• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

Texas A&M Entomology Research Network

  • Show Search
Hide Search

Research

$3.9M project on self-deleting genes takes aim at mosquito-borne diseases

January 4, 2021 by Rob Williams

Texas A&M AgriLife researchers’ work to aid mosquito control efforts

by Olga Kuchment, Texas A&M AgriLife Marketing and Communications

mosquito close-upTo control mosquito populations and prevent them from transmitting diseases such as malaria, many researchers are pursuing strategies in mosquito genetic engineering. A new Texas A&M AgriLife Research project aims to enable temporary “test runs” of proposed genetic changes in mosquitoes, after which the changes remove themselves from the mosquitoes’ genetic code.

The project’s first results were published on Dec. 28 in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, titled “Making gene drive biodegradable.”

Zach Adelman, Ph.D, and Kevin Myles, Ph.D., both professors in the Texas A&M College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Department of Entomology are the principal investigators. Over five years, the team will receive $3.9 million in funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases to test and fine-tune the self-deleting gene technology.

“People are wary of transgenes spreading in the environment in an uncontrolled manner. We feel that ours is a strategy to potentially prevent that from happening,” Adelman said. “The idea is, can we program a transgene to remove itself? Then, the gene won’t persist in the environment.

“What it really comes down to is, how do you test a gene drive in a real-world scenario?” he added. “What if a problem emerges? We think ours is one possible way to be able to do risk assessment and field testing.”

A crucial target for mosquito control

Many genetic engineering proposals revolve around inserting into mosquitoes a select set of new genes along with a “gene drive.” A gene drive is a genetic component that forces the new genes to spread in the population.

“A number of high-profile publications have talked about using a gene drive to control mosquitoes, either to change them so they can’t transmit malaria parasites anymore, or to kill off all the females so the population dies out,” Adelman said.

An often-voiced worry is that such genetic changes could carry unintended or harmful consequences.

One plan makes the cut

In the project’s first publication, the colleagues describe three ways for an introduced genetic change to remove itself after a designated period of time. The time period could, for instance, be 20 generations of mosquitoes, or about a year. The team modeled how the genes would spread among mosquitoes based on generation times and parameters of an average mosquito’s life. Of the three methods, the team has chosen one to pursue further.

This method takes advantage of a process all animals use to repair damaged DNA, Adelman said. Inside cell nuclei, repair enzymes search for repeated genetic sequences around broken DNA strands. The repair enzymes then delete what’s between the repeats, he said.

So, Adelman and Myles’ team plans to test in fruit flies and mosquitoes a gene drive, a DNA-cutting enzyme and a small repeat of the insect’s own DNA.

Once the introduced enzyme cuts the DNA, the insect’s own repair tools should jump into action. The repair tools will cut out the genes for the gene drive and the other added sequences. At least, that’s what should happen in theory.

Failure is not just an option, it’s part of the plan

The team has already started lab work to test different gene drives and determine how long they last in flies and mosquitoes. The goal is to see a gene drive spread rapidly through a lab insect population. After a few generations, the added genes should disappear and the population should again consist of wild-type individuals.

“We assigned various rates of failure for how often the mechanism does not work as expected,” Adelman said. “The models predict that even with a very high rate of failure, if it succeeds just 5% of the time, that’s still enough to get rid of the transgene.”

 

Juliana Rangel Receives Award for Outstanding Research, Outreach in Beekeeping Industry

November 6, 2020 by Rob Williams

Juliana Rangel, left, with John Talbot, center, and Ashley Ralph. Photo by Rob Williams.
Juliana Rangel (left) with John Talbot (center), and Ashley Ralph, Texas Beekeepers Association president (right). Photo by Rob Williams.

The Department of Entomology at Texas A&M congratulates Dr. Juliana Rangel as she received the Dr. John G. Thomas Meritorious Service Award from the Texas Beekeepers Association during a special visit on Tuesday, November 3.

Rangel received the award for her outstanding research and her dedication to the beekeeping industry. Her research involves investigating various aspects of the reproductive biology of honey bee queens and drones, honey bee nutritional biology, and the behavioral ecology and genetics of managed and wild honey bees.

The award is given to a non-commercial beekeeper, researcher, regulator, industry or individual who has had a major impact on the Texas beekeeping industry.

Since joining the Department in 2013, Rangel has acquired over $1 million in extramural support and funding for her research program, focusing on providing solutions to improve colony health, such as a study on the effects of agricultural pesticides on honey bee fertility, a grant to identify floral sources foraged by honey bees in four locations in the U.S., and a grant to create and lead the Texas A&M University’s Tech Transfer Team.

