Skip to main content

Potential of Cry1Ac from Bacillus thuringiensis against the tomato pinworm, Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (Gelechiidae: Lepidoptera)

Abstract

The tomato pinworm, Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (Gelechiidae: Lepidoptera), is an introduced serious pest of tomato in India. Management of this insect pest mainly relies on insecticides because of its high infestation levels on all plant parts and life stages of tomato crop. This laboratory study investigated the efficacy of Cry1Ac protein of Bacillus thuringiensis against T. absoluta. The LC50 and LC95 values for 2nd, 3rd, and 4th larval instars were 0.12, 0.27, and 0.43 μg/ml and 0.63, 0.71, and 2.64 μg/ml, respectively. Experimental results showed that Cry1Ac is effective against different larval instars of tomato pinworm.

Background

The tomato pinworm (TPW), Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (Gelechiidae: Lepidoptera), is an important pest of tomato in India. It is a micro-lepidopteran and oligophagous pest native of South America. It was described by E. Meyrick in Peru during 1917. Tomatoes are grown both under greenhouse and open field conditions. One of the major limiting factors in tomato production is T. absoluta, a global invasive pest. In India, this pest was initially observed in Pune, Maharashtra, in both polyhouse and open field tomatoes in October 2014. The maximum level of infestation causes 80–100% yield loss (Tropea Garzia et al. 2012; Shashank et al., 2015).

Among several management options, more reliance on insecticides may not be viable as they provide ephemeral benefits, often with adverse side effects. Evolution of pesticide-resistant strains has been reported in South America and Europe due to repeated and heavy use of pesticides (Silva et al., 2011). One alternative to insecticides is the use of biological insecticides like Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) that expresses insecticidal crystal (CRY) proteins during sporulation phase of its growth cycle. These crystal proteins, which are sequestered in bacteria as crystalline inclusions, mediate specific pathogenicity against insects. It has been found to be a very effective, environmentally safe, and insect-specific biopesticide. Toxicity of Bt spray-able formulations, which are considered highly effective, selective, safe, and compatible in integrated pest management, is largely due to Cry toxins (Sanyasi and Govind, 2011).

Alternatives like biological preparations from Bt reduced T. absoluta damage up to 90%, but showed poor field persistence and need for repeated applications (Gonzalez-Cabrera et al. 2011). Bt var. kurstaki still exhibits a satisfactory efficacy against T. absoluta larval infestations in Spanish outbreaks (Sanda et al., 2018). According to the different varieties, Bt is highly specific to some insect orders including Lepidoptera, Diptera, and Coleoptera. Bt formulates are very effective against T. absoluta under laboratory, greenhouse, and field conditions (Ghazwan et al., 2017). The present study was undertaken to evaluate the potential of Bt toxin Cry1Ac against larval instars of T. absoluta under laboratory conditions.

Materials and methods

Purified Cry1Ac toxin was obtained from the Centre for Plant Molecular Biology and Biotechnology (CPMB& B), Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU), Coimbatore, India. Original JM (Jockey Mango) 103 E. coli strain expressing Cry1Ac gene was originally obtained from Dr. Neil Crickmore’s Lab, University of Sussex, UK, and Cry1Ac was extracted as described by Sayyed et al. (2000). Cry1Ac toxin was stored at – 20 °C.

All the experiments were conducted at Horticultural College & Research Institute, Periyakulam, TNAU. The culture of tomato pinworm was maintained on tomato plants (PKM1) for 2 generations prior to use in leaf dip bioassay studies under laboratory conditions. The toxin dilutions were freshly prepared for each assay (Dakshina and Gary, 2003). For LC50 estimation, bioassay studies were conducted by different concentrations. The concentrations of Bt protein were prepared separately for 2nd instar (0.05, 0.10, 0.15, 0.20, 0.25, and 0.30 μg/ml), 3rd instar (0.15, 0.20, 0.25, 0.30, 0.35, and 0.40 μg/ml), and 4th instar (0.10, 0.20, 0.30, 0.40, 0.50, and 0.60 μg/ml) in separate experiments. All concentrations were made up to a total volume of 25 ml in a glass beaker. To determine LC50 values for toxic concentrations in the exposure experiments, preliminary bioassays were conducted. Different known concentrations of Cry1Ac protein were used and prepared in 0.02% Tween 20, using double distilled water.

