害虫的抗药性:Ⅶ.昆虫对拟除虫菊酯抗性机理

<正> 合成的拟除虫菊酯类杀虫剂是近年来新发展的高效低残毒杀虫剂,它们对哺乳动物和昆虫的选择毒性要比有机磷、氨基甲酸醋类杀虫剂高出二个数量级,可以说是化学防治中崛起的新星。在70年代初,拟除虫菊酯作为商品问世之初,人们曾根据昆虫似乎对天然除虫菊酯抗性发展较慢的情况预测到昆虫也许不易对     

昆虫钠离子通道基因突变及其与杀虫剂抗性关系的研究进展

昆虫电压门控钠离子通道(voltage-gated sodium channel)存在于所有可兴奋细胞的细胞膜上,在动作电位的产生和传导上起重要作用,是有机氯和拟除虫菊酯杀虫剂的靶标位点。在农业和医学害虫控制过程中,由于有机氯和拟除虫菊酯杀虫剂的广泛使用,抗药性问题日益突出。其中,由于钠离子通道基因突变,降低了钠离子通道对有机氯和拟除虫菊酯类杀虫剂的亲和性,从而产生击倒抗性(knock-down resistance, kdr),已成为抗性产生的重要机制之一。本文综述了昆虫钠离子通道的跨膜拓扑结构、功能、进化及其基因的克隆;更重要的是总结了已报道的40多种昆虫40个钠离子通道基因非同义突变,以及钠离子通道基因选择性mRNA剪接和编辑,以及它们与杀虫剂抗性的关系;也评述了钠离子通道基因突变引起蛋白质结构的改变,从而对杀虫剂抗性的影响机制。这些研究对于进一步鉴定与杀虫剂抗性相关的突变及抗性机制,开发有机氯和拟除虫菊酯类杀虫剂抗性分子监测方法具有重要意义。     

钠离子通道与蜜蜂狄斯瓦螨对氟胺氰菊酯的抗性机理

狄斯瓦螨Varroadestructor是全世界蜜蜂最严重的寄生虫 ,目前 ,它对主要防治药物———拟除虫菊酯类的氟胺氰菊酯已产生明显抗性 ,严重影响其防治效果。近年来神经生理学研究结果证实 :电压门控的钠离子通道是拟除虫菊酯作用的位点。钠通道结构的改变 ,是拟除虫菊酯类杀虫剂毒理的主要基础 ,也是产生抗药性的基础。该文介绍了近年来国内外研究电压门控钠离子通道、拟除虫菊酯对钠通道的作用、钠通道与拟除虫菊酯的抗性和狄斯瓦螨对氟胺氰菊酯抗性机理研究的新进展     

昆虫钠离子通道的研究进展

昆虫只有一个或两个电压门控钠离子通道α亚基基因,但两种转录后修饰(选择性剪切和RNA编辑)实现了昆虫钠离子通道的功能多样性。昆虫β辅助亚基TipE和TEH1-4在钠离子通道表达和调控中也起着重要作用。电压门控钠离子通道在动作电位的产生和传递中至关重要,是多种天然和人工合成神经毒素及杀虫剂的作用靶标,包括广泛使用的拟除虫菊酯类、茚虫威和氰氟虫腙等杀虫剂。其中,拟除虫菊酯类杀虫剂通过调控昆虫钠离子通道的失活和去激活,延长跨膜钠离子流的时间,引起神经兴奋性传导障碍;茚虫威和氰氟虫腙阻断昆虫中枢和外周神经系统神经元的动作电位传导,这些神经毒剂都能干扰昆虫钠离子通道的正常功能。昆虫钠离子通道一般存在两个拟除虫菊酯类杀虫剂结合位点,但不同物种钠离子通道与拟除虫菊酯的结合位点存在一定差异。据此,本文就昆虫钠离子通道及其与杀虫剂的相互作用加以综述,有望推动昆虫神经受体研究,且对鉴定昆虫抗药性相关突变位点和研发高效的杀虫剂均具有重要参考价值。     

