Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T03:50:48.834Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wide Distribution of the Waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) ΔG210 PPX2 Mutation, which Confers Resistance to PPO-Inhibiting Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Kate A. Thinglum ,
Chance W. Riggins ,
Adam S. Davis ,
Kevin W. Bradley ,
Kassim Al-Khatib  and
Patrick J. Tranel
Kate A. Thinglum
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Chance W. Riggins
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Adam S. Davis
Affiliation:
Invasive Weed Management Unit, U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, Urbana, IL 61801
Kevin W. Bradley
Affiliation:
Division of Plant Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
Kassim Al-Khatib
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66505
Patrick J. Tranel*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Resistance in waterhemp to herbicides that inhibit protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO) previously was shown to result from the deletion of a glycine codon at position 210 (ΔG210) in the PPO-encoding gene, PPX2. Research was conducted to determine if this same mechanism accounted for resistance in geographically separated populations—from Illinois, Kansas, and Missouri—and, if so, to determine if the mutation conferring resistance was independently selected. A dose–response study with lactofen indicated that the resistant populations had different levels of resistance. These differences, however, could be accounted for by different frequencies of resistant individuals within populations and, therefore, the dose–response data were consistent with the hypothesis that the populations contained the same resistance mechanism. Direct evidence in support of this hypothesis was provided by DNA sequencing, which showed that nearly all resistant plants evaluated contained the ΔG210 mutation. A variable region of the PPX2 gene was sequenced and resulting sequences were aligned and organized into a phylogenetic tree. The phylogenetic tree did not reveal clear clustering by either geography or phenotype (resistant vs. sensitive). Possibly recombination within the PPX2 gene has masked its evolutionary history.

Keywords

Common waterhemp, Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) Sauer var. rudis (Sauer) Costea and Tardif AMATUGene flowherbicide resistancepopulation geneticsmutationevolution
Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 59 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 22 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Baddeley, A. and Turner, R. 2005. Spatstat: an R package for analyzing spatial point patterns. J. Stat. Softw. 12:1–42.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 1992. Population dynamics and control of annual weeds in corn (Zea mays) as influenced by tillage systems. Weed Sci. 40:241–248.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Hartzler, R. G. 2001. Emergence and persistence of seed of velvetleaf, common waterhemp, wooly cupgrass, and giant foxtail. Weed Sci. 49:230–235.Google Scholar
Corpet, F. 1988. Multiple sequence alignment with hierarchical clustering. Nucleic Acids Res. 16:10881–10890.Google Scholar
Doyle, J. J. and Doyle, J. L. 1990. Isolation of plant DNA from fresh tissue. Focus. 12:13–15.Google Scholar
Foes, M. J., Liu, L., Tranel, P. J., Wax, L. M., and Stoller, E. W. 1998. A biotype of common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) resistant to triazine and ALS herbicides. Weed Sci. 46:514–520.Google Scholar
Hager, A. G., Wax, L. M., Bollero, G. A., and Simmons, F. W. 2002. Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis Sauer) management with soil-applied herbicides in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. Crop Prot. 21:277–283.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2010. The International Survey of Herbicide-Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.com. Accessed: May 13, 2010.Google Scholar
Kelly, L. J., Leitch, A. R., Clarkson, J. J., Hunter, R. B., Knapp, S., and Chase, M. W. 2010. Intragenic recombination events and evidence for hybrid speciation in Nicotiana (Solanaceae). Mol. Biol. Evol. 27:781–799.Google Scholar
Lee, R. M., Hager, A. G., and Tranel, P. J. 2008. Prevalence of a novel resistance mechanism to PPO-inhibiting herbicides in waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus). Weed Sci. 56:371–375.Google Scholar
Legleiter, T. R. and Bradley, K. W. 2008. Glyphosate and multiple herbicide resistance in common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) populations from Missouri. Weed Sci. 56:582–587.Google Scholar
Li, J., Smeda, R. J., Nelson, K. A., and Dayan, F. E. 2004. Physiological basis for resistance to diphenyl ether herbicides in common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis). Weed Sci. 52:333–338.Google Scholar
Patzoldt, W. L., Hager, A. G., McCormick, J. S., and Tranel, P. J. 2006. A codon deletion confers resistance to herbicides inhibiting protoporphyrinogen oxidase. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 103:12329–12334.Google Scholar
Patzoldt, W. L., Tranel, P. J., and Hager, A. G. 2005. A waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) biotype with multiple resistance across three herbicide sites of action. Weed Sci. 53:30–36.Google Scholar
Pratt, D. B. and Clark, L. G. 2001. Amaranthus rudis and A. tuberculatus, one species or two? J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 128:282–296.Google Scholar
Ritz, C. and Streibig, J. C. 2005. Bioassay analyses using R. J. Stat. Softw. 12:1–22.Google Scholar
Saitou, N. and Nei, M. 1987. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 4:406–425.Google Scholar
Seber, G. A. F. and Wild, C. J. 1989. Nonlinear Regression. New York Wiley and Sons. 768 p.Google Scholar
Shoup, D. E., Al-Khatib, K., and Peterson, D. E. 2003. Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) resistance to protoporphyrinogen oxidase-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci. 51:145–150.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E. 2007. The dioecious Amaranthus spp.: here to stay. Weed Technol. 21:567–570.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E., Sprague, C. L., Hager, A. G., Simmons, F. W., and Bollero, G. A. 2003. Effects of shading on common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) growth and development. Weed Sci. 51:898–903.Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. 2nd ed. New York McGraw-Hill. 633 p.Google Scholar
Tamura, K., Dudley, J., Nei, M., and Kumar, S. 2007. MEGA4: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis (MEGA) software version 4.0. Mol. Biol. Evol. 24:1596–1599.Google Scholar
Tamura, K., Nei, M., and Kumar, S. 2004. Prospects for inferring very large phylogenies by using the neighbor-joining method. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 101:11030–11035.Google Scholar
Tipton, K. F. 1994. Nomenclature Committee of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (NC-IUBMB). Enzyme nomenclature. Recommendations 1992. Supplement: corrections and additions. Eur. J. Biochem. 223:1–5.Google Scholar