Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24898372›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2014

Novel biopesticide based on a spider venom peptide shows no adverse effects on honeybees.

Erich Y T Nakasu, Sally M Williamson, Martin G Edwards, Elaine C Fitches, John A Gatehouse, Geraldine A Wright, Angharad M R Gatehouse

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
8.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Biocontrol, new questions for Ecotoxicology?Environmental science and pollution research international · 2018
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Erich Y T NakasuSchool of Biology, Newcastle Institute for Research and Sustainability, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK Capes Foundation, Ministry of Education of Brazil, Caixa Postal 250, Brasília 70040-020, Brazil.
Sally M WilliamsonInstitute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK.
Martin G EdwardsSchool of Biology, Newcastle Institute for Research and Sustainability, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK.
Elaine C FitchesThe Food and Environment Research Agency, Sand Hutton, York YO41 1LZ, UK.
John A GatehouseSchool of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Durham University, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK.
Geraldine A WrightInstitute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK.
Angharad M R GatehouseSchool of Biology, Newcastle Institute for Research and Sustainability, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK a.m.r.gatehouse@ncl.ac.uk.
Newcastle University · GBDurham University · GBFera Science (United Kingdom) · GBMinistry of Education · BR

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/E006671/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/I000143/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evidence is accumulating that commonly used pesticides are linked to decline of pollinator populations; adverse effects of three neonicotinoids on bees have led to bans on their use across the European Union. Developing insecticides that pose negligible risks to beneficial organisms such as honeybees is desirable and timely. One strategy is to use recombinant fusion proteins containing neuroactive peptides/proteins linked to a 'carrier' protein that confers oral toxicity. Hv1a/GNA (Galanthus nivalis agglutinin), containing an insect-specific spider venom calcium channel blocker (ω-hexatoxin-Hv1a) linked to snowdrop lectin (GNA) as a 'carrier', is an effective oral biopesticide towards various insect pests. Effects of Hv1a/GNA towards a non-target species, Apis mellifera, were assessed through a thorough early-tier risk assessment. Following feeding, honeybees internalized Hv1a/GNA, which reached the brain within 1 h after exposure. However, survival was only slightly affected by ingestion (LD50>100 µg bee(-1)) or injection of fusion protein. Bees fed acute (100 µg bee(-1)) or chronic (0.35 mg ml(-1)) doses of Hv1a/GNA and trained in an olfactory learning task had similar rates of learning and memory to no-pesticide controls. Larvae were unaffected, being able to degrade Hv1a/GNA. These tests suggest that Hv1a/GNA is unlikely to cause detrimental effects on honeybees, indicating that atracotoxins targeting calcium channels are potential alternatives to conventional pesticides.

Indexed as

AnimalsBeesCalcium Channel BlockersGalanthusInsecticidesLarvaLearningMannose-Binding LectinsPlant LectinsRecombinant Fusion ProteinsSpider VenomsCalcium Channel BlockersInsecticidesMannose-Binding LectinsPlant LectinsRecombinant Fusion Proteinssnowdrop lectinSpider Venomsbiopesticidehoneybeesinsecticidal fusion proteinspollinator declinesnowdrop lectin (Galanthus nivalis agglutinin)ω-hexatoxin-Hv1a

Identifiers

PMID24898372
PMCPMC4071547
OpenAlexW2103452253

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.