褐飞虱的迁人和翅型分化规律的研究

褐飞虱Nilaparvata lugens(Stal)属迁飞性水稻害虫,其成虫有短翅和长翅两种翅型。 褐飞虱迁入雌虫均未经过交配,其短翅型由一对显性等位基因控制。翅型分化同时受到遗传和内分泌系统的协调控制,外界条件如密度和寄主等因子通过内分泌系统来影响翅型的分化。褐飞虱翅型分化的敏感龄期雌虫为1～3龄,而雄虫为1-5龄;不同若虫蜜度处理对褐飞虱成虫的前翅形成有一定的影响。分蘖期水稻饲养的褐飞虱短翅型比例明显高于孕穗期水稻饲养的褐飞虱。不同密度下各生物型间的翅型分化差异不显著。迁入地的浙江各种群属温带型,其雌虫短翅率低且与密度呈显著负相关;菲律宾热带种群雌虫在不同密度下均为短翅型,而雄虫的短翅率随密度增加而上升。广西种群接近热带型,其雌虫短翅率高但不随密度而变化。试验各种群的雄虫在中等密度甚至高密度时其短翅率出现最高。     

三种稻飞虱翅型分化的遗传分析

为了明确褐飞虱Nilaparvata lugens、 白背飞虱Sogatella furcifera和灰飞虱Laodelphax striatellus 3种稻飞虱翅型分化的遗传规律与差异, 采用翅型筛选与杂交遗传的实验方法, 研究了3种飞虱在秧苗期水稻上的翅型选择响应与杂交遗传规律。结果表明： 3种稻飞虱的翅型具有较强的选择响应, 并且长翅型纯系在白背飞虱中最易筛选得到, 灰飞虱的次之, 而褐飞虱的最难。3种稻飞虱的长翅(M)雄虫与短翅(B)雌虫配对(M♂×B♀)筛选3~5代后, 95%~100%的雄虫和雌虫分别稳定为长翅型和短翅型。筛选和杂交实验结果表明, 褐飞虱的翅型决定基本符合常染色体上的一对等位基因调控的从性性状遗传规律, 雄虫中长翅为显性, 而雌虫中短翅为显性。翅型的表型还受除基因型外的其他条件的影响, 利用长翅雄虫与长翅雌虫后代中出现的极少数的短翅雄虫与短翅雌虫进行配对, 其后代中各翅型出现的比率与长翅雌虫和长翅雄虫配对的无显著差异; 同样, 在短翅雄虫与短翅雌虫配对的后代中也有相同的结果。白背飞虱和灰飞虱在该筛选条件下很少有短翅雄虫出现, 两者翅型的遗传调控较为相似, 可用由两对等位基因控制的性状来解释筛选和杂交实验的结果, 其中一对等位基因位于性染色体上, 调控雄性的翅型, 且长翅为显性; 另一对位于常染色体上, 调控雌性的翅型, 且短翅为显性。据此认为, 3种飞虱翅型决定基因的显隐性在不同性别间的差异, 以及翅表型与基因型的不一致性, 是稻飞虱种群在不同条件下均可灵活调控翅型的重要遗传机制。     

