DOCSLIB.ORG

The Debate on Biodiversity and Biotechnology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Debate on Biodiversity and Biotechnology The Debate on Biodiversity and Biotechnology Klaus Ammann, [email protected] Version from 14. December 2016, 461 full text references, 112 pp. ASK-FORCE contribution No. 11 Nearly 400 new references on biodiversity and Agriculture need to be screened and selected. Contents: 1. Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3 2. The needs for biodiversity – the general case ................................................................................................................ 3 3. Relationship between biodiversity and ecological parameters ..................................................................................... 5 4. A new concept of sustainability ....................................................................................................................................... 7 4.1. Revisiting the original Brundtland definition of sustainable development .............................................................................................................. 7 4.2. Redefining Sustainability for Agriculture and Technology, see fig. 1 ........................................................................................................................ 8 5. The Issue: unnecessary stigmatization of GMOs .......................................................................................................... 12 6. Types of Biodiversity ....................................................................................................................................................... 14 6.1 Toward a general theory of biodiversity ................................................................................................................................................................... 14 6.2. Genetic diversity and dynamics ................................................................................................................................................................................ 14 6.3. Species diversity......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 6.4. Ecosystem diversity ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 7. Biodiversity Distribution ................................................................................................................................................. 17 7.1. Global Biodiversity Distribution ................................................................................................................................................................................ 17 7.2. On Centers of Biodiversity and Centers of Crop diversity ....................................................................................................................................... 18 8. Loss of Biodiversity in general ........................................................................................................................................ 23 8.1. Species loss will increase, its impact ......................................................................................................................................................................... 23 8.2. Agriculture as the major factor of biodiversity loss ................................................................................................................................................. 29 8.3. Adaptation and other factors compensate for species loss .................................................................................................................................... 33 9. Crop Biodiversity reduced or not? It depends on how you interpret or manipulate the statistics ........................... 35 10. Biodiversity within GM crop fields enhanced: Non-target insects are better off. .................................................... 40 11. Farm Practices and its Influence on Biodiversity: a mixed Bag .................................................................................. 41 2 11.1. Nature’s fields: ancient wild crop relatives grew often in monodominant stands .............................................................................................. 42 11.2. About extreme Dynamics of Agro-Systems ........................................................................................................................................................... 43 11.3. The Influence of Agriculture on surrounding Biodiversity..................................................................................................................................... 43 12. Introduced and invasive species, a potential threat to biodiversity .......................................................................... 52 13. Biodiversity as a ‘biological insurance’ against ecosystem disturbance .................................................................... 52 14. Agrobiodiversity and the food web of insects show extreme population dynamics ............................................... 55 15. The case of organic farming, influence on biodiversity and yield comparisons ....................................................... 56 16. Selected proposals for improving high technology agriculture related to biodiversity ........................................... 63 16.1. Biodiversity and the management of agricultural landscapes .............................................................................................................................. 63 16.2. More biodiversity through mixed cropping ........................................................................................................................................................... 64 16.3. On the wish list: more crop diversity, foster orphan crop species. ....................................................................................................................... 65 16.4. Varietal mixture of genes and seeds ...................................................................................................................................................................... 65 16.5. More biodiversity in the food web including non-target insects by reducing pesticide use with transgenic crops and other strategies ........ 65 16.6. Questions about biodiversity and developing countries ....................................................................................................................................... 66 16.7. Proposals adapted to Innovation of Agriculture in Developing Countries. .......................................................................................................... 