, Volume 46, Issue 5, pp 475–477 | Cite as

The toxicity of twoBacillus thuringiensisδ-endotoxins to gypsy moth larvae is inversely related to the affinity of binding sites on midgut brush border membranes for the toxins

  • M. G. Wolfersberger
Research Articles


Theδ-endotoxin fromBacillus thuringiensis subspecieskurstaki strain HD1-9 is almost 400 times more potent than theδ-endotoxin from strain HD-73 as a gypsy moth larvicide. The twoδ-endotoxins compete for a high-affinity binding site on the brush border membrane of larval gypsy moth midguts. The affinity for theδ-endotoxin from strain HD-73 is much greater than the affinity for theδ-endotoxin from strain HD1-9.

Key words

Membrane vesicles Lymantria dispar 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aronson, A. I., Beckman, W., and Dunn, P., Microbiol. Rev.50 (1987) 1.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lüthy, P., Jaquet, F., Hofmann, C., Huber-Lukac, M., and Wolfersberger, M. G., Zbl. Bakt. Mikrobiol. Hyg.1 suppl. 15 (1986) 161.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hofmann, C., Lüthy, P., Hütter, R., and Pliska, V., Eur. J. Biochem.173 (1988) 85.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hofmann, C., Vanderbruggen, H., Höfte, H., Van Rie, J., Jansens, S., and Van Mellaert, H., Proc. natl Acad. Sci. USA85 (1988) 7844.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Van Rie, J., Jansens, S., Höfte, H., Degheele, D., and Van Mellaert, H. Eur. J. Biochem.186 (1989) 239.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Biber, J., Steiger, B., Haase, W., and Murer, H., Biochim. biophys. Acta647 (1981) 169.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wolfersberger, M. G., Lüthy, P., Maurer, A., Parenti, P., Sacchi, V. F., Giordana, B., and Hanozet, G. M., Comp. Biochem. Physiol.86A (1987) 301.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bradford, M. M., Analyt. Biochem.72 (1976) 248.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Adang, M. J., Staver, M. J., Rocheleau, T. A., Leighton, J., Barker, R. F., and Thompson, D. V., Gene36 (1985) 289.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yamamoto, T., Ehmann, A., Gonzalez, J. M., and Carlton, B. C., Curr. Microbiol.17 (1988) 5.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Höfte, H., and Whiteley, H. R., Microbiol. Rev.53 (1989) 242.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jaquet, F., Hütter, R., and Lüthy, P., Appl. envir. Microbiol.53 (1987) 500.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hofmann, C., and Lüthy, P., Archs Microbiol.146 (1986) 7.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Laemmli, U. K., Nature227 (1970) 680.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Scatchard, G., Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.51 (1949) 660.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wardlaw, A. C., Practical Statistics for Experimental Biologists. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK 1985.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wolfersberger, M. G., Hofmann, C., and Lüthy, P., Zbl. Bakteriol. Mikrobiol. Hyg.1 suppl. 15 (1986) 237.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Knowles, B. H., and Ellar, D.J., Biochim. biophys. Acta924 (1987) 509.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. G. Wolfersberger
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations