Hostname: page-component-669899f699-7tmb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-24T17:11:05.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Imidazolinone-Resistant Wheat Acetolactate Synthase In Vivo Response to Imazamox

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Curtis R. Rainbolt ,
Donald C. Thill ,
Robert S. Zemetra  and
Dale L. Shaner
Curtis R. Rainbolt*
Affiliation:
Everglades Research and Education Center, University of Florida/IFAS, Belle Glade, FL 33430
Donald C. Thill
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil, and Entomological Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-2339
Robert S. Zemetra
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil, and Entomological Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-2339
Dale L. Shaner
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1325
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: crrainbolt@ifas.ufl.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Several experiments were conducted to evaluate the utility of an in vivo acetolactate synthase (ALS) assay for comparing sensitivity to imazamox among imidazolinone-resistant wheat cultivars/lines. Ten single-gene imidazolinone-resistant winter wheat cultivars/lines, one two-gene and four single-gene imidazolinone-resistant spring wheat cultivars/lines, and three pairs of heterozygous and homozygous imidazolinone-resistant winter wheat lines were evaluated in the assay experiments. Additionally, a dose-response assay was conducted to evaluate the tolerance of several imidazolinone-resistant wheat cultivars to imazamox on a whole plant level. The I50 value (i.e., the imazamox dose that inhibited ALS activity by 50%) of the winter wheat cultivar ‘Above’ was 54 to 84% higher than the I50 values of 99-420, 99-433, and CV-9804. However, based on the results of this study, it is unclear whether genetic background or market class (hard red winter vs. soft white winter) influences the level of ALS inhibition by imazamox. Teal 15A, the two-gene imidazolinone-resistant spring wheat cultivar, had an I50 value that was two to three times greater than the I50 value of the single-gene imidazolinone-resistant spring wheat cultivars/lines. The heterozygous imidazolinone-resistant wheat lines had I50 values that were 69 to 81% less than the I50 values of the homozygous lines. In the whole plant dose response, the R50 values (i.e., the imazamox dose that reduced biomass by 50%) of the susceptible cultivars Brundage 96 and Conan were 15 to 17 times less than the homozygous single-gene imidazolinone-resistant winter and spring cultivars/lines, whose R50 values were about 1.7 times less than the R50 value of the two-gene imidazolinone-resistant spring wheat line, Teal 15A. The results of the in vivo ALS imazamox assays and the whole plant imazamox dose-response assay were similar, indicating that the in vivo assay can be used to accurately and quickly compare resistance between imidazolinone-resistant wheat cultivars/lines.

Keywords

ImazamoxwheatTriticum aestivum L.Crop safetyherbicide toleranceherbicide-resistant wheatin vivo ALS assayALS, acetolactate synthaseCPCA, 1,1-cyclopropanedicarboxylic acidI50, imazamox dose that inhibited ALS activity by 50%KARI, keto-acid reductoisomeraseR50, imazamox dose that reduced biomass 50%
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , September 2005 , pp. 539 - 548
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Ball, D. A., Young, F. L., and Ogg, A. G. Jr. 1999. Selective control of jointed goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrica) with imazamox in herbicide-resistant wheat. Weed Technol. 13:77–82.Google Scholar
Dastgheib, F. and Field, R. J. 1998. Acetolactate synthase activity and chlorsulfuron sensitivity of wheat cultivars. Weed Res. 38:63–68.Google Scholar
Gerwick, C. B., Mireles, L. C., and Eilers, R. J. 1993. Rapid diagnosis of ALS/AHAS-resistant weeds. Weed Technol. 7:519–524.Google Scholar
Kimber, G. and Sears, E. R. 1987. Evolution in the genus Triticum and the origin of cultivated wheat. in Heyne, E. G., ed. Wheat and Wheat Improvement. Agronomy Monograph 13. Madison, WI: ASA, CSSA, SSA. Pp. 154–164.Google Scholar
Mazur, B. J., Chui, C. F., and Smith, J. K. 1987. Isolation and characterization of plant genes coding for acetolactate synthase, the target enzyme for two classes of herbicides. Plant Physiol. 85:1110–1117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newhouse, K. E., Smith, W. A., Starrett, M. A., Schaefer, T. J., and Singh, B. K. 1992. Tolerance to imidazolinone herbicides in wheat. Plant Physiol. 100:882–886.Google Scholar
Rainbolt, C. R. 2003. Herbicide-resistant crop management and crop safety with imazamox. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 110 p.Google Scholar
Ratowsky, D. A. 1990. Handbook of Nonlinear Regression Models. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker. 241 p.Google Scholar
Rauch, T. A. and Thill, D. C. 2002. Weed control in imidazolinone-resistant spring wheat with imazamox and BAS 63500 H. 2002 Western Soc. Weed Sci. Res. Prog. Rep. Pp. 123–124.Google Scholar
Rutledge, R. G., Quellet, T., Hattori, J., and Miki, B. L. 1991. Molecular characterization and genetic origin of the Brassica napus acetohydroxyacid synthase family. Mol. Gen. Genet. 229:31–40.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1999. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 8. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1243 p.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Sci. 43:218–227.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Zemetra, R., Young, F. L., and Jones, S. S. 1998. Production of herbicide-resistant jointed goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrica) × wheat (Triticum aestivum) hybrids in the field by natural hybridization. Weed Sci. 46:632–634.Google Scholar
Shaner, D. L., Bascomb, N. F., and Smith, W. 1996. Imidazolinone-resistant crops: selection, characterization, and management. in Duke, S. O., ed. Herbicide Resistant Crops: Agricultural, Environmental, Economic, Regulatory, and Technical Aspects. Boca Raton, FL: CRC. Pp. 143–157.Google Scholar
Shaner, D. L., Anderson, P. C., and Stidham, M. A. 1984. Imidazolinones, potent inhibitors of acetohydroxyacid synthase. Plant Physiol. 76:545–546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simpson, D. M., Stoller, E. W., and Wax, L. M. 1995. An in vivo acetolactate synthase assay. Weed Technol. 9:17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, B. K., Stidham, M. A., and Shaner, D. A. 1988. Assay of acetohydroxyacid synthase. Anal. Biochem. 171:173–179.Google Scholar
Swanson, E. B., Herrgesell, M. J., Arnoldo, M., Sippel, D. W., and Wong, R. S. C. 1989. Microspore mutagenesis and selection: canola plants with field tolerance to the imidazolinones. Theor. Appl. Genet. 78:520–530.Google Scholar
Wasterfield, W. W. 1945. A colormetic determination of blood acetoin. J. Biol. Chem. 161:495–502.Google Scholar