昆虫钠通道的结构和与击倒抗性有关的基因突变

击倒抗性(kdr)是指昆虫和其他节肢动物由于它们的神经系统对DDT和拟除虫菊酯类杀虫剂的敏感性降低而引起的抗性。电压敏感的钠通道是DDT和拟除虫菊酯类杀虫剂的主要靶标。已知拟除虫菊酯是通过改变位于神经膜上的这类通道而发挥其杀虫效果的,钠通道基因的点突变是产生kdr抗性的主要原因。40年来kdr抗性一直是重要的研究课题,但近10年来在kdr分子生物学方面取得了很大进展。本文主要综述了1996年以来所取得的新进展,着重于钠通道的结构、在14种害虫中与kdr抗性相关的钠通道基因突变及其氨基酸序列的多态性。这些结果有助于对拟除虫菊酯改变钠通道的功能及其机理作进一步探究。     

击倒抗性和钠离子通道

综述了击倒抗性与钠离子通道关系的研究进展。毒理学和电生理学的研究表明,在许多拟除虫菊酯类杀虫剂抗性昆虫中存在击倒抗性。分子遗传学研究进一步发现,击倒抗性与钠离子通道位点连锁。最近的研究表明,昆虫神经系统对拟除虫菊酯类杀虫剂敏感性下降的击倒抗性机制是钠离子通道结构基因突变。但仍有一些问题,如突变的保守性和分布,需要进一步研究、阐明。     

云南烟蚜抗药性机制研究

通过比较云南烟蚜敏感品系和抗性品系的解毒酶(α-乙酸萘酯羧酸酯酶、β-乙酸萘酯羧酸酯酶)和靶标酶(乙酰胆碱酯酶)的活力,研究了烟蚜对有机磷、拟除虫菊酯和氨基甲酸酯类杀虫剂抗性的生化机制,并通过酯酶基因扩增检测和钠离子通道突变检测,研究了其抗性的分子机制。结果表明:α-乙酸萘酯羧酸酯酶活力增强是烟蚜对有机磷类、氨基甲酸酯类杀虫剂及拟除虫菊酯类杀虫剂的抗性机制之一;乙酰胆碱酯酶在烟蚜对有机磷杀虫剂抗性中起重要作用;3个抗性品系烟蚜均没有发生酯酶基因扩增,抗拟除虫菊酯品系烟蚜发生了钠离子通道突变。     

杀虫药剂的神经毒理学研究进展

大多数杀虫药剂都具有较强的神经毒性,它们对神经系统的作用靶标不同。有机磷类杀虫剂不仅抑制乙酰胆碱酯酶活性和乙酰胆碱受体功能,影响乙酰胆碱的释放,而且还具有非胆碱能毒性,有些有机磷杀虫剂还能引发迟发性神经毒性。新烟碱类杀虫剂作为烟碱型乙酰胆碱受体（nAChR）的激动剂,作用于该类受体的α亚基;它对昆虫的毒性比对哺乳动物的毒性大得多,乃是因为它对昆虫和哺乳动物nAChR的作用位点不同。拟除虫菊酯类杀虫剂主要作用于神经细胞钠通道,引起持续开放,导致传导阻滞;该类杀虫剂也可抑制钙通道。另外,这类杀虫剂还干扰谷氨酸递质和多巴胺神经元递质的释放。拟除虫菊酯类杀虫剂对昆虫的选择毒性很可能是因为昆虫神经元的钠通道结构与哺乳动物的不同。阿维菌素类杀虫剂主要作用于γ-氨基丁酸（GABA）受体,它能促进GABA的释放,增强GABA与GABA受体的结合,使氯离子内流增加,导致突触后膜超级化。由于这类杀虫剂难以穿透脊椎动物的血脑屏障而与中枢神经系统的GABA受体结合,故该类杀虫剂对脊椎动物的毒性远低于对昆虫的毒性。多杀菌素类杀虫剂可与中枢神经系统的nAChR作用,引起Ach长时间释放,此外,这类杀虫剂还可作用于昆虫的GABA受体,改变GABA门控氯通道的功能。     

