Transgenic sugarcane overexpressing CaneCPI-1 negatively affects the growth and development of the sugarcane weevil Sphenophorus levis
- 483 Downloads
Transgenic sugarcane expressing CaneCPI-1 exhibits resistance to Sphenophorus levis larvae.
Transgenic plants have widely been used to improve resistance against insect attack. Sugarcane is an economically important crop; however, great losses are caused by insect attack. Sphenophorus levis is a sugarcane weevil that digs tunnels in the stem base, leading to the destruction of the crop. This insect is controlled inefficiently by chemical insecticides. Transgenic plants expressing peptidase inhibitors represent an important strategy for impairing insect growth and development. Knowledge of the major peptidase group present in the insect gut is critical when choosing the most effective inhibitor. S. levis larvae use cysteine peptidases as their major digestive enzymes, primarily cathepsin L-like activity. In this study, we developed transgenic sugarcane plants that overexpress sugarcane cysteine peptidase inhibitor 1 (CaneCPI-1) and assessed their potential through feeding bioassays with S. levis larvae. Cystatin overexpression in the transgenic plants was evaluated using semi-quantitative RT-PCR, RT-qPCR, and immunoblot assays. A 50% reduction of the average weight was observed in larvae that fed on transgenic plants in comparison to larvae that fed on non-transgenic plants. In addition, transgenic sugarcane exhibited less damage caused by larval attack than the controls. Our results suggest that the overexpression of CaneCPI-1 in sugarcane is a promising strategy for improving resistance against this insect.
KeywordsCysteine peptidase Cystatin Feeding bioassay Sugarcane Sugarcane weevil Sphenophorus levis
The research was supported by the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP, CBME, CEPID Proc. 98/14138-2). The authors thank Centro de Tecnologia Canavieira, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil, for essential help in sugarcane transformation. FHS is recipient of a productivity scholarship from National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) (##311745/2013-0). V.K.S. and A.S.C.F. received a Grant from FAPESP (2013/05370-0 and 2005/59833-5, respectively), and C.W.R. received a Grant from National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Campos FA, Xavier-Filho J, Silva CP, Ary MB (1989) Resolution and partial characterization of proteinases and α-amylases from midgets of larvae of the bruchid beetle Callosobruchus maculates (F.). Comp Biochem Physiol 92:51–57Google Scholar
- Chen P, Senthilkumar R, Jane W, He Y, Tian Z, Yeh K (2014) Transplastomic Nicotiana benthamiana plants expressing multiple defence genes encoding protease inhibitors and chitinase display broad-spectrum resistance against insects, pathogens and abiotic stresses. Plant Biotechnol J 12(4):503–515CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento—CONAB (2016) Acompanhamento da Safra Brasileira de Cana-de-açúcar—Safra 2015/16—Quarto Levantamento. http://www.conab.gov.br/OlalaCMS/uploads/arquivos/16_04_14_09_06_31_boletim_cana_portugues_-_4o_lev_-_15-16.pdf. Accessed on: 20/09/2016
- Degaspari N, Botelho PSM, Dealmeida LC, Castilho HJ (1987) Biology of Sphenophorus levis, Vaurie, 1978 (Col, Curculionidae), with artificial diet and in the field. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasil 22:553–558Google Scholar
- Gallo DN, Neto OS, Carvalho S, Baptista RPL (2002) Entomologia agrícola. Fundação de Estudos Agrários Luiz de QueirozGoogle Scholar
- Habib H, Fazili KM (2007) Plant protease inhibitors: a defense strategy in plants. Biotechnol Mol Biol Rev 2:68–85Google Scholar
- Jouanin L, Bonadé-bottino M, Girard C, Lerin J, Pham-delegue MH (2000) Expression of protease inhibitors in rapeseed. In: Michaud D (ed) Recombinant protease inhibitors in plants, pp 179–190Google Scholar
- Murdock LL, Brookhart G, Dunn PE, Foard DE, Kelley S (1987) Cysteine digestive proteinase in Coleoptera. Comp Biochem Physiol 87:783–787Google Scholar
- Nogueira F, Silva CP, Alexandre D, Samuels RI, Soares EL, Aragão FJ, Palmisano G, Domont GB, Roepstorff P, Campos FA (2012) Global proteome changes in larvae of Callosobruchus maculatus Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Bruchinae) following ingestion of a cysteine proteinase inhibitor. Proteomics 12(17):2704–2715CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- OECD (2016) Safety assessment of transgenic organisms in the environment, volume 6: OECD consensus documents, harmonisation of regulatory oversight in biotechnology. OECD Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
- Rozen S, Skaletsky H (1999) Primer3 on the WWW for general users and for biologist programmers. In: Stephen M, Stephen AK (eds) Bioinformatics methods and protocols, pp 365–386Google Scholar
- Santos F, Borém A, Caldas C (2015) Sugarcane: agricultural production, bioenergy and ethanol. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Vaurie P (1978) Revision of the genus Sphenophorus in South America. American Museum of Natural History, New YorkGoogle Scholar