Advertisement

Novel Insect Resistance Using Protease Inhibitor Genes

  • Angharad M. R. Gatehouse
  • Donald Boulter
  • Vaughan A. Hilder
Part of the Plant Gene Research book series (GENE)

Abstract

Crop plants have been primarily selected for high yields, nutritional value, including low mammalian toxicity and, where necessary, adaptation to certain environmental conditions. This “selection pressure” over the centuries has severely disrupted the co-evolutionary relationships between plants and insects with the consequence that very few cultivated species have retained the degree of resistance exhibited by their wild relatives (Feeny, 1976). For example, since the complex phenolic, gossypol, is toxic to mammals and so interferes with the utilisation of cotton seed meal as an animal feed, lines devoid of this compound have been selected for. This has resulted in the new improved lines being extremely susceptible to attack by the cotton budworm Heliothis virescens (Berardi and Goldblatt, 1980) towards which gossypol is toxic. An additional problem is encountered when crop plants are introduced into foreign geographical regions and so are exposed to an array of pests and diseases to which they have not had the opportunity to evolve any defence mechanisms. A classic example is illustrated by potato damage. On its introduction from Bolivia into the South Western United States the crop became exposed to the Colorado beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata) towards which it had no inherent resistance; this insect pest has subsequently become established as the most serious insect pest of potato worldwide. In 1988 the insecticide expenditure for protection of potato was estimated to be US$ 198 million (Table 1).

