Huipeng Pan, Linghua Xu, Jeffrey E. Noland, Hu Li, Blair D. Siegfried, Xuguo Zhou
Abstract
RNAi-based genetically engineered (GE) crops for the management of insect pests are likely to be commercialized by the end of this decade. Without a workable framework for conducting the ecological risk assessment (ERA) and a standardized ERA protocol, however, the utility of RNAi transgenic crops in pest management remains uncertain. The overall goal of this study is to assess the risks of RNAi-based GE crops on a non-target soil micro-arthropod, Sinella curviseta, which could be exposed to plant-protected dsRNAs deposited in crop residues. Based on the preliminary research, we hypothesized that insecticidal dsRNAs targeting at the western corn rootworm, Diabrotica virgifera virgifera, a billion-dollar insect pest, has no adverse impacts on S. curviseta, a soil decomposer. Following a tiered approach, we tested this risk hypothesis using a well-designed dietary RNAi toxicity assay. To create the worst-case scenario, the full-length cDNA of v-ATPase subunit A from S. curviseta were cloned and a 400 bp fragment representing the highest sequence similarity between target pest and non-target arthropods was selected as the template to synthesize insecticidal dsRNAs. Specifically, 10-days-old S. curviseta larvae were subjected to artificial diets containing v-ATPase A dsRNAs from both D. v. virgifera (dsDVV) and S. curviseta (dsSC), respectively, a dsRNA control, β-glucuronidase, from plant (dsGUS), and a vehicle control, H2O. The endpoint measurements included gene expression profiles, survival, and life history traits, such as developmental time, fecundity, hatching rate, and body length. Although, S. curviseta larvae developed significantly faster under the treatments of dsDVV and dsSC than the vehicle control, the combined results from both temporal RNAi effect study and dietary RNAi toxicity assay support the risk hypothesis, suggesting that the impacts of ingested arthropod-active dsRNAs on this representative soil decomposer are negligible.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 July 2016.
All research outputs
#18,465,988
of 22,880,691 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#13,816
of 20,270 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#272,643
of 355,956 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#327
of 522 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,691 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,270 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 355,956 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 522 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