三种杀虫剂对褐飞虱海藻糖含量和海藻糖酶活性的影响

为了解农药处理导致褐飞虱Nilaparvata lugens (Stål）飞行能力增强的生理机制, 本文采用蒽酮法和酶促反应终止法, 研究了吡虫啉、 三唑磷和溴氰菊酯3种杀虫剂亚致死剂量对褐飞虱3龄、 5龄若虫及长、 短翅型雌雄成虫体内海藻糖含量和海藻糖酶活性的影响。结果表明： 杀虫剂处理的褐飞虱3龄若虫海藻糖含量和海藻糖酶活性与对照相比没有显著差异（P>0.05）。40 mg/L三唑磷处理的褐飞虱5龄若虫体内海藻糖含量显著低于对照（P<0.05）, 比对照降低了24%; 而20和40 mg/L三唑磷处理的褐飞虱5龄若虫海藻糖酶活性显著高于对照（P<0.05）, 分别比对照高出了100%和129%。10 mg/L吡虫啉, 20 和40 mg/L三唑磷以及3和6 mg/L溴氰菊酯处理的褐飞虱短翅雌成虫和雄成虫体内海藻糖含量显著低于对照（P<0.05）, 雌成虫体内海藻糖含量比对照分别降低了36%, 53%, 67%, 58%和69%, 雄成虫体内海藻糖含量比对照分别降低了59%, 71%, 65%, 70%和77%; 而40 mg/L三唑磷以及3和6 mg/L溴氰菊酯处理的褐飞虱短翅型雌成虫和雄成虫体内海藻糖酶活性显著高于对照（P<0.05）, 雌成虫体内海藻糖酶活性比对照分别高出了124%, 100%和88%, 雄成虫体内海藻糖酶活性比对照分别高出了146%, 132%和118%。10 mg/L吡虫啉, 40 mg/L三唑磷和3 mg/L溴氰菊酯处理的褐飞虱长翅型雌成虫和雄成虫海藻糖含量显著低于对照（P<0.05）, 雌成虫海藻糖含量比对照分别降低了44%, 34%和37%, 雄成虫体内海藻糖含量比对照降低了48%, 54%和43%; 而5和10 mg/L吡虫啉处理的长翅型雌成虫和雄成虫海藻糖酶活性显著高于对照（P<0.05）, 雌成虫体内海藻糖酶活性比对照分别高出了317%和300%, 雄成虫体内海藻糖酶活性比对照分别高出了170%和97%。这些结果说明这3种杀虫剂亚致死剂量处理可以增强褐飞虱体内海藻糖酶活性, 并导致海藻糖含量下降。本研究结果对深入阐明农药诱导褐飞虱再猖獗及杀虫剂处理增强其飞行能力的生理机制具有一定的科学价值。     

褐飞虱核糖体小亚基蛋白S8基因NlRPS8的克隆及其表达分析

【目的】核糖体蛋白在生物体内具有重要作用,本研究旨在探明核糖体蛋白S8在褐飞虱Nilaparvata lugens生长发育过程中的表达规律和功能。【方法】本文根据褐飞虱基因表达谱提供的差异表达基因信息及转录组提供的基因核心序列,结合褐飞虱基因组比对分析,对褐飞虱核糖体S8基因进行了预测,并通过RT-PCR获得了褐飞虱核糖体小亚基蛋白S8的全长c DNA序列,命名为NlRPS8(Gen Bank登录号:KU341337)。【结果】NlRPS8基因全长627 bp,编码208个氨基酸。进化分析表明,褐飞虱与桑粉介壳虫Maconellicoccus hirsutus亲缘关系最为接近。应用荧光定量PCR分析了基因NlRPS8的表达规律,结果表明,NlRPS8基因在褐飞虱怀卵雌虫中表达量最高,而在雄成虫、初羽化雌成虫与1~5龄若虫表达量相对较低;在褐飞虱体内,NlRPS8基因在卵巢中表达量最高,中肠次之,在其他部位表达量较低。在抗性品种ASD7和RHT上,NlRPS8基因表达量分别为感性品种TN1上的1.99倍和2.14倍。NlRPS8基因在经过饥饿处理1 d的褐飞虱组中表达量为正常组的1.6倍。【结论】研究结果显示NlRPS8基因在褐飞虱生长、繁殖中发挥作用,为进一步研究NlRPS8基因在褐飞虱生长发育和对抗性品种适应中的功能提供了线索。     

褐飞虱成虫体内磁性物质检测

地磁定向是昆虫远距离迁飞定向的重要机制之一.本研究以褐飞虱Nilaparvata lugens长翅型和短翅型成虫为研究对象,利用MPMS-7型号超导量子干涉磁强计(磁场范围为±4.8 mA/m,温度范围为1.9 ～ 400 K)检测虫体内的磁性物质,明确其体内的分布状况.结果表明:褐飞虱长翅型雄成虫整个虫体的温度退磁曲...     

