Binding and toxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis protein Cry1C to susceptible and resistant in diamondback moth (lepidoptera: plutellidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied mechanisms of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal crystal protein Cry1C in the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (L.). Binding assays with midgut brush border membrane vesicles prepared from whole larvae showed no signiÞcant difference between resistant and susceptible strains in binding of radioactively-labeled Cry1C. These results indicate that reduced binding of Cry1C to midgut membrane target sites did not cause resistance to Cry1C. Thus, the mechanism of resistance to Cry1C differs from that observed in several previously reported cases of resistance to Cry1A toxins in diamondback moth. We tested Cry1C toxin and Cry1C crystalline protoxin against resistant and susceptible larvae using leaf disk bioassays. After adjusting for the size difference between Cry1C toxin and protoxin, we found that with resistant larvae, toxin was signiÞcantly more toxic than protoxin. In contrast, with susceptible larvae, no signiÞcant difference in toxicity occurred between Cry1C toxin and protoxin. The resistance ratios for Cry1C were 19 for toxin and 48 for protoxin. These results suggest that reduced conversion of Cry1C protoxin to toxin is a minor mechanism of resistance to Cry1C. Because neither reduced binding nor reduced conversion of protoxin to toxin appear to be major mechanisms, one or more other mechanisms are important in diamondback moth resistance to Cry1C.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".