Host Range Of Agents Research Articles

Successes We May Not Have Had: A Retrospective Analysis of Selected Weed Biological Control Agents in the United States

AbstractIn this paper, we describe five successful classical biological weed control agents released in the United States. For each of the five arthropod species, we compared data from prerelease studies that experimentally predicted the agent's host range with data collected postrelease. In general, experimental host range data accurately predicted or overestimated risks to nontarget plants. We compare the five cases with insects recently denied for introduction in the United States and conclude that none of the discussed agents would likely be approved if they were petitioned today. Three agents would be rejected because they potentially could attack economic plants, and two because of potential attack on threatened or endangered plants. All five biocontrol agents have contributed significantly to the successful management of major weeds with no or minimal environmental risk. We believe that the United States may miss opportunities for sustainable and environmentally benign management of weeds using biological control if the regulatory framework only considers the risks of agents as potential plant pests and treats any host-range data regarding economic or threatened and endangered species as a binary decision (i.e., mandates rejection if there is any chance of feeding or development). As a way forward we propose the following: (1) the addition of risk and benefit analyses at the habitat level with a clear ranking of decision-making criteria as part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Technical Advisory Group's evaluation process of biocontrol agents; (2) recognition of the primacy of realized host range data for potential agents that considers the insect's host selection behavior instead of emphasizing fundamental host range data during release evaluations, and (3) development of formalized postrelease monitoring of target and nontarget species as part of the release permit. These recommendations may initially be advanced through reassessment of current policies but may in the longer term require the implementation of dedicated biocontrol legislation.

The Importance of Prions

While agent host-range and strain properties convinced early researchers of a viral etiology, the once unorthodox postulate that prion transmission occurs by conformational corruption of host-encoded cellular prion protein (PrPC) by a pathogenic isoform (PrPSc) is now widely accepted. Indeed, conformational templating is increasingly understood to be a general mechanism of protein-mediated information transfer and pathogenesis. The high infectivity of prions, their capacity to cause neurodegeneration in genetically tractable animal models, as well as the ability to culture prions in cells, or under cell-free conditions using defined components, provide finely controlled experimental settings in which to elucidate general mechanisms for all diseases involving protein conformational templating, and thus to develop integrated therapeutic approaches.

Translating host-specificity test results into the real world: The need to harmonize the yin and yang of current testing procedures

In its modern era, the discipline of biological control can be perceived as being subject to a series of tensions due to differences in philosophy, different needs, and different practices; these include the view that biological control is environmentally friendly and desirable vs. the view that any organism alien to a particular habitat should be considered an undesirable invasive, the need to protect nontarget species vs. the need to introduce the most effective biological control agents and the need to know what an agent might attack under normal field conditions vs. the restrictive nature of current testing procedures. These tensions are particularly manifest in the area of host-specificity testing where researchers interact most directly with regulators and policy-makers and recent “incidents” of nontarget use by biological control agents in three regions have brought them to the fore. The empirical tension between needing more certainty about agent host-range in the real world and being obliged to test this primarily under highly restricted conditions is of most concern to researchers. This paper suggests ways to reduce this through improvements in (1) what plants are tested, (2) how the selected plants are tested, and (3) how the test data are interpreted and communicated to regulators. It is argued that the currently used centrifugal phylogenetic method for selecting test plant lists should be modernized to accommodate the many recent improvements in knowledge of plant phylogenetic relationships and insect host-choice evolution and behavior. The reliance on quarantine-based testing is briefly examined and low- and high-technology alternatives considered. Both these are rejected, at least in the short-term, as being impractical, and the use is proposed of comparative laboratory-based vs. open-field host tests against a few key nontarget species to proactively calibrate subsequent quarantine data and aid interpretation of results obtained under artificial conditions. While these improvements should help better translate host-test results to real-world outcomes, it is essential that there be increased transparency in the communication of these results to regulators, with discussions of different components of risk, such as localized vs. widespread and short-term collateral damage vs. long-term evolutionary impact. Harmonizing the tensions that currently impinge on biological control can only be achieved through improving the quality of information provided, which will help regulators make decisions that are based more on knowledge and less on the often ill-perceived fears of the public.