67 16.8. Improvement of conventional breeding ................................................................................................................................................................ 68 16.9. New ways of using biotechnology for enhancing natural resistance of crops ..................................................................................................... 68 16.10. Final remarks on the improvement list related to biodiversity .......................................................................................................................... 69 17. Case studies on the impact of transgenic crops on biodiversity and health ............................................................. 70 17.1. The case of herbicide tolerant crops, Application of Conservation Tillage easier with herbicide tolerant crops .............................................. 70 17.2. The Case of Impact of Bt maize on non-target organisms .................................................................................................................................... 72 17.3. Biodiversity data in GM crops other than Bt resistance and Herbicide tolerance ............................................................................................... 77 17.4. Bt-corn has less cancer causing mycotoxins than conventional corn ................................................................................................................... 78 18. Some closing words: ..................................................................................................................................................... 80 20 Cited Literature .............................................................................................................................................................. 81 3 1. Summary The need for biodiversity on all levels is made clear (2): Biodiversity provides a source of significant economic, aesthetic, health and cultural benefits (3.). Relationships between biodiversity and ecosystems is given in a table (3.1.) and a new concept of sustainability with more emphasis on development and progress is given (3.2.) Types of biodiversity are often used without clear definition: genetic biodiversity - species diversity and ecosystem diversity are all part of biodiversity (4.). A short chapter on unnecessary stigmatization of GMOs (5). Types of biodiversity, an overview (6) and distribution of biodiversity (7). The loss of biodiversity has many reasons (8): In chapter 9 crop biodiversity gets a closer look: the genome
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Contribution to the Aphid Fauna of Greece
    Bulletin of Insectology 60 (1): 31-38, 2007 ISSN 1721-8861 A contribution to the aphid fauna of Greece 1,5 2 1,6 3 John A. TSITSIPIS , Nikos I. KATIS , John T. MARGARITOPOULOS , Dionyssios P. LYKOURESSIS , 4 1,7 1 3 Apostolos D. AVGELIS , Ioanna GARGALIANOU , Kostas D. ZARPAS , Dionyssios Ch. PERDIKIS , 2 Aristides PAPAPANAYOTOU 1Laboratory of Entomology and Agricultural Zoology, Department of Agriculture Crop Production and Rural Environment, University of Thessaly, Nea Ionia, Magnesia, Greece 2Laboratory of Plant Pathology, Department of Agriculture, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece 3Laboratory of Agricultural Zoology and Entomology, Agricultural University of Athens, Greece 4Plant Virology Laboratory, Plant Protection Institute of Heraklion, National Agricultural Research Foundation (N.AG.RE.F.), Heraklion, Crete, Greece 5Present address: Amfikleia, Fthiotida, Greece 6Present address: Institute of Technology and Management of Agricultural Ecosystems, Center for Research and Technology, Technology Park of Thessaly, Volos, Magnesia, Greece 7Present address: Department of Biology-Biotechnology, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece Abstract In the present study a list of the aphid species recorded in Greece is provided. The list includes records before 1992, which have been published in previous papers, as well as data from an almost ten-year survey using Rothamsted suction traps and Moericke traps. The recorded aphidofauna consisted of 301 species. The family Aphididae is represented by 13 subfamilies and 120 genera (300 species), while only one genus (1 species) belongs to Phylloxeridae. The aphid fauna is dominated by the subfamily Aphidi- nae (57.1 and 68.4 % of the total number of genera and species, respectively), especially the tribe Macrosiphini, and to a lesser extent the subfamily Eriosomatinae (12.6 and 8.3 % of the total number of genera and species, respectively).
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Nitrogen Fertilization on the Life History of the Madeira Mealybug
    Clemson University TigerPrints All Theses Theses 12-2015 Effects of Nitrogen Fertilization on the Life History of the Madeira Mealybug (Phenacoccus madeirensis) and the Molecular Composition of its Host Plant Stephanie Alliene Rhodes Clemson University Follow this and additional works at: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses Recommended Citation Rhodes, Stephanie Alliene, "Effects of Nitrogen Fertilization on the Life History of the Madeira Mealybug (Phenacoccus madeirensis) and the Molecular Composition of its Host Plant" (2015). All Theses. 2584. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses/2584 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses by an authorized administrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EFFECTS OF NITROGEN FERTILIZATION ON THE LIFE HISTORY OF THE MADEIRA MEALYBUG (PHENACOCCUS MADEIRENSIS) AND THE MOLECULAR COMPOSITION OF ITS HOST PLANT A Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of Clemson University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science Entomology by Stephanie Alliene Rhodes December 2015 Accepted by: Dr. Juang-Horng Chong, Committee Co-Chair Dr .Matthew Turnbull, Committee Co-Chair Dr. Peter Adler Dr. Dara Park ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to investigate how different nitrogen fertilization rates of host-plants influence the development, fecundity, and nutritional status of a pest insect, the Madeira mealybug (Phenococcus madeirensis Green, Hemiptera: Psuedococcidae). This study evaluated the effects of nitrogen fertilization (0, 75, 150 and 300 ppm N) on the growth, % nitrogen, % carbon, lipid, and protein contents of basil plants (Ocimum basilicum L., Lamiaceae), and the subsequent impacts of host-plant nutritional status on the life history and total lipid and protein contents of the Madeira mealybug.
