HISTOLOGICAL EFFECT OPTIMIZATION COMBINATION OF BACILLUS SPHAERICUS 2362 AND BACILLUS THURINGIENSIS SUBSP. ISRAELENSIS IN MIDGUT OF CULEX QUINQUEFASCIATUS RESISTANCE

Authors

  • Rita Tjokropranoto
  • Tri Hanggono Acmad
  • Endang Sutedja
  • Susy Tjahjani

Abstract

ABSTRACT
Objective: The objective of the study was to analyze pore‑forming at Culex quinquefasciatus resistant larvae midgut and analyze optimization ratio
after treatment using combination Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis (Bti) and Bacillus sphaericus (Bs) 2362.
Methods: This research was an experimental study. C. quinquefasciatus larvae were divided into 10 groups. The Group I until VII had treatment by
the various concentration of combination Bti and Bs 2362, treatment Group VIII as a positive control, Group IX as a negative control, and Group X as
a single Bs 2362. All of the treatment groups were examined for the histological effect of C. quinquefasciatus larvae midgut by hematoxylin eosin. The
lowest lethal concentration 50% (LC
Results: The lowest LC
50
50
) was a standard optimization ratio of combination Bti and Bs 2362. LC
50
was analyzed by probit.
was 2.274 part a million (ppm) at Group I was the optimization ratio. Various combination treatments Group I until VII were
shown pores at C. quinquefasciatus larvae midgut after treatment by a combination of Bti and Bs 2362.
Conclusion: Combination of Bti and Bs 2362 was shown pores at C. quinquefasciatus larvae midgut, and optimization ratio was shown in Group I.
Keywords: Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis, Bacillus sphaericus 2362, Culex quinquefasciatus midgut.

References

REFERENCES

Alcantara EP, Aguda RM, Curtiss A, Dean DH, Cohen MB.

Bacillus thuringiensis delta‑endotoxin binding to brush border

membrane vesicles of rice stem borers. Arch Insect Biochem Physiol

;55(4):169‑77.

Akhurst RJ, James W, Bird LJ, Beard C. Resistance to the Cry1Ac

delta‑endotoxin of Bacillus thuringiensis in the cotton bollworm,

Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J Econ Entomol

;96(4):1290‑9.

Alzate O, Hemann CF, Osorio C, Hille R, Dean DH. Ser170 of

Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab delta‑endotoxin becomes anchored in a

hydrophobic moiety upon insertion of this protein into Manduca sexta

brush border membranes. BMC Biochem 2009;10:25.

Barber MJ, Quinn GB. High‑level expression in Escherichia coli of

the soluble, catalytic domain of rat hepatic cytochrome b5 reductase.

Protein Expr Purif 1996;8(1):41‑7.

Barton KA, Whiteley HR, Yang NS. Bacillus thuringiensis section

sign‑endotoxin expressed in transgenic nicotiana tabacum provides

resistance to lepidopteran insects. Plant Physiol 1987;85(4):1103‑9.

Wahyono TY, Purwantyastuti, Supali T. Filariasis di Indonesia.

Kementerian Kesehatan Republik Indonesia: Pusat Data & Surveilans

Epidemiologi ; 2010. p. 1‑20.

Romao TP, de Melo Chalegre KD, Key S, Ayres CF, de Oliveira CM,

Neto OP, et al. A second independent resistance mechanism to Bacillus

sphaericus binary toxin targets its a‑glucosidase receptor in Culex

quinquefasciatus. FEBS J 2006;273(7):1556‑68.

Mittal PK. Biolarvacides in vector control: Challenges and prospect.

J Vector Borne Dis 2003;40:20‑32.

Margareth WC. Mosquito resistance to bacterial larvicidal toxins. Open

Toxinol J 2010;3:126‑40.

Poopathi S, Brij Kishore T. The challenge of mosquito control

strategies: From primodial to molecular approaches. Biotechnol Mol

Biol Rev 2006;1(51‑65):1538‑2273.

Wirth MC, Walton WE, Federici BA. Evolution of resistance to the

Bacillus sphaericus bin toxin is phenotypically masked by combination

with the mosquitocidal proteins of Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies

Israeliensis. Environ Microbiol 2010;12(5):1154‑60.

Bravo A, Gill SS, Soberón M. Mode of action of Bacillus thuringiensis

cry and cyt toxins and their potential for insect control. Toxicon

;49(4):423‑35.

Ben‑Dov E. Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. Israelensis and its

dipteran‑specific toxins. Toxins (Basel) 2014;6(4):1222‑43.

Laurence D, Christophe L, Roger F. Using the bio‑insecticide Bacillus

thuringiensis Israelensis in mosquito control. In: Stoytcheva M, editor.

Pesticides in the Modern World Pests Control and Pesticides Exposure

and Toxicity Assessment. China, Shangha: InTech; 2011. p. 93‑126.

Wirth MC, Park HW, Walton WE, Federici BA. Cyt1A of Bacillus

thuringiensis delays evolution of resistance to Cry11A in the mosquito

Culex quinquefasciatus. Appl Environ Microbiol 2005;71(1):185‑9.

Wirth MC, Federici BA, Walton WE. Cyt1A from Bacillus thuringiensis

synergizes activity of Bacillus sphaericus against Aedes aegypti (Diptera:

Culicidae). Appl Environ Microbiol 2000;66 (3):1093‑7.

WHOPES. Guidelines for Laboratory and Field Testing of Mosquito

Larvicides. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2005.

p. 1‑41.

Gomez KA, dan Gomez AA, editor. Statistical Procedures for

Agricultural Research. 2

ed. New York: John Willey & Son; 1984.

Opota O, Gauthier NC, Doye A, Berry C, Gounon P, Lemichez E,

nd

et al. Bacillus sphaericus binary toxin elicits host cell autophagy as a

response to intoxication. PLoS One 2011;6 (2):e14682.

Vanlalhruaia SK, Gurusubramanian G. Bacillus sphaericus in

the biological control of mosquito vector complex. Sci Vision

;11(2):61‑71.

Poopathi S, Abidha S. Mosquitocidal bacterial toxins (Bacillus

sphaericus and Bacillus thuringiensis serovar israelensis): Mode of

action, cytopathological effects and mechanism of resistance. J Physiol

Pathophysiol 2010;1(3):22‑38.

Wirth MC, Yang Y, Walton WE, Federici BA, Berry C. Mtx toxins

synergize Bacillus sphaericus and Cry11Aa against susceptible and

insecticide‑resistant Culex quinquefasciatus larvae. Appl Environ

Microbiol 2007;73(19):6066‑71.

Published

2016-03-01

How to Cite

Tjokropranoto, R., T. Hanggono Acmad, E. Sutedja, and S. Tjahjani. “HISTOLOGICAL EFFECT OPTIMIZATION COMBINATION OF BACILLUS SPHAERICUS 2362 AND BACILLUS THURINGIENSIS SUBSP. ISRAELENSIS IN MIDGUT OF CULEX QUINQUEFASCIATUS RESISTANCE”. Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research, vol. 9, no. 2, Mar. 2016, pp. 281-4, https://innovareacademics.in/journals/index.php/ajpcr/article/view/10631.

Issue

Section

Original Article(s)