褐飞虱热胁迫下内参基因的筛选及热激蛋白基因表达分析（英文）

【目的】褐飞虱Nilaparvata lugens(Stl)是为害水稻的重要害虫之一,温度是影响其暴发、迁飞的主要环境因子之一。本研究旨在探讨研究褐飞虱对高温胁迫适应性的热激蛋白基因表达调控模式。【方法】分别以不同的高温(30℃~40℃)处理褐飞虱雌、雄虫1 h和2 h,利用荧光定量PCR技术检测其体内的β-actin 1,β-actin2,β-actin3,28S rRNA,18S rRNA和α-2-tubulin 6个内参基因的表达量,用geN orm和BestK eeper软件分析确定最稳定表达的内参基因,并检测热胁迫后hsp70和hsp90基因在处理褐飞虱成虫体内的表达模式。【结果】geN orm软件分析结果表明,热胁迫后褐飞虱内参基因稳定性在雌虫体内为:β-actin1=β-actin328S rRNAα-2-tubulin18S rRNAβ-actin2;在雄虫体内为:β-actin1=β-actin3α-2-tubulin28S rRNA18S rRNAβ-actin2。BestK eeper软件分析结果显示,在热胁迫的雌、雄虫体内β-actin1均最稳定,18S rRNA次之,β-actin2最不稳定。两种软件分析结果基本一致。以β-actin1为校正内参基因,荧光定量PCR分析hsp70和hsp90在不同热胁迫条件下的表达模式,结果表明,各高温处理下hsp70表达量与对照26℃下的表达量没有显著性差异;而hsp90基因表达模式表现为被高温诱导上调表达,在雌、雄虫体内表达量达到最高的处理条件分别为40℃和38℃处理2 h。【结论】β-actin1基因可以作为热胁迫下褐飞虱雌雄虫体内基因表达模式分析的校正内参基因使用。褐飞虱hsp90基因能被高温诱导表达,该基因可能在褐飞虱适应热胁迫过程中起着重要的作用。     

稻飞虱翅型纯系后代个体的翅型分化对光周期变化不敏感

【目的】为了明确光周期和遗传因子在稻飞虱翅型分化中的作用, 研究了3种稻飞虱（褐飞虱Nilaparvata lugens、白背飞虱Sogatella furcifera和灰飞虱Laodelphax striatellus）翅型纯系或近纯系在不同光照时数下的翅型分化比率。【方法】以经过5~45代连续翅型筛选后的褐飞虱、白背飞虱和灰飞虱的长翅型和短翅型纯系或近纯系为材料, 在室内分别测定了其在长光照（16和20 h）、短光照(4~12 h)和正常光照(14 h) 3类光周期条件下饲养后, 雌、雄成虫中长翅和短翅个体出现的比率及存活率。【结果】白背飞虱和灰飞虱的长翅型纯系M♂×M♀或短翅型纯系B♂×B♀在不同光周期下的翅型比率均无显著差异（P>0.05）。褐飞虱短翅型近纯系B♂×B♀的雌虫短翅率和成虫总短翅率在不同光周期下也无显著差异（P>0.05）, 但雄虫短翅率在正常光照14 h和短光照4 h下显著高于长光照20 h下的（P<0.05）。当褐飞虱短翅型达到纯系后, 其后代翅型在6~16 h光照条件下无显著差异。褐飞虱长翅型近纯系M♂×M♀的后代虽有短翅个体出现, 但是雌虫和雄虫的各自短翅率在不同光周期下无显著差异（P>0.05), 仅总体短翅率在12 h光照条件下的显著高于16 h下的（P<0.05）。褐飞虱长、短翅型杂交筛选品系M♂×B♀的雌虫短翅率随光照时数的延长而升高; 灰飞虱杂交筛选品系M♂×B♀的短翅雄虫随光照时数的缩短而增多（P<0.05）, 但当筛选代次达到45代时, 这种趋势不再显著。3种稻飞虱长翅型和短翅型纯系或近纯系若虫的存活率会稍低于长、短翅型杂交后代的存活率, 但长、短翅型品系的存活率在6~16 h光照条件下差异不显著(P>0.05)。【结论】稻飞虱翅型分化对光周期的反应受飞虱本身遗传背景的影响, 翅型纯系后代个体的翅型分化对光周期变化不敏感。     