Keywords

Trypsin Inhibitor Transgenic Tobacco Plant Insect Resistance Vigna Unguiculata Protease Inhibitor Gene 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. An G, Watson BD, Chiang CC (1986) Transformation of tobacco, tomato, potato and Arabidopsis thaliana using a binary Ti vector system. Plant Physiol 81: 301–305PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Applebaum SW, Birk Y, Harpaz I, Bondi A (1964) Comparative studies on proteolytic enzymes of Tenebrio molitor L. Comp Biochem Physiol 11: 85–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Applebaum SW, Konijn AM (1966) The presence of a Tribolium-protease inhibitor in wheat. J Insect Physiol 12: 665–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barton KA, Whiteley HR, Yang N-S (1987) Bacillus thuringiensis-endotoxin expressed in Nicotiana tabacum provides resistance to lepidopteran insects. Plant Physiol 85: 1103–1109Google Scholar
  5. Baulcombe DC, Saunders GR, Bevan M, Mayo MA, Harrison BD (1986) Expression of biologically active viral satellite RNA from the nuclear genome of transformed plants. Nature 321: 446–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berardi LC, Goldblatt LA (1980) Gossypol. In: Liener IE (ed) Toxic constituents of plant foodstuffs, 2nd edn. Academic Press, New York, pp 183–237Google Scholar
  7. Bevan M (1984) Binary Agrobacterium vectors for plant transformation. Nucleic Acids Res 12: 8711–8721PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bevan M, Barnes WM, Chilton MD (1983) Structure and transcription of the nopaline synthase gene region of T-DNA. Nucleic Acids Res 11: 369–385PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Birk Y, Gertler A, Khalef S (1963) Separation of a Tribolium-protease inhibitor from soybeans on a calcium phosphate column. Biochim Biophys Acta 67: 326–328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Broadway RM, Duffy SS (1986) Plant proteinase inhibiitors: mechanism of action and effect on the growth and digestive physiology of larval Heliothis zea and Spodoptera exigua. J Insect Physiol 32: 827–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campos FAP, Richardson M (1983) The complete amino acid sequence of the bifunctional aamylase/trypsin inhibitor from seeds of ragi (Indian finger millet, Eleusine coracana Gaertn.). FEBS Lett 152: 300–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cleveland TE, Thornburg RW, Ryan CA (1987) Molecular characterization of a wound-inducible inhibitor I gene from potato and the processing of its mRNA and protein. Plant Mol Biol 8: 199–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dulmage HT (1981) Insecticidal activity of isolates of Bacillus thuringiensis and their potential for pest control. In: Burges HD (ed) Microbial control of pests and plant diseases 1970–1980. Academic Press, New York, pp 193–222Google Scholar
  14. Ellis JR, Shirsat AH, Hepher A, Yarwood JN, Gatehouse JA, Croy RRD, Boulter D (1988) Tissue specific expression of a pea legumin gene in seeds of Nicotiana plumbaginifolia. Plant Mol Biol 10: 203–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feeny PP (1976) Plant apparency and chemical defence. Recent Adv Phytochem 10: 1–40 Fischhoff DA, Bowdish KS, Perlak FJ, Marrone PG, McCormick SM, Niedermeyer JGGoogle Scholar
  16. Dean DA, Kusano-Kretzmer K, Mayer EJ, Rochester DE, Rogers SG, Fraley RT (1987) Insect tolerant transgenic tomato plants. Biotechnology 5: 807–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gatehouse AMR, Boulter D (1983) Assessment of the anti-metabolic effects of trypsin inhibitors from cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) and other legumes on development of the bruchid beetle Callosobruchus maculatus. J Sci Food Agricult 34: 345–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gatehouse AMR, Hilder VA (1988) Introduction of genes conferring insect resistance. In: Proceedings of Brighton Crop Protection Conference, vol 3. Lavenham Press, Suffolk, UK, pp 1234–1254Google Scholar
  19. Gatehouse AMR, Gatehouse JA, Dobie P, Kilminster AM, Boulter D (1979) Biochemical basis of insect resistance in Vigna unguiculata. J Sci Food Agricult 30: 948–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gatehouse AMR, Gatehouse JA, Boulter D (1980) Isolation and characterisation of trypsin inhibitors from cowpea. Phytochemistry 19: 751–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gatehouse JA, Hilder VA, Gatehouse AMR (1990) Genetic engineering of plants for insect resistance. In: Grierson D (ed) Plant genetic engineering. Blackie & Son, Glasgow, pp 105–135 (Plant biotechnology series, vol 1 )Google Scholar
  22. Gennis LS, Cantor CR (1976) Double-headed protease inhibitors from black-eyed peas. I. Purification of two new protease inhibitors and the endogenous protease by affinity chromatography. J Biol Chem 251: 734–740Google Scholar
  23. Graham JS, Hall G, Pearce G, Ryan CA (1986) Regulation of synthesis of proteinase inhibitors I and II mRNAs in leaves of wounded tomato plants. Planta 169: 399–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Green TR, Ryan CA (1972) Wound-induced proteinase inhibitor in plant leaves: a possible defense mechanism against insects. Science 175: 776–777PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Guilley H, Dudley RK, Jonard G, Balazs E, Richards KE (1982) Transcription of cauliflower mosaic virus DNA: detection of promoter sequences and characterisation of transcripts. Cell 30: 763–773PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harmsen R, Bliss FA, Cardona C, Posso CE, Osborn TC (1988) Transferring genes for arcelin protein from wild to cultivated beans: implications for bruchid resistance. Annu Rep Bean Improvement Coop 31: 54–55Google Scholar
  27. Hilder VA, Gatehouse AMR, Sheerman SE, Barker F, Boulter D (1987) A novel mechanism of insect resistance engineered into tobacco. Nature 330: 160–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hilder VA, Barker RF, Samour RA, Gatehouse AMR, Gatehouse JA, Boulter D (1989) Protein and cDNA sequences of Bowman-Birk protease inhibitors from the cowpea (Vigna unguiculata Walp.). Plant Mol Biol 13: 701–710PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hilder VA, Gatehouse AMR, Boulter D (1989) Potential for exploiting plant genes to genetically engineer insect resistance, exemplified by the cowpea trypsin inhibitor gene. Pestic Sci 27: 165–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hilder VA, Gatehouse AMR, Boulter D (1990) Genetic engineering of crops for insect resistance using genes of plant origin. In: Lycett GW, Grierson D (eds) Genetic engineering of crop plants. Butterworth, Guildford, pp 51–66Google Scholar
  31. Horsch RB, Fry JE, Hoffman NL, Eichholtz D, Rogers SG, Fraley RT (1985) A simple and general method for transferring genes into plants. Science 227: 1229–1231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jahn R, Schiebler W, Greengard P (1984) A quantitative dot-immunobinding assay for proteins using nitrocellulose membrane filters. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 81: 1684–1687PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnson R, Narvaez J, An G, Ryan CA (1990) Expression of proteinase inhibitors I and II in transgenic tobacco plants: effects on natural defense against Manduca sexta larvae. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 86: 9871–9875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Laskowski M Jr, Sealock RW (1971) Protein proteinase inhibitors molecular aspects. In: Boyer P (ed) The enzymes, vol 3. Academic Press, New York pp 375–473Google Scholar
  35. Lipke H, Fraenkel GS, Liener IE (1954) Effect of soybean inhibitors on growth of Tribolium confusum. J Agricult Food Chem 2: 410–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mickel CE, Standish J (1947) Susceptibility of processed soy flour and soy grits in storage to attack by Tribolium castaneum ( Herbst ). Univ Minn Agricult Exp Stat Tech Bull 178: 1–20Google Scholar
  37. Odani S, Ikenaka T (1972) Studies on soybean trypsin inhibitors. IV. Complete amino acid sequence and the anti-proteinase sites of Bowman-Birk soybean proteinase inhibitor. J Biochem 71: 839–848Google Scholar
  38. Plunkett G, Senear DF, Zuroske G, Ryan CA (1982) Proteinase inhibitors I and II from leaves of wounded tomato plants: purification and properties. Arch Biochem Biophys 213: 463–472PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Richardson M (1977) The proteinase inhibitors of plants and microorganisms. Phytochemistry 16: 159–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ryan CA (1983) Insect induced chemical signals regulating natural plant protection responses. In: Denno RF, McClure MS (eds) Variable plants and herbivores in natural and managed systems. Academic Press, New York, pp 43–60Google Scholar
  41. Sacchi VF, Parenti P, Hanozet GM, Giordanda B, Lutly P, Wolfersberger MG (1986) Bacillus thuringiensis toxin inhibits Ktgradient-dependent amino acid transport across the brush border membrane of Pieris brassicae midgut cells. FEBS Lett 204: 213Google Scholar
  42. Seidl DS, Liener IE (1971) Identification of the trypsin-reactive site of the Bowman-Birk soybean inhibitor. Biochim Biophys Acta 251: 83–93PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Shivaraj B, Pattabiraman TN (1981) Natural plant enzyme inhibitors. Characterisation of an unusual a-amylase/trypsin inhibitor from ragi (Eleusine coracana Geartn.). Biochem J 193: 29–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Shumway LK, Rancour JM, Ryan CA (1970) Vacuolar protein bodies in tomato leaf cells and their relationship to storage of chymotrypsin inhibitor I protein. Planta 93: 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shumway LK, Yang VV, Ryan CA (1976) Evidence for the presence of proteinase inhibitor I in vacuolar protein bodies of plant cells. Planta 129: 161–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Steffens R, Fox FR, Kassel B (1978) Effect of trypsin inhibitors on growth and metamorphosis of corn borer larvae Ostrinia nubilalis ( Hubner ). J Agricult Food Chem 26: 170–174Google Scholar
  47. Vaeck M, Reynaerts A, Hofte H, Jansens S, De Beuckeleer MD, Dean C, Zabeau M, Van Montagu MV, Leemans J (1987) Transgenic plants protected from insect attack. Nature 328: 33–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Walker-Simmons M, Ryan CA (1977) Immunological identification of proteinase inhibitors I and II in isolated tomato leaf vacuoles. Plant Physiol 60: 61–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Xavier-Filho J, Campos FAP, Ary MB, Silva CP, Carvalho MMM, Macedo MLR, Lemos FJA, Grant G (1989) Poor correlation between levels of proteinase inhibitors found in seeds of different cultivars of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) and the resistance/susceptibility to predation by Callosobruchus maculatus. J Agricult Food Chem 37: 1139–1143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zwilling R (1968) Evolution of the endopeptidases IV. Alpha-and beta-protease of Tenebrio molitor Z Physiol Chem 349: 326–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag/Wien 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angharad M. R. Gatehouse
    • 1
  • Donald Boulter
    • 1
  • Vaughan A. Hilder
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of DurhamDurhamUK

Personalised recommendations