RESUMO
Following the submission of dossier GMFF-2022-3670 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Corteva Agriscience Belgium BV and Bayer Agriculture BV, the Panel on genetically modified organisms of the European Food Safety Authority was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × NK603, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post-market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses and a search for additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequences of the events in maize MON 89034 × 1507 × NK603 considered for renewal are identical to the sequences of the originally assessed events, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal dossier GMFF-2022-3670 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize MON 89034 × 1507 × NK603.
RESUMO
Following the joint submission of dossier GMFF-2022-9170 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer Agriculture B.V. and Corteva Agriscience Belgium B.V., the Panel on genetically modified organisms of the European Food Safety Authority was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the herbicide tolerant and insect resistant genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 and 8 out of 10 of its subcombinations, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post-market environmental monitoring reports, an evaluation of the literature retrieved by a scoping review, a search for additional studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant and updated bioinformatics analyses. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequences of the events in maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 and 8 out of 10 of its subcombinations considered for renewal are identical to the sequences of the originally assessed events, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal dossier GMFF-2022-9170 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 and 8 out of 10 of its subcombinations.
RESUMO
Genetically modified maize DP202216 was developed to confer tolerance to glufosinate-ammonium-containing herbicides and to provide an opportunity for yield enhancement under field conditions. These properties were achieved by introducing the mo-pat and zmm28 expression cassettes. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics tested between maize DP202216 and its comparator needs further assessment, except for the levels of stearic acid (C18:0), which do not raise nutritional and safety concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the PAT and ZMM28 proteins as expressed in maize DP202216, and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of maize DP202216. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize DP202216 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DP202216 is as safe as the comparator and non-GM reference varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize DP202216 grains into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize DP202216. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DP202216 is as safe as its comparator and the tested non-GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
RESUMO
Genetically modified maize DP915635 was developed to confer tolerance to glufosinate herbicide and resistance to corn rootworm pests. These properties were achieved by introducing the ipd079Ea, mo-pat and pmi expression cassettes. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics tested between maize DP915635 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for the levels of crude protein in forage, which does not raise nutritional and safety concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the IPD079Ea, PAT and PMI proteins expressed in maize DP915635. The GMO Panel finds no evidence that the genetic modification impacts the overall safety of maize DP915635. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize DP915635 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DP915635 is as safe as the conventional counterpart and non-GM maize varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize DP915635 grains into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize DP915635. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DP915635 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM maize varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
RESUMO
Genetically modified maize DP23211 was developed to confer control of certain coleopteran pests and tolerance to glufosinate-containing herbicide. These properties were achieved by introducing the pmi, mo-pat, ipd072Aa and DvSSJ1 expression cassettes. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics tested between maize DP23211 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for those in levels of histidine, phenylalanine, magnesium, phosphorus and folic acid in grain, which do not raise safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the IPD072Aa, PAT and PMI proteins and the DvSSJ1 dsRNA and derived siRNAs newly expressed in maize DP23211, and finds no evidence that the genetic modification impacts the overall safety of maize DP23211. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize DP23211 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. Therefore, no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize DP23211 grains into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize DP23211. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DP23211 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
RESUMO
Following a request from the European Commission, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) assessed the 2021 post-market environmental monitoring (PMEM) report on the cultivation of Cry1Ab-expressing maize event MON 810. Evidence provided in the PMEM report shows that farmers growing maize MON 810 in Spain complied partially with refuge requirements, while full compliance was achieved in Portugal. Cry1Ab susceptibility tests performed on European and Mediterranean corn borer populations collected from north-eastern Spain in 2021 indicated no symptoms of resistance evolution to maize MON 810. However, unexpected damage to maize MON 810 plants was observed in a field trial in the province of Girona (north-eastern Spain), which may point to the presence of resistance alleles in this region. Information retrieved through farmer questionnaires and the scientific literature reveals no unanticipated adverse effects on human and animal health or the environment arising from the cultivation of maize MON 810. Overall, EFSA concludes that the evidence reported in the 2021 PMEM report does not invalidate its previous conclusions on the safety of maize MON 810. The possible presence of Cry1Ab resistance alleles at frequencies leading to damage to maize MON 810 plants in Girona requires twofold actions: (1) increase monitoring efforts in this area; and (2) implement remedial measures to limit the suspected evolution and spread of resistance. As in previous years, EFSA identified shortcomings on resistance monitoring that need revision. In particular, full refuge compliance must be achieved in Spain. Moreover, the sensitivity of the monitoring plan must be increased, which can be achieved by replacing the current susceptibility assays by periodic F2 screens. EFSA also recommends the consent holder to revise the farmer questionnaires to account for the emergence of teosinte as a noxious agricultural weed in maize MON 810-growing areas in Spain.
RESUMO
Genetically modified maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × MON 89034 × 5307 × GA21 was developed by crossing to combine six single events: Bt11, MIR162, MIR604, MON 89034, 5307 and GA21, the GMO Panel previously assessed the 6 single maize events and 27 out of the 56 possible subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the assessed subcombinations were identified that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in the six-event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that six-event stack maize, as described in this application, is as safe as the conventional counterpart and non-GM maize varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable six-event stack maize grains into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events in 29 of the maize subcombinations not previously assessed and covered by the scope of this application and concludes that these are expected to be as safe as the single events, the previously assessed subcombinations and the six-event stack maize. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × MON 89034 × 5307 × GA21. The GMO Panel concludes that six-event stack maize and the 30 subcombinations covered by the scope of the application are as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM maize varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
RESUMO
Genetically modified cotton COT102 was developed to confer resistance against several lepidopteran species. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the differences in the agronomic-phenotypic and compositional characteristics between cotton COT102 and its non-GM comparator needs further assessment, except for levels of acid detergent fibre, which do not raise safety or nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the Vip3Aa19 and APH4 proteins as expressed in cotton COT102 and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of cotton COT102. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from cotton COT102 does not represent a nutritional concern for humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that cotton COT102 is as safe as the non-GM comparator and non-GM cotton varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable cotton COT102 seeds into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of cotton COT102. The GMO Panel concludes that cotton COT102 is as safe as its non-GM comparator and the tested non-GM cotton varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
RESUMO
Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-024 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from BASF Agricultural Solutions Seed US LLC, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the herbicide tolerant genetically modified oilseed rape MS8, RF3 and MS8 × RF3, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post-market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses, and additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequences of the events in oilseed rape MS8, RF3 and MS8 × RF3 considered for renewal are identical to the sequences of the originally assessed events, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA-GMO-RX-024 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on oilseed rape MS8, RF3 and MS8 × RF3.
RESUMO
Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-022 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer CropScience LP, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant genetically modified soybean MON 87701 × MON 89788, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post-market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses, and additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequences of the events in soybean MON 87701 × MON 89788 considered for renewal are identical to the sequences of the originally assessed event, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA-GMO-RX-022 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on soybean MON 87701 × MON 89788.
RESUMO
Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-023 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer Agriculture BV on behalf of Bayer CropScience LP, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the herbicide-tolerant genetically modified soybean 40-3-2, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post-market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses, and additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequence of the event in soybean 40-3-2 considered for renewal is identical to the sequence of the originally assessed event, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA-GMO-RX-023 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on soybean 40-3-2.
RESUMO
Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-021 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer CropScience LP, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the insect-resistant genetically modified soybean MON 87701, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post-market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses and additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequences of the event in soybean MON 87701 considered for renewal is identical to the sequences of the originally assessed event, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA-GMO-RX-021 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on soybean MON 87701.
RESUMO
Genetically modified maize MON 95379 was developed to confer insect protection against certain lepidopteran species. These properties were achieved by introducing the cry1B.868 and cry1Da_7 expression cassettes. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics tested between maize MON 95379 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the Cry1B.868 and Cry1Da_7 proteins as expressed in maize MON 95379. The GMO Panel finds no evidence that the genetic modification impacts the overall safety of maize MON 95379. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize MON 95379 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. Therefore, no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize MON 95379 grains into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize MON 95379. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 95379 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM maize varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
RESUMO
Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-019 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Corteva Agriscience LLC represented by Corteva Agriscience Belgium B.V., the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the insect resistant genetically modified cotton 281-24-236 × 3006-210-23, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post-market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses, and additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. The GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA-GMO-RX-019 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on cotton 281-24-236 × 3006-210-23.