Bt水稻对青翅蚁形隐翅虫存活及捕食功能的影响

【目的】以稻田中重要捕食性天敌青翅蚁形隐翅虫Paederus fuscipes Curtis为研究对象,探讨在室内条件下青翅蚁形隐翅虫取食转Bt基因水稻上的褐飞虱后对其存活率和捕食功能的影响。【方法】在室内条件下,取食通过用一直取食转Bt水稻的褐飞虱Nilaparvata lugens(St?l)来饲养青翅蚁形隐翅虫,在第7、14、21、28天调查其成活率,研究转Bt水稻对青翅蚁形隐翅虫生长的影响。通过设置不同的猎物密度和捕食者密度,研究转Bt水稻对青翅蚁形隐翅虫成虫捕食功能的影响。【结果】室内条件下,转Bt水稻对青翅蚁形隐翅虫的存活率无明显影响。在试验褐飞虱密度下,转Bt基因水稻对青翅蚁形隐翅虫对褐飞虱的捕食量无显著影响,且捕食作用方程可用HollingⅡ模型拟合,理论方程为Na=1.3421N/(1+0.0887N)。瞬时攻击率a′和平均处理时间Th无显著差异,同时,转Bt基因水稻对青翅蚁形隐翅虫的捕食干扰反应无显著影响。【结论】转Bt基因水稻对供试天敌昆虫青翅蚁形隐翅虫存活率和捕食功能无明显影响。     

高温对稻褐飞虱发育与生殖的影响

通过高温处理及交配产卵实验,探讨了高温对稻褐飞虱Nilaparvata lugens (Stal)发育与生殖的影响。研究了不同高温条件对褐飞虱若虫发育历期、产卵量、产卵前期、寿命等生物学特性的影响。34℃以上高温导致褐飞虱若虫发育历期延长。高温处理4龄若虫使羽化后的雌成虫产卵量减少。高温处理不同日龄雌成虫也致使其产卵量减少,其中以1日龄短翅型、3日龄长翅型的产卵量影响最大。高温处理后褐飞虱寿命缩短。高温恒温处理,对短翅型雌成虫的产卵前期影响不大,但能延长长翅型雌成虫的产卵前期;而高温变温处理致使短、长翅型雌成虫的产卵前期均延长。高温变温对褐飞虱生殖的影响程度大于高温恒温。高温处理组雌、雄成虫与对照组相应的成虫交配试验表明,高温对雌性的影响大于雄性。实验初步确定34℃为对褐飞虱发育与生殖产生影响的临界温度。     

转Bt基因及其亲本水稻上褐飞虱对三唑磷和溴氰菊酯的反应

以转Bt基因抗虫水稻T1C-19(含cry1C基因)和T2A-1(含cry2A基因)及其亲本水稻MH63为材料,用20和40 mg·L^-1的三唑磷以及1、3和6 mg·L^-1的溴氰菊酯喷雾分别处理稻株上的3龄褐飞虱若虫,研究了两种农药对转Bt基因抗虫水稻上褐飞虱再猖獗的影响.结果表明： 三唑磷处理对褐飞虱的若虫历期无显著性影响,溴氰菊酯则能显著降低若虫历期,但随着两种药剂处理浓度的升高,若虫的存活率降低、成虫的产卵量增加.在同一浓度农药药剂处理下,3个水稻品种上的褐飞虱若虫发育历期、若虫存活率、初羽雌成虫体质量、产卵量和卵孵化率等生态学参数均没有显著差异.表明褐飞虱在两种转Bt水稻上对三唑磷和溴氰菊酯诱导再猖獗的反应能力与其亲本水稻MH63没有差异.     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor