Resistance of Trichoplusia ni Populations Selected by Bacillus thuringiensis Sprays to Cotton Plants Expressing Pyramided Bacillus thuringiensis Toxins Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two populations of Trichoplusia ni that had developed resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis sprays (Bt sprays) in commercial greenhouse vegetable production were tested for resistance to Bt cotton (BollGard II) plants expressing pyramided Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab. The T. ni colonies resistant to Bacillus thuringiensis serovar kurstaki formulations were not only resistant to the Bt toxin Cry1Ac, as previously reported, but also had a high frequency of Cry2Ab-resistant alleles, exhibiting ca. 20% survival on BollGard II foliage. BollGard II-resistant T. ni strains were established by selection with BollGard II foliage to further remove Cry2Ab-sensitive alleles in the T. ni populations. The BollGard II-resistant strains showed incomplete resistance to BollGard II, with adjusted survival values of 0.50 to 0.78 after 7 days. The resistance to the dual-toxin cotton plants was conferred by two genetically independent resistance mechanisms: one to Cry1Ac and one to Cry2Ab. The 50% lethal concentration of Cry2Ab for the resistant strain was at least 1,467-fold that for the susceptible T. ni strain. The resistance to Cry2Ab in resistant T. ni was an autosomally inherited, incompletely recessive monogenic trait. Results from this study indicate that insect populations under selection by Bt sprays in agriculture can be resistant to multiple Bt toxins and may potentially confer resistance to multitoxin Bt crops.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".