In collaboration with the Texas Beekeeepers Association, Rangel also wrote a successful grant to raise awareness of the benefits of “Real Texas Honey.” Along with the above major grants, she has forged several significant collaborations with faculty and scientists at the national and international levels to research honey bee reproduction, ecological genetics of feral Africanized honey bees, and integrated pest management techniques for control of Varroa destructor mites in Texas apiaries.

Rangel appreciated the association and the Department for supporting her research programs.

“I am so grateful to the Texas Beekeeper Association and to the Department of Entomology for taking the time to do this and for allowing me to travel to other cities to talk about our research program,” Rangel said. “It is truly an honor and I am humbled and grateful for them to give me this award.”

TBA president Ashley Ralph said that Rangel’s research has provided a positive impact on the beekeeping industry and Texas agriculture as a whole.

“We are so proud to award Juliana the John G. Thomas Meritorious Service Award for her continued work in research and education,” Ralph said. “Through her research and the research of the graduate students she leads in the Honey Bee Research Program, we are given a better understanding of what we consider to be the most fascinating insect on the planet. Honey bees are the backbone of our diverse Texas agriculture and this research allows us all to be better stewards for bees.”

Texas honey production tops 7.4 million pounds

October 21, 2020 by Rob Williams

Beekeeper looking at comb while bees flying around him
A beekeeper tends to one of 68 bee colonies staged for honey production and pollination near a 90-acre field of Silver River Sweetclover being grown for seed production. (Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service photo by Adam Russell)

by Adam Russell, Texas A&M AgriLife Marketing and Communications

Texas remained sixth in the nation for honey production in 2019, and is home to thousands of overwintering hives that contribute to the nation’s agricultural economy each growing season, according to Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service experts.

Molly Keck, AgriLife Extension entomologist, Bexar County, said Texas beekeeping falls into three categories – hobbyists, sideliners and commercial.

Hobbyists are backyard beekeepers who keep bees, typically less than 10 hives, to meet Texas’ agriculture exemption for property taxes and/or to produce honey for their household, to share and/or sell locally. Sideliners typically have 50-250 hives but also maintain a full-time job.

“The plight of the honeybee and beekeeping to protect populations is a part of the increasing trend of hobbyist beekeepers,” Keck said. “But around 75% of the residents who participate in our Beekeeping 101 course are doing it to get that ag exemption with the bonus being honey for themselves and to share with family and friends and maybe sell at local farmers markets.”

Commercial beekeepers are those who keep 500 colonies or more. Their livelihood depends on bee husbandry and by moving large numbers of hives around the state and nation to pollinate crops and/or produce honey.

In Texas for instance, a commercial beekeeper may deliver hives in the Rio Grande Valley to pollinate watermelon fields and move those same hives to the Texas Plains to pollinate cotton later in the growing season. Then in the summer they may move their colonies to South Dakota or North Dakota for clover honey production.

Honey production and home base

Juliana Rangel, Ph.D, AgriLife Research honey bee scientist in the Department of Entomology, Bryan-College Station, said Texas is home to many beekeepers because they hold bees here in winter and then take them to other states for pollination services in February and throughout the year.

Rangel said as Texas is not among the states that require apiary permitting or registration, it is difficult to keep an accurate tally of beehives, activities like queen and bee sales and honey production.

The annual U.S. Department of Agriculture honey report in March 2019 showed 132,000 honey-producing colonies in Texas. By comparison, North Dakota, the No. 1 honey-producing state, reported 550,000 colonies. Texas colonies produced 7.4 million pounds of honey in 2019, according to the USDA report. Total U.S. honey production topped 154 million pounds.

Even though the top honey-producing states are North Dakota and South Dakota, California, Florida and Minnesota, Rangel said thousands of those hives are based, or at least overwinter, in Texas as the state offers a mild winter climate for bees.

“A lot of these major producers who provide pollinator services and produce honey have a residence in Texas, but travel throughout the year before returning their bees to the state in preparation for winter,” she said.

Honey production requires nectar sources from wildflowers like bluebonnets, Indian paintbrush and almond verbena, Keck said. East Texas’ climate provides the best conditions for a long honey “flow” that typically starts in February or March and can continue until the end of the year, depending on temperatures.