拟除虫菊酯对天敌昆虫的影响

<正> 农用拟除虫菊酯是七十年代新发展的仿生农药,对多种害虫具有优良的防治效果,国内已广泛应用于农业害虫的防治,但对天敌昆虫的影响,各地反应不一。为了对拟除虫菊酯对天敌昆虫的毒性有一个初步的认识,以便更好地使用这类农药,现将拟除虫菊酯对一些重要的天敌类群的杀虫作用综述于后,以供参考。 一、寄生峰 过去,一些传统的杀虫剂常常大量杀死寄生蜂,引起害虫再增猖獗。拟除虫菊酯则是一类对寄生性天敌较为安全的新农药。 Waddill(1978)以四种拟除虫菊酯用泸纸药膜法对五种寄生蜂进行了研究后指出,高剂量的杀灭菊酯(90.7克/0.405公顷,有效剂量,下同)对寡节小蜂Diglyphus intermedius、小茧蜂Opius bruneipes及绒茧蜂Apanteles sp.几乎无毒,但对跳小蜂Copidosoma     

溴氰菊酯与敌敌畏混配的增效试验

<正> 拟除虫菊酯类杀虫剂具有高效低毒等优点,但连续使用易使害虫产生抗药性。为了防止和延缓害虫对拟除虫菊酯的抗性,提高杀虫效果,1985年以来,我们用溴氰菊酯与敌敌畏混配对若干种害虫进行了药效试验,增效明显。近两年来在广西农业生产中广泛应用,取得了较为显著的社会效益和经济效益。现将试验总结如下。     

Mediation of pyrethroid insecticide toxicity to honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) by cytochrome P450 monooxygenases

Honey bees, Apis mellifera L., often thought to be extremely susceptible to insecticides in general, exhibit considerable variation in tolerance to pyrethroid insecticides. Although some pyrethroids, such as cyfluthrin and lambda-cyhalothrin, are highly toxic to honey bees, the toxicity of tau-fluvalinate is low enough to warrant its use to control parasitic mites inside honey bee colonies. Metabolic insecticide resistance in other insects is mediated by three major groups of detoxifying enzymes: the cytochrome P450 monooxygenases (P450s), the carboxylesterases (COEs), and the glutathione S-transferases (GSTs). To test the role of metabolic detoxification in mediating the relatively low toxicity of tau-fluvalinate compared with more toxic pyrethroid insecticides, we examined the effects of piperonyl butoxide (PBO), S,S,S-tributylphosphorotrithioate (DEF), and diethyl maleate (DEM) on the toxicity of these pyrethroids. The toxicity of the three pyrethroids to bees was greatly synergized by the P450 inhibitor PBO and synergized at low levels by the carboxylesterase inhibitor DEF. Little synergism was observed with DEM. These results suggest that metabolic detoxification, especially that mediated by P450s, contributes significantly to honey bee tolerance of pyrethroid insecticides. The potent synergism between tau-fluvalinate and PBO suggests that P450s are especially important in the detoxification of this pyrethroid and explains the ability of honey bees to tolerate its presence.     

A Locomotor Deficit Induced by Sublethal Doses of Pyrethroid and Neonicotinoid Insecticides in the Honeybee Apis mellifera

The toxicity of pesticides used in agriculture towards non-targeted organisms and especially pollinators has recently drawn the attention from a broad scientific community. Increased honeybee mortality observed worldwide certainly contributes to this interest. The potential role of several neurotoxic insecticides in triggering or potentiating honeybee mortality was considered, in particular phenylpyrazoles and neonicotinoids, given that they are widely used and highly toxic for insects. Along with their ability to kill insects at lethal doses, they can compromise survival at sublethal doses by producing subtle deleterious effects. In this study, we compared the bee’s locomotor ability, which is crucial for many tasks within the hive (e.g. cleaning brood cells, feeding larvae…), before and after an acute sublethal exposure to one insecticide belonging to the two insecticide classes, fipronil and thiamethoxam. Additionally, we examined the locomotor ability after exposure to pyrethroids, an older chemical insecticide class still widely used and known to be highly toxic to bees as well. Our study focused on young bees (day 1 after emergence) since (i) few studies are available on locomotion at this stage and (ii) in recent years, pesticides have been reported to accumulate in different hive matrices, where young bees undergo their early development. At sublethal doses (SLD_48h, i.e. causing no mortality at 48h), three pyrethroids, namely cypermethrin (2.5 ng/bee), tetramethrin (70 ng/bee), tau-fluvalinate (33 ng/bee) and the neonicotinoid thiamethoxam (3.8 ng/bee) caused a locomotor deficit in honeybees. While the SLD_48h of fipronil (a phenylpyrazole, 0.5 ng/bee) had no measurable effect on locomotion, we observed high mortality several days after exposure, an effect that was not observed with the other insecticides. Although locomotor deficits observed in the sublethal range of pyrethroids and thiamethoxam would suggest deleterious effects in the field, the case of fipronil demonstrates that toxicity evaluation requires information on multiple endpoints (e.g. long term survival) to fully address pesticides risks for honeybees. Pyrethroid-induced locomotor deficits are discussed in light of recent advances regarding their mode of action on honeybee ion channels and current structure-function studies.     

