal effect of Beauveria bassiana ,Metarhizium anisopliae , andPaecilomyces fumosoroseus on the eggs ofTetranychus cinnabarinus (Acari: Tetranychidae) with a description of a mite egg bioassay system, Biological Control, 2004, vol.30, pp.165–173. - 16.
C.M. Ignoffo and T.L. Couch, (1981). The nucleopolyhedrosis virus of Heliothis species as a microbial pesticide. In: Microbial Control of Pests and Plant Diseases. (Burges,H.D. Ed.), Academic Press. London, 1981, pp.329 - 362. - 17.
J. James. Germida, 1984,Persistence of Nosema locustae Spores in Soil as Determined by Fluorescence Microscopy, Appl Environ Microbiol. February; 47(2): 313–318 - 18.
A. Mettenmeyer, Viral insecticides hold promise for bio-control, Farming Ahead, 2002, vol.124, pp.50 – 51. - 19.
F. Moscardi, Assessment of the application of baculoviruses for control of Lepidoptera, Annual Review of Entomology, 1999, vol.44, pp.257 –289. - 20.
Ma, Juan, Chen, Shulong Li, Xiuhua, Han, Richou, Khatri-Chhetri, Hari Bahadur, De Clercq, Patrick,Moens, Maurice, A new entomopathogenic nematode, Steinernema tielingense n. sp. (Rhabditida: Steinernematidae), from north China, 2012, Nematology, Vol: 14- 3, pp. 321-338 - 21.
Hoch, J., Sonenshein, A., Losick. A (Eds). (1993). Bacillus subtilis and other Gram-positive bacteria : biochemistry, physiology and molecular genetics. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC. - 22.
Harwood, C.R., Wipat, A. (1996). Sequencing and functional analysis of the genome of Bacillus subtilis strain 168.FEBS Letters, Vol. 389, No. pp. 84-87. - 23.
Ongena, M., Jacques, P. (2008). Bacillus lipopeptides: versatile weapons for plant disease biocontrol.Trends in Microbiology, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 115-125. - 24.
Piggot, P., Hilbert, D. (2004). Sporulation of Bacillus subtilis. Current Opinion in Microbiology, Vol. 7, No. 6, pp. 579-586. - 25.
Monteiro, S., Clemente, J., Henriques, A.O., Gomes, R., Carrondo, M., Cunha, A. (2005). A procedure for high-yield spore production by Bacillus subtilis. Biotechnology Progress Vol. 21, No. pp. 1026-1031. - 26.
E. Schnepf, N. Crickmore, J. Van Rie, D. Lereclus, J. Baum, J. Feitelson, D.R. Zeigler and D.H. Dean, Bacillus thuringiensis and its pesticidal crystal proteins, Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, 1998, vol.62, pp.775–806. - 27.
Deltcluse A, Barloy F, Thitry I. 1995. Mosquitocidal toxins from various Bacillus thuringiensis andClostridium bifementans InBacillus thuringiensis . Biotechnology and Environmental Benefits, ed. HS Yuan, pp. 99-114. - 28.
E. Schnepf, N. Crickmore, J. Van Rie, D. Lereclus, J. Baum, J. Feitelson, D.R. Zeigler and D.H. Dean , Bacillus thuringiensis and its pesticidal crystal proteins, Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, 1998, vol.62, pp.775–806. - 29.
J.Y. Roh, J.Y. Choi, M.S. Li, B.R. Jin and Y.H. Je, Bacillus thuringiensis as a specific, safe, and effective tool for insect pest control, J Microbiol Biotechnol, 2007, vol.17, pp.547-559. - 30.
X. Zhang, M. Candas, N.B. Griko, R. Taussig and L.A.Jr. Bulla, A mechanism of cell death involving an adenylyl cyclase/PKA signaling pathway is induced by the Cry1Ab toxin of Bacillus thuringiensis , Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2006, vol.103, pp.9897-9902. - 31.