“Honey bees produce throughout Texas, but there’s less production in West Texas because it’s dry and there’s fewer nectar sources,” she said. “Central Texas typically gets a sizeable flow in the spring and a tiny one in the fall. Freezes in the Panhandle limit production there, but there’s also an abundance of agricultural settings that they benefit.”

Honey bees prefer monocrops, or large swaths of a particular nectar source, whether it’s bluebonnets, cucumbers, fruit trees, watermelons or clover, Keck said. Native bees, on the other hand, prefer to pick and choose nectar sources.

The Dakotas are top honey-producing states because of massive fields of clover that provide a good nectar source for honey production, Rangel said. Bees are taken there in late spring and early summer for honey production.

Nectar harvest in Texas coincides with major wildflower blooms in early spring, Rangel said.

“Nectar harvest in Texas is short but abundant and spikes in mid-to-late spring. By early summer there’s not much, but then there’s a fall bloom that produces some honey as well,” she said. “During summer and after that bloom, those honey-producing hives are fed sugar syrup.”

Trends in beekeeping

Rangel and Keck said interest in honeybees and beekeeping is on the rise, but that the number of active beekeepers in Texas is difficult to nail down. Rangel believes the number of hobbyists likely stays steady due to attrition and addition each year. Keck said participation in AgriLife Extension’s Beekeeping 101 program, which is designed for beginners, suggests beekeeping is on the rise, especially in South and Central Texas.

“The number is at least staying steady,” Rangel said. “The problem when you’re a beginner is that you may be discouraged by a colony’s death in winter and wash out within three years, but you have new hobbyists starting. And over the last 10 years, because of pollinator awareness, the numbers have definitely gone up.”

Rangel said controlling Varroa mites is the biggest challenge for beekeepers. This pest can introduce dozens of viral pathogens that cause colonies to collapse if untreated.

In Texas, Rangel said there are fewer crops that require foliar pesticide applications, which are detrimental to honeybee populations. The landscape is also populated with diverse plants that pollinators, including native bees and honeybees, can feed from year-round.

But urbanization is impacting that landscape, she said.

“People should be aware of the importance of pollinators,” Rangel said. “Bees provide pollination services that represent over $16 billion to the U.S. economy every year, and one-third of the food we eat is pollinated by honey bees. They just need to be aware that avoiding harsh chemicals to control weeds and planting pollinator-friendly areas on their properties can go a long way in protecting pollinators, including the honey bee.”

Excerpted from “Texas honey production tops 7.4 million pounds”, which originally appeared in AgriLife Today.

Research shows insects evolved pathways for acoustic communication

October 7, 2020 by Rob Williams

Sound-making, hearing mechanisms in crickets date back 300 million years

by Adam Russell, Texas A&M AgriLife Marketing and Communications

Diverse singing lineages within the suborder Ensifera date back more than 300 million years. Clockwise from top left: cricket, mole cricket, grig and katydid. (Photo by Piotr Naskrecki)
Diverse singing lineages within the suborder Ensifera date back more than 300 million years. Clockwise from top left: cricket, mole cricket, grig and katydid. (Photo by Piotr Naskrecki)

Songs produced by crickets, katydids, grasshoppers and other orthopteran insects are hundreds of millions of years in the making, according to a Texas A&M AgriLife Research scientist’s research published in Nature Communications.

Hojun Song, Ph.D., AgriLife Research entomologist and associate professor in the Department of Entomology at Texas A&M University, Bryan-College Station, said there have been many changes to the way insects within the Orthoptera order hear and create sounds, but the lineage of these songs dates back around 350 million years.

“We may take it for granted when we hear crickets and katydids, but these insects are involved in very complex acts of communication,” he said. “Just like we use vocal cords and ears to relay messages in acoustic communication, these insects are engaged in a communication that is some of the oldest on Earth.”

The research publication “Phylogenomic analysis sheds light on the evolutionary pathways towards acoustic communication in Orthoptera” shows that the lineages of Orthoptera were communicating to find mates, avoid predators and navigate throughout 350 million years of diversification. By investigating these ancient communication methods, humans can better understand how we ourselves communicate, Song said.

The research was a five-year project funded by the National Science Foundation and the 1KITE, 1K Insect Transcriptome Evolution project, a large international consortium aiming to study the transcriptomes, or the entirety of expressed genes, of more than 1,000 insect species from all recognized insect orders. The publication included work from 12 other scientists from around the globe and is accessible to anyone.

