The widely successful use of synthetic herbicides over the past 70 years has imposed strong and widespread selection pressure, leading to the evolution of herbicide resistance in hundreds of weed species. Both target-site resistance (TSR) and nontarget-site resistance (NTSR) mechanisms have evolved to most herbicide classes. TSR often involves mutations in genes encoding the protein targets of herbicides, affecting the binding of the herbicide either at or near catalytic domains or in regions affecting access to them. Most of these mutations are nonsynonymous SNPs, but polymorphisms in more than one codon or entire codon deletions have also evolved. Some herbicides bind multiple proteins, making the evolution of TSR mechanisms more difficult. Increased amounts of protein target, by increased gene expression or by gene duplication, are an important, albeit less common, TSR mechanism. NTSR mechanisms include reduced absorption or translocation and increased sequestration or metabolic degradation. The mechanisms that can contribute to NTSR are complex and often involve genes that are members of large gene families. For example, enzymes involved in herbicide metabolism–based resistances include cytochromes P450, GSH S-transferases, glucosyl and other transferases, aryl acylamidase, and others. Both TSR and NTSR mechanisms can combine at the individual level to produce higher resistance levels. The vast array of herbicide-resistance mechanisms for generalist (NTSR) and specialist (TSR and some NTSR) adaptations that have evolved over a few decades illustrate the evolutionary resilience of weed populations to extreme selection pressures. These evolutionary processes drive herbicide and herbicide-resistant crop development and resistance management strategies.

Resistance of weeds to ALS-inhibiting herbicides: what have we learned? - Volume 50 Issue 6 - Patrick J. Tranel, Terry R. Wright

The herbicide glyphosate became widely used in the United States and other parts of the world after the commercialization of glyphosate-resistant crops. These crops have constitutive overexpression of a glyphosate-insensitive form of the herbicide target site gene, 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase ( EPSPS ). Increased use of glyphosate over multiple years imposes selective genetic pressure on weed populations. We investigated recently discovered glyphosate-resistant Amaranthus palmeri populations from Georgia, in comparison with normally sensitive populations. EPSPS enzyme activity from resistant and susceptible plants was equally inhibited by glyphosate, which led us to use quantitative PCR to measure relative copy numbers of the EPSPS gene. Genomes of resistant plants contained from 5-fold to more than 160-fold more copies of the EPSPS gene than did genomes of susceptible plants. Quantitative RT-PCR on cDNA revealed that EPSPS expression was positively correlated with genomic EPSPS relative copy number. Immunoblot analyses showed that increased EPSPS protein level also correlated with EPSPS genomic copy number. EPSPS gene amplification was heritable, correlated with resistance in pseudo-F ₂ populations, and is proposed to be the molecular basis of glyphosate resistance. FISH revealed that EPSPS genes were present on every chromosome and, therefore, gene amplification was likely not caused by unequal chromosome crossing over. This occurrence of gene amplification as an herbicide resistance mechanism in a naturally occurring weed population is particularly significant because it could threaten the sustainable use of glyphosate-resistant crop technology.

Herbicides that act by inhibiting protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO) are widely used to control weeds in a variety of crops. The first weed to evolve resistance to PPO-inhibiting herbicides was Amaranthus tuberculatus , a problematic weed in the midwestern United States that previously had evolved multiple resistances to herbicides inhibiting two other target sites. Evaluation of a PPO-inhibitor-resistant A. tuberculatus biotype revealed that resistance was a (incompletely) dominant trait conferred by a single, nuclear gene. Three genes predicted to encode PPO were identified in A. tuberculatus . One gene from the resistant biotype, designated PPX2L , contained a codon deletion that was shown to confer resistance by complementation of a hemG mutant strain of Escherichia coli grown in the presence and absence of the PPO inhibitor lactofen. PPX2L is predicted to encode both plastid- and mitochondria-targeted PPO isoforms, allowing a mutation in a single gene to confer resistance to two herbicide target sites. Unique aspects of the resistance mechanism include an amino acid deletion, rather than a substitution, and the dual-targeting nature of the gene, which may explain why resistance to PPO inhibitors has been rare.

As cases of resistance to herbicides escalate worldwide, there is increasing demand from growers to test for weed resistance and learn how to manage it. Scientists have developed resistance-testing protocols for numerous herbicides and weed species. Growers need immediate answers and scientists are faced with the daunting task of testing an increasingly large number of samples across a variety of species and herbicides. Quick tests have been, and continue to be, developed to address this need, although classical tests are still the norm. Newer methods involve molecular techniques. Whereas the classical whole-plant assay tests for resistance regardless of the mechanism, many quick tests are limited by specificity to an herbicide, mode of action, or mechanism of resistance. Advancing knowledge in weed biology and genomics allows for refinements in sampling and testing protocols. Thus, approaches in resistance testing continue to diversify, which can confound the less experienced. We aim to help weed science practitioners resolve questions pertaining to the testing of herbicide resistance, starting with field surveys and sampling methods, herbicide screening methods, data analysis, and, finally, interpretation. More specifically, this article discusses approaches for sampling plants for resistance confirmation assays, provides brief overviews on the biological and statistical basis for designing and analyzing dose–response tests, and discusses alternative procedures for rapid resistance confirmation, including molecular-based assays. Resistance confirmation procedures often need to be slightly modified to suit a specific situation; thus, the general requirements as well as pros and cons of quick assays and DNA-based assays are contrasted. Ultimately, weed resistance testing research, as well as resistance management decisions arising from research, needs to be practical, feasible, and grounded in science-based methods.