Double trouble with insecticide-resistant mosquitoes
April 8, 2008Mosquitoes harbouring two insecticide-resistance genes have been found to survive unexpectedly well in an insecticide-free environment where carrying such genes would normally expected to be a burden. As outlined in research published by the open access journal BMC Evolutionary Biology, this results from the genes interacting with one another to the advantage of the host Culex quinquefasciatus mosquitoes and to the detriment of pest management strategies affecting human health.
The research team, led by Dr Vincent Corbel and colleagues from the Université Montpellier II, Genetics and Evolution of Infectious Diseases and The Research Institute for Development (IRD) in France compared the survival rates or evolutionary fitness of one strain of the mosquito that carried two resistance genes (ace-1R and KdrR) for two different insecticides to mosquitoes that only had one insecticide-resistance gene, a French research team discovered that the survival cost of having both genes was far lower than the cost of having just ace-1R.
“We know from evolutionary theory that mutations such as these are likely to be costly to their owners in environments where they have not been selected for” explained Dr Corbel. “We’ve found that in C. quinquefasciatus the cost of having the ace-1R mutation in the absence of insecticides is counterbalanced when the mosquito also has the KdrR mutation. Mosquitoes with both mutations will also be harder to control as they are resistant to two different types of insecticide.”
The authors also found evidence that resistance alleles interact with one another in the presence of insecticides. For instance, synergism (that is, a more than an additive effect) in toxicity was observed when a pyrethroid insecticide and a carbamate insecticide were applied simultaneously to the strain sharing both mutations (the insecticide had a greater activity and more of the mosquitoes died), whereas antagonism (that is, a less than an additive effect) was noted with Culex mosquitoes carrying only ace-1R.
Resistance to so-called xenobiotics (antibiotics, insecticides and herbicides) is a problem affecting the control of organisms of medical or economic importance. In C. quinquefasciatus insecticide resistance mutations interacted to positively and negatively influence the mosquitoes’ fitness. Costs were associated with both resistance genes in an insecticide-free environment. The KdrR form of the gene, or allele, however, compensated for the costs associated with the ace-1R allele, suggesting that mosquitoes with both genes in the wild could be more prevalent. Females with both alleles were more likely to mature than those with just the ace-1R mutation.”
“It is important to identify genetic interactions such as this and how they influence the fitness of multiply resistant organisms in order to better structure management strategies” says Dr Corbel. “We have found in this case that resistance genes do interact and even compensate. We will have to be very careful in how we use insecticides in future as our results have major implications for pest and health management.”
Source: BioMed Central
Jun 08, 2009 |
not rated yet |
0
It's how decisions are made by the genome
It's genomorphic behaviour-expectation
http://www.physfo...ic=14988]http://www.physfo...ic=14988[/url]&st=195&#entry331389
A. Double trouble with insecticide-resistant mosquito
http://www.physor...671.html
The work compared survival rates (evolutionary fitness) of a strain of mosquito that carried two resistance genes, gene 'a' and gene 'k' for two different insecticides, to mosquitoes that only had gene 'a'. It turned out that the survival cost of having both genes was far lower than the cost of having just the gene 'a'.
One aspect of the results baffled the researchers. It was unexpected to them. "We know from evolutionary theory that mutations such as these are likely to be costly to their owners in environments where they have not been selected for%u201D. In my words: when they are not 'born' into the genome but 'strangers' implanted in it.
B. How Decisions Are Made By The Genome
http://www.physfo...ic=14988]http://www.physfo...ic=14988[/url]&st=180&#entry325606
Who decides to do cell division or, generally, to do any thing, within the OCM, the outer cell membrane.
Let's leave aside the many decision-related questions such as when and how a need for a decision is prompted, how decisions are instructed and executed. Let's apply ourselves now ONLY to the question WHO makes the decision.
My conjecture is that the genome behaves not as being presided by a decider PG, by a President Gene, but by innate complete credence to each and every member of the cooperative genome commune of its genes membership, thus accepting a priori the decision of the individual member, but But BUt BUT coupling this with a very elaborate system of crisscross checklisting of this decision by other members of the genome.
C. Don't apply anthropomorphic thinking-expectations. Apply genomorphic behaviour expectation.
From genomorphic considerations Survival At ALL circumstances, both with and without insectiside, is best and should be selected. And in the genome cooperative community survival is best when there is cooperation-synergism between individual genes. There is little native genes-cooperation with a single stranger in the community and more cooperation when two different strangers are implanted in the community.
Profoundly, the overall consideration-cooperation of natives with implanted strangers display similarity between anthropo and geno behaviour patterns. Now, this should not be un-expected. This should be expected...
Dov Henis
http://blog.360.y...Q--?cq=1