Fresh leaves were placed in a plastic container (2-cm diameter and 3-cm height) into which 2% melted agar (allowed to cool) was added and then leaf discs (1-cm diameter) were placed to maintain turgidity, and individual larvae per container were released. Pot-cultured 45-day-old plant tomato (PKM1) leaf discs were immersed in each suspension for 1 min, and then air dried. Groups of 10 T. absoluta larvae (2nd, 3rd, and 4th separately), pre-starved for 4 h, were allowed to feed on the treated leaves. For untreated check, the larvae were fed on untreated leaves (leaves dipped in 0.02% Tween 20 and air dried). A minimum of 30 insects per concentration were used; each concentration had 3 subsets as replicates. Each assay was performed 2–3 times. All bioassays were carried out under a controlled environment at 25 ± 5 °C and 80% RH with a 12:12 h (D:L).

Data analysis

Mortality rates of larvae at 24-h intervals for 5 days after initiation of the experiment were recorded. Any larva failed to move when touched repeatedly was considered dead. Corrected mortality percentages were worked out, using Abbott’s formula (Abbott, 1925), and subjected to probit analysis (Finney, 1971) from EPA Probit Analysis Program (version 1.5).

Results and discussion

The results of the probit regression analysis of concentration-response mortality data for the bioassays of Cry1Ac to T. absoluta were recorded. The slope values of different larval instars varied significantly, indicating variability in the susceptibility to Cry1Ac among the larval stages. T. absoluta showed variable responses to Cry1Ac as reflected in the LC50 values for 2nd, 3rd, and 4th instar larvae. Cry1Ac showed toxicity to all larval instars of pinworm. Based on the concentration mortality response to Cry1Ac, the LC50 and LC95 values for 2nd, 3rd, and 4th instars were 0.12, 0.27, and 0.43 μg/ml and 0.63, 0.71, and 2.64 μg/ml, respectively (Table 1). The susceptibilities of different larval instars of tomato pinworm to Cry1Ac protein produced by Bt var. kurstaki were presented in Fig. 1. At LC50, 50% mortality was observed in the 3rd day of treatment, in all the instars tested. Based on the present study, it is evident that all the larval instars of the pest were susceptible to the Cry1Ac of Bt. The results indicated that susceptibility of larvae decreased with larval developmental stage.

Table 1 Toxicity of Cry1Ac protein from Bacillus thuringiensis to 2nd, 3rd, and 4th larval instars of tomato pinworm, Tuta absoluta
Fig. 1
figure1

Mortality of different Tuta absoluta larval instars caused by Cry1Ac at LC50

Variations in susceptibility of tomato pinworm depend on the age of the insect, and susceptibility decreased with the age of the insect. Control measures are sometimes ineffective because larvae feed inside the galleries formed from mesophyll tissues (Desneux et al., 2011).

Obtained results are in accordance with Dakshina and Gary (2003) who reported that CRY I toxin was toxic to tomato pinworm, Keiferia lycopersicella, with LC50 = 17.68 to 56.00 μg/ml in Florida, with 3.17-fold difference (lab population; Homestead LC50 value 17.68 with resistant population Guasava 1 with LC50 value 56.00). Similarly, when Helicoverpa armigera (Hub.) was continuously exposed to Cry1Ac toxin under laboratory conditions, resistance has been developed (Kranthi et al., 2000) as well, against the beet armyworm, Spodoptera exigua (Hubner) (Muhammad et al., 2019). The present results are in accordance with Kannan and Uthamasamy (2006) who reported the LC50 values were 0.119 μg/ml for H. armigera. Susceptibility to Cry1Ac for H. armigera geographically varied between India, America, and China.

