Humans grow corn for food and energy applications. Humans also grow many other crops, including soybeans and cotton. Insects eat and damage plants and thereby undermine these human efforts. Billions of dollars are spent each year to control insect pests and additional billions are lost to the damage they inflict. Synthetic organic chemical insecticides have been the primary tools used to control insect pests but biological insecticides, such as the insecticidal proteins derived from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), have played an important role in some areas. The ability to produce insect-resistant plants through transformation with Bt insecticidal protein genes has revolutionized modern agriculture and heightened the importance and value of insecticidal proteins and their genes.
Several Bt proteins have been used to create the insect-resistant transgenic plants that have been successfully registered and commercialized to date. These include Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac, Cry1F and Cry3Bb in corn, Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab in cotton, and Cry3A in potato.
The commercial products expressing these proteins express a single protein except in cases where the combined insecticidal spectrum of 2 proteins is desired (e.g., Cry1Ab and Cry3Bb in corn combined to provide resistance to lepidopteran pests and rootworm, respectively) or where the independent action of the proteins makes them useful as a tool for delaying the development of resistance in susceptible insect populations (e.g., Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab in cotton combined to provide resistance management for tobacco budworm). See also U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0313717, which relates to a Cry2 protein plus a Vip3Aa, Cry1F, or Cry1A for control of Helicoverpa zea or armigerain. WO 2009/132850 relates to Cry1F or Cry1A and Vip3Aa for controlling Spodoptera frugiperda. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0311096 relates in part to Cry1Ab for controlling Cry1F-resistant ECB.
That is, some of the qualities of insect-resistant transgenic plants that have led to rapid and widespread adoption of this technology also give rise to the concern that pest populations will develop resistance to the insecticidal proteins produced by these plants. Several strategies have been suggested for preserving the utility of Bt-based insect resistance traits which include deploying proteins at a high dose in combination with a refuge, and alternation with, or co-deployment of, different toxins (McGaughey et al. (1998), “B.t. Resistance Management,” Nature Biotechnol. 16:144-146).
The proteins selected for use in an insect resistant management (IRM) stack need to exert their insecticidal effect independently so that resistance developed to one protein does not confer resistance to the second protein (i.e., there is not cross resistance to the proteins). If, for example, a pest population selected for resistance to “Protein A” is sensitive to “Protein B”, one would conclude that there is not cross resistance and that a combination of Protein A and Protein B would be effective in delaying resistance to Protein A alone.
In the absence of resistant insect populations, assessments can be made based on other characteristics presumed to be related to mechanism of action and cross-resistance potential. The utility of receptor-mediated binding in identifying insecticidal proteins likely to not exhibit cross resistance has been suggested (van Mellaert et al. 1999). The key predictor of lack of cross resistance inherent in this approach is that the insecticidal proteins do not compete for receptors in a sensitive insect species.
In the event that two Bt toxins compete for the same receptor, then if that receptor mutates in that insect so that one of the toxins no longer binds to that receptor and thus is no longer insecticidal against the insect, it might be the case that the insect will also be resistant to the second toxin (which competitively bound to the same receptor). That is, the insect is said to be cross-resistant to both Bt toxins. However, if two toxins bind to two different receptors, this could be an indication that the insect would not be simultaneously resistant to those two toxins.
For example, Cry1Fa protein is useful in controlling many lepidopteran pests species including the European corn borer (ECB; Ostrinia nubilalis (Hübner)) and the FAW, and is active against the sugarcane borer (SCB; Diatraea saccharalis). The Cry1Fa protein, as produced in transgenic corn plants containing event TC1507, is responsible for an industry-leading insect resistance trait for FAW control. Cry1Fa is further deployed in the Herculex®, SmartStax™, and WideStrike™ products.
The ability to conduct (competitive or homologous) receptor binding studies using Cry1Fa protein is limited because the most common technique available for labeling proteins for detection in receptor binding assays inactivates the insecticidal activity of the Cry1Fa protein.
Additional Cry toxins are listed at the website of the official B.t. nomenclature committee (Crickmore et al.; lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/Neil_Crickmore/Bt/). There are currently nearly 60 main groups of “Cry” toxins (Cry1-Cry59), with additional Cyt toxins and VIP toxins and the like. Many of each numeric group have capital-letter subgroups, and the capital letter subgroups have lower-cased letter sub-subgroups. (Cry1 has A-L, and Cry1A has a-i, for example).