Neonicotinoid-Contaminated Puddles of Water Represent a Risk of Intoxication for Honey Bees

In recent years, populations of honey bees and other pollinators have been reported to be in decline worldwide. A number of stressors have been identified as potential contributing factors, including the extensive prophylactic use of neonicotinoid insecticides, which are highly toxic to bees, in agriculture. While multiple routes of exposure to these systemic insecticides have been documented for honey bees, contamination from puddle water has not been investigated. In this study, we used a multi-residue method based on LC-MS/MS to analyze samples of puddle water taken in the field during the planting of treated corn and one month later. If honey bees were to collect and drink water from these puddles, our results showed that they would be exposed to various agricultural pesticides. All water samples collected from corn fields were contaminated with at least one neonicotinoid compound, although most contained more than one systemic insecticide. Concentrations of neonicotinoids were higher in early spring, indicating that emission and drifting of contaminated dust during sowing raises contamination levels of puddles. Although the overall average acute risk of drinking water from puddles was relatively low, concentrations of neonicotinoids ranged from 0.01 to 63 µg/L and were sufficient to potentially elicit a wide array of sublethal effects in individuals and colony alike. Our results also suggest that risk assessment of honey bee water resources underestimates the foragers'' exposure and consequently miscalculates the risk. In fact, our data shows that honey bees and native pollinators are facing unprecedented cumulative exposure to these insecticides from combined residues in pollen, nectar and water. These findings not only document the impact of this route of exposure for honey bees, they also have implications for the cultivation of a wide variety of crops for which the extensive use of neonicotinoids is currently promoted.     

Multiple routes of pesticide exposure for honey bees living near agricultural fields

Populations of honey bees and other pollinators have declined worldwide in recent years. A variety of stressors have been implicated as potential causes, including agricultural pesticides. Neonicotinoid insecticides, which are widely used and highly toxic to honey bees, have been found in previous analyses of honey bee pollen and comb material. However, the routes of exposure have remained largely undefined. We used LC/MS-MS to analyze samples of honey bees, pollen stored in the hive and several potential exposure routes associated with plantings of neonicotinoid treated maize. Our results demonstrate that bees are exposed to these compounds and several other agricultural pesticides in several ways throughout the foraging period. During spring, extremely high levels of clothianidin and thiamethoxam were found in planter exhaust material produced during the planting of treated maize seed. We also found neonicotinoids in the soil of each field we sampled, including unplanted fields. Plants visited by foraging bees (dandelions) growing near these fields were found to contain neonicotinoids as well. This indicates deposition of neonicotinoids on the flowers, uptake by the root system, or both. Dead bees collected near hive entrances during the spring sampling period were found to contain clothianidin as well, although whether exposure was oral (consuming pollen) or by contact (soil/planter dust) is unclear. We also detected the insecticide clothianidin in pollen collected by bees and stored in the hive. When maize plants in our field reached anthesis, maize pollen from treated seed was found to contain clothianidin and other pesticides; and honey bees in our study readily collected maize pollen. These findings clarify some of the mechanisms by which honey bees may be exposed to agricultural pesticides throughout the growing season. These results have implications for a wide range of large-scale annual cropping systems that utilize neonicotinoid seed treatments.     

