ArticlePest management science2026
Analysis of glutamine synthetase target-site mutations and their role in endowing glufosinate-ammonium resistance.
Article in Pest management science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGlufosinate-ammonium (GFA) is a non-selective herbicide that inhibits glutamine synthetase (GS), a key enzyme in plant nitrogen metabolism. Although resistance to GFA has been reported in several weed species, confirmed cases of target-site resistance (TSR) via GS mutations remain rare. In Amaranthus palmeri, resistance is usually associated with GS gene amplification and overexpression, while the role of GS point mutations remains unclear. This study investigated GFA resistance in a population lacking GS amplification, and evaluated the functional relevance of putative resistance-conferring GS mutations.
resultsDigital PCR revealed no substantial GS amplification or overexpression in the CCR population. Sequencing identified a glycine-to-aspartic acid substitution at position 255 (G255D) in the chloroplastic GS2.2 isoform, detected in ~80% of CCR plants in heterozygous form. Notably, this mutation was exclusively in untreated plants. In vitro assays showed that GS2.2 G255D retained ~58% of wild-type catalytic activity and was completely insensitive to GFA inhibition. However, ectopic expression of G255D, as well as the homologous Arabidopsis GS2.2 G254D substitution, did not confer GFA tolerance in Arabidopsis. Analysis of GS1.1 variants demonstrated that mutations disrupting GFA binding generally caused severe reductions in catalytic efficiency. Re-evaluation of the previously reported Eleusine indica GS1.1 S59G mutation revealed no meaningful shift in GFA sensitivity.
conclusionsGFA resistance in the CCR population cannot be explained by GS amplification or GS2.2 G255D. These findings underscore the strong structural and functional constraints on GS target-site evolution and suggests that non-target-site mechanisms likely underlie GFA resistance in this population. © 2026 BASF SE and The Author(s). Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.