RESUMO
Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-026/1 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer Agriculture BV on behalf of Bayer CropScience LP, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for foods and food ingredients containing, consisting of, or produced from oilseed rape GT73 with the exception of isolated seed protein, and feed produced from this GM oilseed rape, excluding cultivation in the EU. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post-market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses, and a search for additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequences of the events in oilseed rape GT73 considered for renewal are identical to the sequences of the originally assessed event, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA-GMO-RX-026/1 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on oilseed rape GT73.
RESUMO
Since 1998, genetically engineered Bt maize varieties expressing the insecticidal Cry1Ab protein (i.e. event MON 810) have been grown in the European Union (EU), mainly in Spain. These varieties confer resistance against the European and Mediterranean corn borer (ECB and MCB), which are the major lepidopteran maize pests in the EU, particularly in Mediterranean areas. However, widespread, repeated and exclusive use of Bt maize is anticipated to increase the risk of Cry1Ab resistance to evolve in corn borer populations. To delay resistance evolution, typically, refuges of non-Bt maize are planted near or adjacent to, or within Bt maize fields. Moreover, changes in Cry1Ab susceptibility in field populations of corn borers and unexpected damage to maize MON 810, due to corn borers, are monitored on an annual basis. After two decades of Bt maize cultivation in Spain, neither resistant corn borer populations nor farmer complaints on unexpected field damage have been reported. However, whether the resistance monitoring strategy followed in Spain, currently based on discriminating concentration bioassays, is sufficiently sensitive to timely detect early warning signs of resistance in the field remains a point of contention. Moreover, the Cry1Ab resistance allele frequency to Bt maize, which has recently been estimated in MCB populations from north-eastern Spain, might exceed that recommended for successful resistance management. To ensure Bt maize durability in Spain, it is key that adequate resistance management approaches, including monitoring of resistance and farmer compliance with refuge requirements, continue to be implemented and are incorporated in integrated pest management schemes.
Assuntos
Bacillus thuringiensis , Mariposas , Animais , Bacillus thuringiensis/genética , Proteínas de Bactérias/genética , Endotoxinas/genética , Proteínas Hemolisinas/genética , Resistência a Inseticidas/genética , Larva , Controle Biológico de Vetores , Plantas Geneticamente Modificadas/genética , Espanha , Zea mays/genéticaRESUMO
Potential future application of engineered gene drives (GDs), which bias their own inheritance and can spread genetic modifications in wild target populations, has sparked both enthusiasm and concern. Engineered GDs in insects could potentially be used to address long-standing challenges in control of disease vectors, agricultural pests and invasive species, or help to rescue endangered species, and thus provide important public benefits. However, there are concerns that the deliberate environmental release of GD modified insects may pose different or new harms to animal and human health and the wider environment, and raise novel challenges for risk assessment. Risk assessors, risk managers, developers, potential applicants and other stakeholders at many levels are currently discussing whether there is a need to develop new or additional risk assessment guidance for the environmental release of GD modified organisms, including insects. Developing new or additional guidance that is useful and practical is a challenge, especially at an international level, as risk assessors, risk managers and many other stakeholders have different, often contrasting, opinions and perspectives toward the environmental release of GD modified organisms, and on the adequacy of current risk assessment frameworks for such organisms. Here, we offer recommendations to overcome some of the challenges associated with the potential future development of new or additional risk assessment guidance for GD modified insects and provide considerations on areas where further risk assessment guidance may be required.
Assuntos
Tecnologia de Impulso Genético , Animais , Vetores de Doenças , Humanos , Insetos/genética , Espécies Introduzidas , Medição de RiscoRESUMO
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA assessed the 2017 post-market environmental monitoring (PMEM) report on the cultivation of Cry1Ab-expressing maize event MON 810. Like previous years, partial compliance with refuge requirements is reported for Spain. European and Mediterranean corn borer populations collected from North-eastern Spain during the 2017 maize growing season and tested for Cry1Ab susceptibility show no symptoms of resistance to maize MON 810. No complaints about unexpected field damage caused by corn borers were received through the farmer complaint system. The assessment of farmer questionnaires and relevant scientific publications does not indicate any unanticipated adverse effects on human and animal health or the environment arising from the cultivation of maize MON 810. No information about the use of existing networks involved in environmental monitoring is provided. Overall, EFSA concludes that the evidence reported in the 2017 PMEM report does not invalidate previous EFSA and GMO Panel evaluations on the safety of maize MON 810. As in previous years, EFSA identifies methodological and reporting shortcomings pertaining to resistance monitoring that need revision in future PMEM reports. In particular, the monitoring plan, as implemented in 2017, is not sufficiently sensitive to detect the recommended 3% resistance allele frequency. Consequently, EFSA strongly recommends the consent holder to: (1) achieve full compliance with refuge requirements in areas where maize MON 810 adoption is high (i.e. North-eastern Spain); (2) increase the sensitivity of the resistance monitoring plan and address previously mentioned methodological, analytical and/or reporting limitations for resistance monitoring and farmer questionnaires; and (3) perform a F2-screen on European and Mediterranean corn borer populations from North-eastern Spain. Moreover, relevant stakeholders should implement a methodological framework to enable making best use of existing networks involved in environmental monitoring for the general surveillance of genetically modified plants.