Pesticide Residues and Bees – A Risk Assessment

Bees are essential pollinators of many plants in natural ecosystems and agricultural crops alike. In recent years the decline and disappearance of bee species in the wild and the collapse of honey bee colonies have concerned ecologists and apiculturalists, who search for causes and solutions to this problem. Whilst biological factors such as viral diseases, mite and parasite infections are undoubtedly involved, it is also evident that pesticides applied to agricultural crops have a negative impact on bees. Most risk assessments have focused on direct acute exposure of bees to agrochemicals from spray drift. However, the large number of pesticide residues found in pollen and honey demand a thorough evaluation of all residual compounds so as to identify those of highest risk to bees. Using data from recent residue surveys and toxicity of pesticides to honey and bumble bees, a comprehensive evaluation of risks under current exposure conditions is presented here. Standard risk assessments are complemented with new approaches that take into account time-cumulative effects over time, especially with dietary exposures. Whilst overall risks appear to be low, our analysis indicates that residues of pyrethroid and neonicotinoid insecticides pose the highest risk by contact exposure of bees with contaminated pollen. However, the synergism of ergosterol inhibiting fungicides with those two classes of insecticides results in much higher risks in spite of the low prevalence of their combined residues. Risks by ingestion of contaminated pollen and honey are of some concern for systemic insecticides, particularly imidacloprid and thiamethoxam, chlorpyrifos and the mixtures of cyhalothrin and ergosterol inhibiting fungicides. More attention should be paid to specific residue mixtures that may result in synergistic toxicity to bees.     

Crop Pollination Exposes Honey Bees to Pesticides Which Alters Their Susceptibility to the Gut Pathogen Nosema ceranae

Recent declines in honey bee populations and increasing demand for insect-pollinated crops raise concerns about pollinator shortages. Pesticide exposure and pathogens may interact to have strong negative effects on managed honey bee colonies. Such findings are of great concern given the large numbers and high levels of pesticides found in honey bee colonies. Thus it is crucial to determine how field-relevant combinations and loads of pesticides affect bee health. We collected pollen from bee hives in seven major crops to determine 1) what types of pesticides bees are exposed to when rented for pollination of various crops and 2) how field-relevant pesticide blends affect bees’ susceptibility to the gut parasite Nosema ceranae. Our samples represent pollen collected by foragers for use by the colony, and do not necessarily indicate foragers’ roles as pollinators. In blueberry, cranberry, cucumber, pumpkin and watermelon bees collected pollen almost exclusively from weeds and wildflowers during our sampling. Thus more attention must be paid to how honey bees are exposed to pesticides outside of the field in which they are placed. We detected 35 different pesticides in the sampled pollen, and found high fungicide loads. The insecticides esfenvalerate and phosmet were at a concentration higher than their median lethal dose in at least one pollen sample. While fungicides are typically seen as fairly safe for honey bees, we found an increased probability of Nosema infection in bees that consumed pollen with a higher fungicide load. Our results highlight a need for research on sub-lethal effects of fungicides and other chemicals that bees placed in an agricultural setting are exposed to.     

Imidacloprid-induced impairment of mushroom bodies and behavior of the native stingless bee Melipona quadrifasciata anthidioides

Declines in pollinator colonies represent a worldwide concern. The widespread use of agricultural pesticides is recognized as a potential cause of these declines. Previous studies have examined the effects of neonicotinoid insecticides such as imidacloprid on pollinator colonies, but these investigations have mainly focused on adult honey bees. Native stingless bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Meliponinae) are key pollinators in neotropical areas and are threatened with extinction due to deforestation and pesticide use. Few studies have directly investigated the effects of pesticides on these pollinators. Furthermore, the existing impact studies did not address the issue of larval ingestion of contaminated pollen and nectar, which could potentially have dire consequences for the colony. Here, we assessed the effects of imidacloprid ingestion by stingless bee larvae on their survival, development, neuromorphology and adult walking behavior. Increasing doses of imidacloprid were added to the diet provided to individual worker larvae of the stingless bee Melipona quadrifasciata anthidioides throughout their development. Survival rates above 50% were only observed at insecticide doses lower than 0.0056 μg active ingredient (a.i.)/bee. No sublethal effect on body mass or developmental time was observed in the surviving insects, but the pesticide treatment negatively affected the development of mushroom bodies in the brain and impaired the walking behavior of newly emerged adult workers. Therefore, stingless bee larvae are particularly susceptible to imidacloprid, as it caused both high mortality and sublethal effects that impaired brain development and compromised mobility at the young adult stage. These findings demonstrate the lethal effects of imidacloprid on native stingless bees and provide evidence of novel serious sublethal effects that may compromise colony survival. The ecological and economic importance of neotropical stingless bees as pollinators, their susceptibility to insecticides and the vulnerability of their larvae to insecticide exposure emphasize the importance of studying these species.     