“We discovered a great deal, but there is a great deal that is yet to be discovered about acoustic communication in Orthoptera,” Song said. “But the practical applications of our study are also exciting because it is possible to develop novel tools, such as hearing aid devices, modeled after these ancient mechanisms used for acoustic communication.”

Why crickets and katydids?

Hojun Song, Ph.D., Texas A&M AgriLife Research entomologist and associate professor in the Department of Entomology, on a collecting expedition to Namibia in 2018.
Hojun Song, Ph.D., Texas A&M AgriLife Research entomologist and associate professor in the Department of Entomology, on a collecting expedition to Namibia in 2018.

In terms of animal sounds, insects are the most diverse communicators on the planet, Song said. There are thousands of mammalian and avian species that communicate acoustically for mating, defense and navigation, but there are tens of thousands of insect species that make and hear sounds.

Song and the other researchers approached the project by poring over extensive literature and by using phylogeny, which refers to the evolutionary relationships among organisms. They also collected DNA- and RNA-quality samples of a wide range of Orthoptera species from around the globe and viewed curated species collections and fossil records.

The researchers deduced relationships and built a phylogeny based on DNA sampling and gene sequencing methods, including transcriptome analysis, which have improved exponentially over the past decade.

“A few data points can give a glimpse of the evolutionary relationships, but the amount of data we can generate now can give us a very clear view of the relationships among those species we sampled,” he said. “The transcriptome analysis helped us build a reliable family tree.”

The Orthoptera order encompasses about 28,000 known species, and around 16,000 of them communicate acoustically, Song said. These insects use various specialized mechanisms on their wings or legs and abdomens to create and hear sounds.

Some crickets’ wings have microscopic teeth on the underside that look like a file. When rubbed by a scraping mechanism on the other wing, the “teeth” emit the tell-tale chirp. Some grasshoppers scrape their legs with their wings. Some species of katydids communicate at frequencies at the ultrasound level, which is too high for the human ear to perceive.

Hearing mechanisms also vary from species to species, Song said. Crickets and katydids have ears on their legs. Grasshoppers have ears on their abdomen.

The authors sampled 239 species of Orthoptera for the analyses. The specimens exhibited a wide range of characteristics representing the diversity of acoustic communication within the Orthoptera order.

“There are 16,000 species that communicate acoustically, so we had to select species that covered a wide enough range of characteristics to build a robust evolutionary relationship phylogeny that investigated the use of hearing and sound producing mechanisms,” he said.

After scientists established relationships among the species, they used fossil data to calibrate the phylogeny and determine how old the lineages were, Song said. A paleontologist reviewed millions-year-old fossils of grasshoppers, katydids and crickets to create a “time tree” representing how and when the different insect lineages diverged within the Orthoptera order.

Some of the fossils that the paleontologist reviewed included a cricket’s wing from the Triassic Period, 251 million-199 million years ago. The wing displays the same scraper and teeth that crickets currently use to create sound, Song said.

“What we found was that crickets were using the same mechanism to communicate as they do today,” he said. “So, if we had a time machine, we could go back 300 million years and hear a cricket song that is the same or very similar to what we hear today.”

Song and researchers used that information as a calibration point to go back even further. They estimated, based on 272-million-year-old fossil evidence, that the crown-Orthoptera species appeared during the late Carboniferous period, around 350 million years ago.

Evolution of hearing and sound production

Song said some species within Orthoptera that appeared later likely evolved their communication to stand out in an increasingly noisy environment. They developed advanced sound tempos, patterns and frequencies to stand out among other species to attract mates.

Communication became more complicated as animal life exploded during the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods, Song said.

“There were more species entering the soundscape, and it was becoming saturated, so species probably had to find their narrow niche to communicate,” he said. “Their song had to stand out to mates, so they specialized, but they also had to avoid predators that were homing in via sound.”

Scientists determined very different divergences within two orthopteran suborders – Caelifera and Ensifera, Song said.

Within Ensifera, which includes crickets, katydids, mole crickets and grigs, sound-producing mechanisms and ears likely co-evolved from about 300 million years ago, Song said.

Within Caelifera, which includes grasshoppers, the time tree shows most ancient grasshoppers evolved hearing mechanisms around 60 million years ago, prior to the evolution of sound production. Their hearing mechanism – the abdominal tympana – led to a great divergence in Orthoptera species.

“They may have developed hearing to avoid predators or to modulate their flight,” he said. “But the ability to hear opened up the possibility to communicate. Those evolutionary changes led to many divergences over millions of years.”