N.A. Broderick, C.J. Robinson, M.D. McMahon, J. Holt, J. Handelsman and K.F. Raffa, Contributions of gut bacteria to Bacillus thuringiensis -induced mortality vary across a range of Lepidoptera, BMC Biol, 2009, vol.7, pp.11. - 32.
Baum JA, Malvar T. Regulation of insecticidal crystal protein production in Bacillus thuringiensis. Mol Microbiol. 1995 Oct;18(1):1-12. - 33.
E.A Buss and S.G. Park-Brown, Natural Products for Insect Pest Management. ENY-350 (http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/IN197), 2002. - 34.
Milner RJ (1994) History of Bacillus thuringiensis . Agric Ecosyst Environ 49(1):9–13 - 35.
Lambert B, Hofte H, Annys K, Jansens S, Soetaert P, Peferoen M (1992) Novel Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal crystal protein with a silent activity against coleopteran larvae. Appl EnvironMicrobiol 58(8):2536–2542 - 36.
Zhang X, Candas M, Griko NB, Rose-Young L, Bulla LA (2005) Cytotoxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab toxin depends on specific binding of the toxin to the cadherin receptor BT-R-1expressed in insect cells. Cell Death Differ 12(11):1407–1416 - 37.
Porta H, Cancino-Rodezno A, Soberón M, Bravo A (2011) Role of MAPK p38 in the cellular responses to pore-forming toxins. Peptides 32(3):601–606 - 38.
Nelson KL, Brodsky RA, Buckley JT (1999), Channels formed by subnanomolar concentrations ofthe toxin aerolysin trigger apoptosis of T lymphomas. Cell Microbiol 1(1):69–74 - 39.
Aronson AI, Han ES, McGaughey W, Johnson D (1991) The solubility of inclusion proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis is dependent upon protoxin composition and is a factor in toxicity to insects. Appl Environ Microbiol 57(4):981–986 - 40.
Soberón M, Pardo-López L, López I, Gómez I, Tabashnik BE, Bravo A (2007), Engineering modified Bt toxins to counter insect resistance. Science 318(5856):1640–1642 - 41.
Zhang XB, Candas M, Griko NB, Taussig R, Bulla LA (2006) A mechanism of cell death involvingan adenylyl cyclase/PKA signaling pathway is induced by the Cry1Ab toxin of Bacillusthuringiensis . Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103(26):9897–9902 - 42.
Gómez I, Sánchez J, Miranda R, Bravo A, Soberón M (2002) Cadherin-like receptor bindingfacilitates proteolytic cleavage of helix α-1 in domain I and oligomer pre-pore formation of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab toxin. FEBS Lett 513(2–3):242–246 - 43.
Jogen Ch. Kalita, The use of biopesticides in insect pest management, 2011, 1 (7), pp169-177 - 44.
Ali S, Zafar Y, Ali GM, Nazir F (2010) Bacillus thuringiensis and its application in agriculture. AfrJ Biotechnol 9(14):2022–2031 - 45.
George Z., N. Crickmore Department of Biochemistry, School of Life Sciences, University of Sussex, Falmer,BN1 - 46.
Myers, P. S., and A. A. Yousten. (1980). Localization of a mosquitoe-larval toxin of Bacillus sphaericus 1593. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 39:1205-1211. - 47.
Kellen WR, Clark TB, Lindegren JE, Ho BC, Rogoff MH, Singer S 1965. Bacillus sphaericus Neide as a pathogen of mosquitoes.J Invertebr Pathol 7 : 442-448 - 48.
Charles, J.-F., S. Hamon, and P. (1993). Baumann. Inclusion bodies and crystals of Bacillus sphaericus mosquitocidal proteins expressed in various bacterial hosts. Res. Microbiol. 144:411-416 - 49.
Brownbridge, M. and J. Margalit. (1987). Mosquitoe active strains of Bacillus sphaericus isolated from soil and mud samples collected in Israel. J Invertebr Pathol 50: 106-112. - 50.