EFFECTIVENESS OF BETA-CYPERMETHRIN ON GLUTAMIC- PYRUVIC TRANSAMINASE (GPT) AND GLUTAMIC-OXALOACETIC TRANSAMINASE (GOT) ACTIVITIES FROM CRUCIAN CARP (CARASSIUS AURATUS) SERUM

Synthetic pyrethroids are considered as possible sub-stitutesfor some organophosphate carbamates or organochlo-rine insecticides,and have been used extensivelyfor morethantwo decades[1].Pyrethroids are preferred over otherinsecticides because of their easy degradation into non-toxic or less toxic metabolites under natural conditions.Consequently,there has recently beena dramatic increaseinthe use of pyrethroid pesticides to control insect pests.However,synthetic pyrethroids were also reported …     

Plant evolution can mediate negative effects from honey bees on wild pollinators

1. Pollinators are introduced to agroecosystems to provide pollination services. Introductions of managed pollinators often promote ecosystem services, but it remains largely unknown whether they also affect evolutionary mutualisms between wild pollinators and plants.
2. Here, we developed a model to assess effects of managed honey bees on mutualisms between plants and wild pollinators. Our model tracked how interactions among wild pollinators and honey bees affected pollinator and plant populations.
3. We show that when managed honey bees have a competitive advantage over wild pollinators, or a greater carrying capacity, the honey bees displace the wild pollinator. This leads to reduced plant density because plants benefit less by visits from honey bees than wild pollinators that coevolved with the plants.
4. As wild pollinators are displaced, plants evolve by increasing investment in traits that are attractive for honey bees but not wild pollinators. This evolutionary switch promotes wild pollinator displacement. However, higher mutualism investment costs by the plant to the honey bee can promote pollinator coexistence.
5. Our results show plant evolution can promote displacement of wild pollinators by managed honey bees, while limited plant evolution may lead to pollinator coexistence. More broadly, effects of honey bees on wild pollinators in agroecosystems, and effects on ecosystem services, may depend on the capacity of plant populations to evolve.

     

The novel insecticides flupyradifurone and sulfoxaflor do not act synergistically with viral pathogens in reducing honey bee (Apis mellifera) survival but sulfoxaflor modulates host immunocompetence

The decline of insect pollinators threatens global food security. A major potential cause of decline is considered to be the interaction between environmental stressors, particularly between exposure to pesticides and pathogens. To explore pesticide–pathogen interactions in an important pollinator insect, the honey bee, we used two new nicotinic acetylcholine receptor agonist insecticides (nACHRs), flupyradifurone (FPF) and sulfoxaflor (SULF), at sublethal and field-realistic doses in a fully crossed experimental design with three common viral honey bee pathogens, Black queen cell virus (BQCV) and Deformed wing virus (DWV) genotypes A and B. Through laboratory experiments in which treatments were administered singly or in combination to individual insects, we recorded harmful effects of FPF and pathogens on honey bee survival and immune gene expression. Though we found no evidence of synergistic interactions among stressors on either honey bee survival or viral load, the combined treatment SULF and DWV-B led to a synergistic upregulation of dicer-like gene expression. We conclude that common viral pathogens pose a major threat to honey bees, while co-exposure to these novel nACHR insecticides does not significantly exacerbate viral impacts on host survival in the laboratory.