    [Show full text]
  • Halona2021r.Pdf
    Terrestrial Arthropod Survey of Hālona Valley, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Naval Magazine Lualualei Annex, August 2020–November 2020 Neal L. Evenhuis, Keith T. Arakaki, Clyde T. Imada Hawaii Biological Survey Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96817, USA Final Report prepared for the U.S. Navy Contribution No. 2021-003 to the Hawaii Biological Survey EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Bishop Museum was contracted by the U.S. Navy to conduct surveys of terrestrial arthropods in Hālona Valley, Naval Magazine Lualualei Annex, in order to assess the status of populations of three groups of insects, including species at risk in those groups: picture-winged Drosophila (Diptera; flies), Hylaeus spp. (Hymenoptera; bees), and Rhyncogonus welchii (Coleoptera; weevils). The first complete survey of Lualualei for terrestrial arthropods was made by Bishop Museum in 1997. Since then, the Bishop Museum has conducted surveys in Hālona Valley in 2015, 2016–2017, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020. The current survey was conducted from August 2020 through November 2020, comprising a total of 12 trips; using yellow water pan traps, pitfall traps, hand collecting, aerial net collecting, observations, vegetation beating, and a Malaise trap. The area chosen for study was a Sapindus oahuensis grove on a southeastern slope of mid-Hālona Valley. The area had potential for all three groups of arthropods to be present, especially the Rhyncogonus weevil, which has previously been found in association with Sapindus trees. Trapped and collected insects were taken back to the Bishop Museum for sorting, identification, data entry, and storage and preservation. The results of the surveys proved negative for any of the target groups.
    [Show full text]
  • How Will Aphids Respond to More Frequent Drought?
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.24.168112; this version posted December 10, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC 4.0 International license. 1 1 Stressful times in a climate crisis: how will aphids respond to more 2 frequent drought? 3 Running title: Aphid-plant interactions under drought stress 4 Abstract 5 Aim 6 Aphids are abundant in natural and managed vegetation, supporting a diverse 7 community of organisms and causing damage to agricultural crops. Using a meta- 8 analysis approach, we aimed to advance understanding of how increased drought 9 incidence will affect this ecologically and economically important insect group, and to 10 characterise the underlying mechanisms. 11 Location 12 Global. 13 Time period 14 1958–2020. 15 Major taxa studied 16 Aphids. 17 Methods 18 We used qualitative and quantitative synthesis techniques to determine whether 19 drought stress has a negative, positive, or null effect on aphid fitness. We examined 20 these effects in relation to 1) aphid biology, 2) the aphid-plant. species combination. 21 We compiled two datasets: 1) a “global” dataset (n = 55 from 55 published studies) 22 comprising one pooled effect size per study, and 2) an “expanded” dataset (n = 93) 23 containing multiple datapoints per study, separated into different measures of aphid 24 fitness but pooled across aphid-plant combinations. Where reported, we extracted 25 data on the effect of drought on plant vigour, and plant tissue concentrations of 26 nutrients and defensive compounds, to capture the potential causes of aphid 27 responses.
