Identification of mutations in the housefly para-type sodium channel gene associated with knockdown resistance (kdr) to pyrethroid insecticides

441Citations
Citations of this article
176Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

We report the isolation of cDNA clones containing the full 6.3-kb coding sequence of the para-type sodium channel gene of the housefly, Musca domestica. This gene has been implicated as the site of knockdown resistance (kdr), an important resistance mechanism that confers nerve insensitivity to DDT and pyrethroid insecticides. The cDNAs predict a polypeptide of 2108 amino acids with close sequence homology (92% identity) to the Drosophila para sodium channel, and around 50% homology to vertebrate sodium channels. Only one major splice form of the housefly sodium channel was detected, in contrast to the Drosophila pal a transcript which has been reported to undergo extensive alternative splicing. Comparative sequence analysis of housefly strains carrying kdr or the more potent super-kdr factor revealed two amino acid mutations that correlate with these resistance phenotypes. Both mutations are located in domain II of the sodium channel. A leucine to phenylalanine replacement in the hydrophobic IIS6 transmembrane segment was found in two independent kdr strains and six super-kdr strains of diverse geographic origin, while an additional methionine to threonine replacement within the intracellular IIS4-S5 loop was found only in the super-kdr strains. Neither mutation was present in five pyrethroid-sensitive strains. The mutations suggest a binding site for pyrethroids at the intracellular mouth of the channel pore in a region known to be important for channel inactivation.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Williamson, M. S., Martinez-Torres, D., Hick, C. A., & Devonshire, A. L. (1996). Identification of mutations in the housefly para-type sodium channel gene associated with knockdown resistance (kdr) to pyrethroid insecticides. Molecular and General Genetics, 252(1–2), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02173204

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free