RESUMO
The Ebro Valley (Spain) is the only hotspot area in Europe where resistance evolution of target pests to Cry1Ab protein is most likely, owing to the high and regular adoption of Bt maize (>60%). The high-dose/refuge (HDR) strategy was implemented to delay resistance evolution, and to be effective it requires the frequency of resistance alleles to be very low (<0.001). An F2 screen was performed in 2016 to estimate the frequency of resistance alleles in Sesamia nonagrioides from this area and to evaluate if the HDR strategy is still working effectively. Out of the 137 isofemale lines screened on Cry1Ab maize leaf tissue, molted larvae and extensive feeding were observed for two consecutive generations in one line, indicating this line carried a resistance allele. The frequency of resistance alleles in 2016 was 0.0036 (CI 95% 0.0004-0.0100), higher but not statistically different from the value obtained in 2004-2005. Resistance does not seem to be evolving faster than predicted by a S. nonagrioides resistance evolution model, but the frequency of resistance is now triple the value recommended for an effective implementation of the HDR strategy. Owing to this, complementary measures should be considered to further delay resistance evolution in the Ebro Valley.
Assuntos
Proteínas de Bactérias/genética , Endotoxinas/genética , Proteínas Hemolisinas/genética , Mariposas/fisiologia , Doenças das Plantas/genética , Doenças das Plantas/parasitologia , Plantas Geneticamente Modificadas/genética , Zea mays/genética , Animais , Toxinas de Bacillus thuringiensis , Resistência à Doença , Europa (Continente) , Frequência do Gene , Resistência a Inseticidas , Controle Biológico de Vetores , Doenças das Plantas/prevenção & controle , Plantas Geneticamente Modificadas/parasitologia , Zea mays/parasitologiaRESUMO
The fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith), is a major target pest of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) maize and cotton in America. Since the commercialization of Cry1F maize (event TC1507) in 2003, resistance to Cry1F maize in field populations of S. frugiperda has occurred in Puerto Rico, Brazil and the southeast region of the United States. In this paper, we conducted a comparative analysis of the inheritance of two Cry1F-resistant colonies of S. frugiperda originated from Puerto Rico (PR) and Florida (FL), respectively. The objective of the analysis was to determine if the genetic basis of the resistance was similar in the two different originated colonies. To accomplish the objective, besides PR, FL, and a known Cry1F-susceptible colony, 14 additional colonies were developed by reciprocal crosses among the three parents, F1 by F1 crosses, backcrosses, and intercolony-crosses between PR and FL. Larval mortalities of the 17 colonies were assayed on both Cry1F maize leaf tissue and Cry1F-treated diet at the concentrations of 3.16, 10.00, and 31.60µg/g. Resistance to Cry1F in both PR and FL was autosomal and recessive or incompletely recessive. Segregations in F2 and backcrossed generations associated with FL fitted the Mendelian monogenic model well, while with PR the segregations did not follow the single gene model in some bioassays. Further analyses with the intercolony complementation tests showed a similar level of resistance in the F1 progeny as their parents FL and PR. Together with the data, it was likely that a single (or a few tightly-linked) gene was involved in FL; PR shared the same locus of the major resistance gene as FL, but the resistance in PR might also be associated with additional minor factors. Information generated from this study should be useful in understanding the origin of Cry1F resistance in the U.S. mainland and developing effective strategies for Bt resistance management in S. frugiperda.