    [Show full text]
  • 67-2017-JEE-Glyphosate-Pavel.Pdf
    Journal of Economic Entomology, 2017, 1–8 doi: 10.1093/jee/tow325 Biological and Microbial Control Research Article Treating Prey With Glyphosate Does Not Alter the Demographic Parameters and Predation of the Harmonia axyridis (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) Pavel Saska,1,2 Jirı Skuhrovec,1 Jan Lukas, 1 Miroslav Vlach,1 Hsin Chi,3 Shu-Jen Tuan,3 and Alois Honek 1 1Crop Research Institute, Group Functional Diversity of Invertebrates and Plants in Agro-Ecosystems, Drnovska 507, Prague 6–Ruzyne, 161 06 Czech Republic ([email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; honek@ vurv.cz), 2Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected], and 3Department of Entomology, National Chung Hsing University, 250 Kuo-Kuang Rd., Taichung, 40227, Taiwan, Republic of China ([email protected]; [email protected]) Subject Editor: Dr. Raul Narciso Guedes Received 24 October 2016; Editorial decision 20 December 2016 Abstract Glyphosate is an herbicide that is used worldwide with potential environmental risks to nontarget organisms. We applied an age–stage, two-sex life table approach to assess the sublethal effects of short-term oral exposure to a glyphosate-based herbicide on the life table parameters and biocontrol potential of Harmonia axyridis (Pallas) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Aphids (Metopolophium dirhodum (Walker) (Sternorrhyncha: Aphididae)) treated with herbicide (an isopropylamine-salt of glyphosate) at low recommended, maximum recommended, and double the maximum recommended concentration for agricultural situations, and untreated controls were offered to the fourth instar of H. axyridis for 24 h. Development, consumption, and fecundity were measured daily until death. We detected minor differences in the hatching rate and mean generation time, whereas the longevity, fecundity, net reproductive rate, intrinsic rate of increase, finite rate of increase, and consumption were unaffected across treatments.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Wildflower Strips As a Tool for Enhancing Functional Biodiversity
    agronomy Article Annual Wildflower Strips as a Tool for Enhancing Functional Biodiversity in Rye Fields in an Organic Cultivation System Krzysztof Kujawa 1,*, Zdzisław Bernacki 1, Jolanta Kowalska 2 , Anna Kujawa 1, Maria Oleszczuk 1, Paweł Sienkiewicz 3 and Dariusz Sobczyk 1 1 Institute for Agricultural and Forest Environment, Polish Academy of Sciences, Bukowska 19, 60-809 Pozna´n, Poland; [email protected] (Z.B.); [email protected] (A.K.); [email protected] (M.O.); [email protected] (D.S.) 2 Department of Organic Agriculture and Environmental Protection, Institute of Plant Protection—National Research Institute, Władysława W˛egorka20, 60-318 Pozna´n,Poland; [email protected] 3 Department of Entomology and Environmental Protection, Pozna´nUniversity of Life Sciences, Wojska Polskiego 28, 60-637 Pozna´n,Poland; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 26 September 2020; Accepted: 30 October 2020; Published: 2 November 2020 Abstract: Ecological intensification of agriculture (e.g., with the use of wildflower strips) is being currently discussed as a mean for gaining high yields, preserving high biodiversity of farmland. The aim of this study was to assess the efficiency of annual wildflower strips (WFSs) established in rye field (RF) in (1) increasing species richness and abundance in terms of beneficial arthropod groups (carabids, ground spiders, plant spiders, butterflies, insect pollinators and plant-dwelling insect predators), (2) decreasing the abundance of insect pests, (3) decreasing damages of the crop, and (4) increasing the yield. The field survey was carried out in 2019, in two WFSs and in the adjacent crop field at the distances of 3, 9, 21 and 45 m.
    [Show full text]
  • 4 Economic Value of Arthropod Biological Control
    ©CAB International – for Steven Naranjo 4 Economic Value of Arthropod Biological Control STEVEN E. NARANJO1*, GEORGE B. FRISVOLD2 AND PETER C. ELLSWORTH3 1USDA-ARS, Arid-Land Agricultural Research Center, Maricopa, AZ, USA; 2Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA; 3Department of Entomology, University of Arizona, Maricopa Agricultural Center, Maricopa, AZ, USA Integrated pest management (IPM) is the strategic control are very low, successful programmes have integration of multiple control tactics resulting in the resulted in essentially permanent pest control with amelioration of pest damage that takes into consid- very favourable economic outcomes (Cock et al., eration environmental safety, and the reduction of 2015; Naranjo et al., 2015). risk and favourable economic outcomes for growers A second approach – augmentative biological and society at large. For thousands of years, natural control – involves the initial (inoculation) or enemies of pests have been harnessed for crop pro- repeated (inundation) introduction of native or tection (Simmonds et al., 1976). Maximizing this exotic natural enemies to suppress pest populations. source of natural control is a foundational element Augmentative biological control has been widely in IPM for suppressing the growth of incipient pest and successfully deployed in many parts of the populations (Stern et al., 1959). Biological control world. It is perhaps most well known in protected has been defined as the purposeful use of natural agricultural production, particularly in Europe and enemies, such as predators, parasitoids and patho- in developing regions such as China, India and gens, to regulate another organism’s populations to Latin America (van Lenteren et al., 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Biological Control and Enemy Diversity on a Landscape Scale
    Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Biological Control 43 (2007) 294–309 www.elsevier.com/locate/ybcon Conservation biological control and enemy diversity on a landscape scale Teja Tscharntke a,*, Riccardo Bommarco b, Yann Clough a, Thomas O. Crist c, David Kleijn d, Tatyana A. Rand e, Jason M. Tylianakis f, Saskya van Nouhuys g,h, Stefan Vidal i a Agrocecology, University of Go¨ttingen, Waldweg 26, 37073 Go¨ttingen, Germany b Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 7044, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden c Department of Zoology, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056, USA d Alterra, Centre for Ecosystem Studies, Droevendaalsesteeg 3, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands e School of Biological Sciences, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68588-0118, USA f School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8020, New Zealand g Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University, E145 Corson Hall Ithaca, NY 14853-2701, USA h Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, 00014-FIN, Finland i Agricultural Entomology, University of Go¨ttingen, Grisebachstrasse 6, 37077 Go¨ttingen, Germany Received 28 February 2007; accepted 20 August 2007 Available online 26 August 2007 Abstract Conservation biological control in agroecosystems requires a landscape management perspective, because most arthropod species experience their habitat at spatial scales beyond the plot level, and there is spillover of natural enemies across the crop–noncrop interface. The species pool in the surrounding landscape and the distance of crop from natural habitat are important for the conservation of enemy diversity and, in particular, the conservation of poorly-dispersing and specialized enemies.
    [Show full text]
  • Encyclopaedia of Pests and Natural Enemies in Field Crops Contents Introduction
    Encyclopaedia of pests and natural enemies in field crops Contents Introduction Contents Page Integrated pest management Managing pests while encouraging and supporting beneficial insects is an Introduction 2 essential part of an integrated pest management strategy and is a key component of sustainable crop production. Index 3 The number of available insecticides is declining, so it is increasingly important to use them only when absolutely necessary to safeguard their longevity and Identification of larvae 11 minimise the risk of the development of resistance. The Sustainable Use Directive (2009/128/EC) lists a number of provisions aimed at achieving the Pest thresholds: quick reference 12 sustainable use of pesticides, including the promotion of low input regimes, such as integrated pest management. Pests: Effective pest control: Beetles 16 Minimise Maximise the Only use Assess the Bugs and aphids 42 risk by effects of pesticides if risk of cultural natural economically infestation Flies, thrips and sawflies 80 means enemies justified Moths and butterflies 126 This publication Nematodes 150 Building on the success of the Encyclopaedia of arable weeds and the Encyclopaedia of cereal diseases, the three crop divisions (Cereals & Oilseeds, Other pests 162 Potatoes and Horticulture) of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board have worked together on this new encyclopaedia providing information Natural enemies: on the identification and management of pests and natural enemies. The latest information has been provided by experts from ADAS, Game and Wildlife Introduction 172 Conservation Trust, Warwick Crop Centre, PGRO and BBRO. Beetles 175 Bugs 181 Centipedes 184 Flies 185 Lacewings 191 Sawflies, wasps, ants and bees 192 Spiders and mites 197 1 Encyclopaedia of pests and natural enemies in field crops Encyclopaedia of pests and natural enemies in field crops 2 Index Index A Acrolepiopsis assectella (leek moth) 139 Black bean aphid (Aphis fabae) 45 Acyrthosiphon pisum (pea aphid) 61 Boettgerilla spp.