However, a repeated and intensive use of Bt formulations may lead to resistance in the case of Plutella xylostella (Tabashnik and Carriere, 2017). The use of biopesticides is one effective way of coping with insect pests. Of the total production of biopesticides, entomopathogenic bacteria (mostly Bt) amount to 90%. Bt has been commercially used in the biological control of insect pests for the last 4 decades. Bt strains can produce toxic compounds of numerous chemical structures and properties. Selectivity of Bt δ-endotoxins against the larvae of target insects was documented earlier (Stepanova et al., 1996). As Cry1Ac was toxic to all the instars of TPW, yield loss due to this pest can be efficiently reduced by Bt-based formulations. From the bioassay LC50 values obtained for all instars, it is evident that the populations of Tamil Nadu were enough susceptible for effective control. Further, if we can establish the quantity of Bt toxin required, the information will be useful, while developing transgenic tomato crops, it will give an idea about the required level of Bt toxin expression.

Bt products/ commercial formulations are environmentally safe and provide good yield without any chemical residues and exhibited satisfactory efficacy against T. absoluta. Srinivasan and Dilipsundar (2019) reported that Dipel (Bt var. kurstaki) was very effective against tomato pinworm with 78.67% reduction in larval population by field evaluation. Youssef and Hassan (2013) reported that the commercial formulation “Protecto” was highly effective against tomato pinworm with 96.7% mortality and other Bt isolates with 93.3, 90, 86.7, and 80% mortalities. Gowtham et al. (2018) stated that standard Bt strain (HD1) and Bt isolate KGS2 showed 95 and 100% mortality against tomato pinworm. Hatice et al. (2017) transferred a modified Bt Cry1Ac gene to tomato plants through Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation. Cry1Ac-expressed tomato plants resulted in mortality rates at 38–100% depending on the transgenic line. In infested leaves, gallery formation was reduced to 57–100% of transgenic plants. This is the first report on the development of transgenic tomato plants resistant to T. absoluta.

Bioassays of the viable biocide in the laboratory showed high efficacy in dropping the damage caused by various larval instars of T. absoluta at different concentrations compared to untreated control. First and 2nd instars recorded the highest mortality rates, while it was less in 3rd and 4th larval instars. Quite a few pest instars were found to be susceptible to Bt to a different extent (Giustolin et al., 2001). Also, in the later instars, the lowest mortality rate was probably due to increased maturation immunity of the larvae. On the other hand, the early instars suffered from higher mortality compared to the late instars. The capacity of Bt subsp. kurstaki as commercial biocide in reducing pests of economic importance is well known as a key part of IPM programs (Roh et al., 2007).

Conclusion

Different instars of T. absoluta to Cry1Ac protein produced by Bt var. kurstaki showed susceptible reactions. LC50 values for different instars varied significantly, indicating variability in the susceptibility among the instars to the Cry1Ac. This information may establish a base for selecting Bt Cry1Ac to be used for the control of tomato pinworm.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable

Abbreviations

TPW:

Tomato pinworm

T. absoluta :

Tuta absoluta

Bt :

Bacillus thuringiensis

References

  1. Abbott WS (1925) A method for computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. J Econom Entom 18:265–267

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Dakshina RS, Gary LL (2003) Toxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis CRY1-type insecticidal toxin to geographically distant populations of tomato pinworm. Flor Entomol 86(2):222–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Desneux N, Luna MG, Guillemaud AU (2011) The invasive South American tomato pinworm, Tuta absoluta, continues to spread in Afro-Eurasia and beyond: the new threat to tomato world production. Pes Manag Sci 84:403–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Finney DJ (1971) Probit analysis, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ghazwan A, Ahmad A, Reza T (2017) Evaluation of Bacillus thuringiensis to control Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera:Gelechiidae) under laboratory conditions. Agri Scien 8:591–599

    Google Scholar 

  6. Giustolin TA, Vendramim JD, Alves SB, Vieira SA, Pereira RM (2001) Susceptibility of Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera:Gelechiidae) reared on two species of Lycopersicon to Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki. J Appl Entomol 125(9-10):551–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gonzalez-Cabrera J, Molla O, Monton H, Urbaneja A (2011) Efficacy of Bacillus thuringiensis (Berliner) in controlling the tomato borer, Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). Bio Cont 56:71–80

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gowtham V, Kannan M, Senthi Kumar M, Soundararajan RP (2018) Isolation and characterization of indigenous Bacillus thuringiensis, Berliner from animal ordure effective against South American Tomato pinworm, Tuta absoluta (Meyrick). Pest Manag in Horti Eco 24(1):1–7

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hatice S, Fathih G, Nedim M, Sami D, Anne F (2017) Cry1Ac-mediated resistance to tomato leaf miner (Tuta absoluta) in tomato. Pla Cel Tiss Org Cult 131(1):65–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kannan M, Uthamasamy S (2006) Effects of sublethal doses of Bacillus thuringiensis δ-Endotoxin Cry 1Ac on the developmental performance of the cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). Biopest Intern 2(1):51–59

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kranthi KR, Kranthi S, Ali S, Banerjee SK (2000) Resistance to Cry1Ac -endotoxin of Bacillus thuringiensis in a laboratory selected strain of Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). Curr. Sci 78:1001–1004

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Muhammad IS, Muhammad A, Mansoor UH, Muhammad AK (2019) Efficacy of Cry1Ac toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis against the beet armyworm, Spodoptera exigua (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Egypt J Biol Pest Control 29:55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Roh JY, Jae YC, Ming SL, Byung RJ, Yeon HE (2007) Bacillus thuringiensis as a specific, safe and effective tool for insect pest control. J Microbiol Biotechnol 17:547–559

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sanda NB, Sunusi M, Hamisu HS, Wudil BS, Sule H, Abdullahi AM (2018) Biological invasion of tomato leaf miner, Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) in Nigeria: problems and management strategies optimization: a review. Asian Jour Agri and Hort Res 1(4):1–14

    Google Scholar 

  15. Sanyasi D, Govind TG (2011) Field evolved resistance to Bt toxin Cry1Ac in the pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) from India. Pest Manag Sci 67:898–903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sayyed AH, Haward R, Herrero S, Ferre J, Wright DJ (2000) Genetic and biochemical approach for characterization of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis toxin Cry1Ac in a field population of the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella. Appl Environ Microbiol 66:1509–1516

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Shasank PR, Chandrasekhar K, Meshram SK (2015) Occurrence of Tuta absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) an invasive pest in India. Ind J Entomol 77(4):323–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Silva GA, Picanco MC, Bacci C, Rosado GRNC (2011) Control failure likelihood and spatial dependence of insecticide resistance in the tomato pinworm, Tuta absoluta. Pest Manag Sci 67:913–992

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Srinivasan G, Dilipsundar N (2019) Bioefficacy of insecticides against invasive pest of tomato pinworm, Tuta absoluta (Meyrick, 1917). Ann Plant Prot Sci 27(2):185–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Stepanova TV, Baryshnikova ZF, Chirkov MV, Zhimerikin BN, Ryabchenko NF (1996) Bacillus thuringiensis strains exhibiting multiple activity against a wide range of insects. Biotechnolo giya 12:17–22

    Google Scholar 

  21. Tabashnik BE, Carriere Y (2017) Surge in insect resistance to transgenic crops and prospects for sustainability. Nature Biotechnology. 35(10):926–935

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tropea Garzia G, Siscaro G, Biondi A, Zappala L (2012) Tuta absoluta, a South American pest of tomato now in the EPPO region: biology, distribution and damage. EPPO Bulletin 42:205–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Youssef NA, Hassan GM (2013) Bioinsecticide activity of Bacillus thuringiensis isolates on tomato borer, Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) and their molecular identification. Afr J Entom 12(23):3699–3709

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the Centre for Plant Molecular Biology and Biotechnology (CPMB& B), Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU), Coimbatore, India.

Funding

This work was not supported by any funding body.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

BV performed the idea of this article, and SKJ and BV wrote the manuscript. JJ and MS participated in writing the manuscript and statistical analysis. MT, SI, and SP contributed the material and helped in the maintenance of Tuta absoluta, while all authors equally did the bioassay experiments. The authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sandeep Kumar Jalapathi.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable

Consent for publication

I agree to publish this paper in the EJBPC.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jalapathi, S.K., Jayaraj, J., Shanthi, M. et al. Potential of Cry1Ac from Bacillus thuringiensis against the tomato pinworm, Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (Gelechiidae: Lepidoptera). Egypt J Biol Pest Control 30, 81 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41938-020-00283-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Bacillus thuringiensis
  • Tuta absoluta
  • Bioassay
  • Cry1Ac toxin