Klein, D., I. Uspensky and S. Braun. (2002). Tightly Bound Binary Toxin in the Cell Wall of Bacillus sphaericus . Appl Environ Microbiol. July; 68 (7): 3300–3307. - 51.
Charles, J-F and C. Nielsen-LeRoux. (2000). Mosquitocidal Bacterial Toxins: Diversity, Mode of Action and Resistance Phenomena. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Vol. 95, Suppl. I: 201-206 - 52.
Porter, A., E. Davidson, J.-W. Liu. (1993) Mosquitocidal toxins of Bacilli and their genetic manipulation for effective biological control of mosquitoes. Microbiol. Rev. 57: 838-861. - 53.
Chiou, C.-K., E. W. Davidson, T. Thanabalu, A. G. Porter and J. P. Allen. (1999). Crystallization and preliminary X-ray diffractionstudies of the 51 kDa protein of the mosquitoe-larvicidal binary toxin from Bacillus sphaericus . Acta Cryst. D55, 1083-1085. - 54.
Thanabalu, T., C. Berry and J. Hindley. (1993). Cytotoxicity and ADP-ribosylating activity of the mosquitocidal toxin from Bacillus sphaericus SSII-1: Possible roles of the 27- and 70-kDa peptides.J. Bacteriol. 175, pp. 2314–2320. - 55.
Regis L, Oliveira CMF, Silva-Filha MH, Silva SB, Maciel A, Furtado AF 2001. Bacteriological larvicides of diptera disease vectors. Trends Parasitol 17 : 377-380 - 56.
Priest FG, Ebdrup L, Zahner V, 1997, Distribution and characterization of mosquitocidal toxin genes in some strains of Bacillus sphaericus .J. Appl. Environ., 63(4):1195-8. - 57.
Liu, J. W., A. G. Porter, B. Y. Wee, and T. Thanabalu. (1996). New gene from nine Bacillus sphaericus strains encoding highly conserved 35.8-kilodalton mosquitocidal toxins. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 62: 2174-2176. - 58.
Nielsen-LeRoux, C., F. Pasquier, J.-F. Charles, G. Sinègre, B. Gaven and N. Pasteur. (1997). Resistance to Bacillus sphaericus involves different mechanisms inCulex pipiens (Diptera: Culicidae) larvae. J. Med. Entomol. 34:321-327. Abstarct. - 59.
Georgihou, G. P., J. I. Malik, M. Wirth, K. Sainato. (1992). Characterization of resistance of Culex to the insecticidal toxins of Bacillus sphaericus 2362. In Univ. Calif., Mosq. Cont. Res. Annu. Repp. pp. 34-35. - 60.
Usta, C. co*kmus, Investigation of aquatic bacteria on the effect of Bacillus sphaericus binary toxins, 2004. PhD thesis, Aibu. Turkiye - 61.
Klein, D., I. Uspensky and S. Braun. (2002). Tightly Bound Binary Toxin in the Cell Wall of Bacillus sphaericus. Appl Environ Microbiol. July; 68 (7): 3300–3307. - 62.
Charles, J.-F., C. Nielsen-LeRoux, and A. Dele´cluse. 1996. Bacillus sphaericus toxins:molecular biology and mode of action. Annu. Rev. Entomol.41:451–472
Written By
Canan Usta
Submitted: 14 April 2012 Published: 24 April 2013
© 2013 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Continue reading from the same book
View All
Current Progress in Biological Research
Edited by Marina Silva-Opps
Published: 24 April 2013
Chapter 14 Callose in Plant Sexual Reproduction
By Meral Ünal, Filiz Vardar and Özlem Aytürk
4209 downloads
Chapter 15 Antibiotic Susceptibilities and SDS-PAGE Protein P...
By Göksel Doğan, Gülümser Acar Doğanlı, Yasemin Gü...
2092 downloads
Chapter 16 Plant Responses at Different Ploidy Levels
By Mustafa Yildiz
3811 downloads