    [Show full text]
  • Standardised Arthropod (Arthropoda) Inventory Across Natural and Anthropogenic Impacted Habitats in the Azores Archipelago
    Biodiversity Data Journal 9: e62157 doi: 10.3897/BDJ.9.e62157 Data Paper Standardised arthropod (Arthropoda) inventory across natural and anthropogenic impacted habitats in the Azores archipelago José Marcelino‡, Paulo A. V. Borges§,|, Isabel Borges ‡, Enésima Pereira§‡, Vasco Santos , António Onofre Soares‡ ‡ cE3c – Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes / Azorean Biodiversity Group and Universidade dos Açores, Rua Madre de Deus, 9500, Ponta Delgada, Portugal § cE3c – Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes / Azorean Biodiversity Group and Universidade dos Açores, Rua Capitão João d’Ávila, São Pedro, 9700-042, Angra do Heroismo, Portugal | IUCN SSC Mid-Atlantic Islands Specialist Group, Angra do Heroísmo, Portugal Corresponding author: Paulo A. V. Borges ([email protected]) Academic editor: Pedro Cardoso Received: 17 Dec 2020 | Accepted: 15 Feb 2021 | Published: 10 Mar 2021 Citation: Marcelino J, Borges PAV, Borges I, Pereira E, Santos V, Soares AO (2021) Standardised arthropod (Arthropoda) inventory across natural and anthropogenic impacted habitats in the Azores archipelago. Biodiversity Data Journal 9: e62157. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.9.e62157 Abstract Background In this paper, we present an extensive checklist of selected arthropods and their distribution in five Islands of the Azores (Santa Maria. São Miguel, Terceira, Flores and Pico). Habitat surveys included five herbaceous and four arboreal habitat types, scaling up from native to anthropogenic managed habitats. We aimed to contribute
    [Show full text]
  • Macrocentrus Cingulum Brischke
    Three Amino Acid Residues Bind Corn Odorants to McinOBP1 in the Polyembryonic Endoparasitoid of Macrocentrus cingulum Brischke Tofael Ahmed1,2, Tian-tao Zhang1, Zhen-ying Wang1*, Kang-lai He1, Shu-xiong Bai1 1 State Key Laboratory for the Biology of the Plant Diseases and Insect Pests, Institute of Plant Protection, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China, 2 Bangladesh Sugarcane Research Institute, Ishurdi, Pabna, Bangladesh Abstract Odorant binding proteins (OBPs) play a central role in transporting odorant molecules from the sensillum lymph to olfactory receptors to initiate behavioral responses. In this study, the OBP of Macrocentrus cingulum McinOBP1 was expressed in Escherichia coli and purified by Ni ion affinity chromatography. Real-time PCR experiments indicate that the McinOBP1 is expressed mainly in adult antennae, with expression levels differing by sex. Ligand-binding experiments using N-phenyl- naphthylamine (1-NPN) as a fluorescent probe demonstrated that the McinOBP1 can bind green-leaf volatiles, including aldehydes and terpenoids, but also can bind aliphatic alcohols with good affinity, in the order trans-2-nonenal.cis-3-hexen- 1-ol.trans-caryophelle, suggesting a role of McinOBP1 in general odorant chemoreception. We chose those three odorants for further homology modeling and ligand docking based on their binding affinity. The Val58, Leu62 and Glu130 are the key amino acids in the binding pockets that bind with these three odorants. The three mutants, Val58, Leu62 and Glu130, where the valine, leucine and glutamic residues were replaced by alanine, proline and alanine, respectively; showed reduced affinity to these odorants. This information suggests, Val58, Leu62 and Glu130 are involved in the binding of these compounds, possibly through the specific recognition of ligands that forms hydrogen bonds with the ligands functional groups.
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team
    Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER Biological Control September 12-16, 2005 Mark S. Hoddle, Compiler University of California, Riverside U.S.A. Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team—Morgantown, West Virginia United States Forest FHTET-2005-08 Department of Service September 2005 Agriculture Volume II Papers were submitted in an electronic format, and were edited to achieve a uniform format and typeface. Each contributor is responsible for the accuracy and content of his or her own paper. Statements of the contributors from outside of the U.S. Department of Agriculture may not necessarily reflect the policy of the Department. The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for the information and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement or approval by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service to the exclusion of others that may be suitable. Any references to pesticides appearing in these papers does not constitute endorsement or recommendation of them by the conference sponsors, nor does it imply that uses discussed have been registered. Use of most pesticides is regulated by state and federal laws. Applicable regulations must be obtained from the appropriate regulatory agency prior to their use. CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, desirable plants, and fish and other wildlife if they are not handled and applied properly. Use all pesticides selectively and carefully. Follow recommended practices given on the label for use and disposal of pesticides and pesticide containers. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status.
    [Show full text]