What’s next?

Song has recently received another round of funding from National Science Foundation to use more species and more sophisticated technology. His international team, now including collaborators from the U.S., the U.K., France and South Korea, will increase the number of species sequenced to 1,600 and apply biomechanics and biophysics to investigate how the functions of stridulatory wings and tympanal ears have evolved.

Despite many studies, the evolution of acoustic communication is still an open field to scientists, Song said. The research has major implications for insect species’ sustainability in the changing environment and acoustic communication throughout the animal kingdom, including humans.

“Insects, like many species, are adapted to their environment,” he said. “Urbanization is changing the soundscape these insects communicate in. If we can understand these mechanisms and how Orthoptera make sound and hear, we will know more about how we hear and maybe develop novel technology that improves the acoustic environment and acoustic communication for all communicating life, from Orthoptera species to humans.”

New institute to study behavioral plasticity in locusts

October 1, 2020 by Rob Williams

Multi-university collaboration funded by a 5-year, $12.5 million grant

Locusts in Yucatan, Mexico. (Texas A&M AgriLife photo courtesy of Hojun Song)
Locusts in Yucatan, Mexico. (Texas A&M AgriLife photo courtesy of Hojun Song)

by Olga Kuchment, Texas A&M AgriLife Marketing and Communications

Locusts have a reputation of biblical proportions. Certain species of grasshoppers that are typically solitary and harmless can suddenly swarm and consume entire crops, including plants that support livestock. Large swarms can destroy livelihoods for farmers and entire communities’ food supply.

That is why researchers from Texas A&M AgriLife, Baylor College of Medicine, Arizona State University, Washington University in St. Louis and University of California, Davis, have created the Behavioral Plasticity Research Institute, BPRI.

The institute will work to understand the mechanisms behind locust swarms and migration, and then use this knowledge to develop effective methods to limit the destruction the swarms can leave behind.

The cross-institutional, multi-disciplinary effort is led by Hojun Song, Ph.D., associate professor, and Spencer Behmer, Ph.D., professor, both in the Texas A&M College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Department of Entomology; Fabrizio Gabbiani, Ph.D., professor of neuroscience, and Herman Dierick, M.D., associate professor of molecular and human genetics, both at Baylor; and Arianne Cease, Ph.D., associate professor of sustainability and director of the Global Locust Initiative at Arizona State University.

The team with wide-ranging expertise also includes Gregory Sword, Ph.D., professor, Texas A&M Department of Entomology; Erez Lieberman, Ph.D., assistant professor, and Chenghang Zong, Ph.D., assistant professor, both at Baylor; Rick Overson, Ph.D., senior scientist, Arizona State; Stephen Richards, Ph.D., project scientist, Earth BioGenome Project, UC Davis; and Barani Raman, Ph.D., professor, Washington University.

The Behavioral Plasticity Research Institute

A $12.5 million, five-year National Science Foundation grant provides funding for the BPRI. The institute is one of four inaugural Biology Integration Institutes established by the NSF this year to work on broad problems in biology.

“Using cutting-edge technologies in research projects spanning from molecules to landscapes, the BPRI will greatly enhance our understanding of how grasshoppers transform into locusts – a phenomenon called locust phase polyphenism – and develop innovative solutions to manage locust plagues,” Gabbiani said. “With a commitment to improving diversity, inclusion and equity, the institute will train the next generation of integrative biologists who can efficiently navigate across disciplines to reach this goal.”

The institute will communicate groundbreaking research to the general public and the scientific community. By partnering with the Global Locust Initiative hosted at Arizona State, the institute plans to translate its scientific findings to real-world management with a goal of improving global food system sustainability.

Nature vs. nurture

The phenomenon BPRI will study, locust phase polyphenism, is a prime example of how distinct phenotypes can arise from environmental and other cues, rather than only genetic information. In the case of grasshopper species that are considered to be locusts, typically harmless insects can change their behavior in response to certain environmental and sensory cues to become a cohesive swarm.

The changes locusts undergo belong to a broad scientific concept known as phenotypic plasticity, the ability of organisms to change in response to their environment. Phenotypic plasticity is common in nature. But, to fully understand its mechanisms, maintenance and evolution, biological integration is needed, Song said. This work also illuminates how gene expression patterns and epigenetic regulation are linked to shifts in behavior, physiology and ecology that result in outbreaks, collective movement and mass migration.

So, the team expects this work to eventually lend itself to more than just insects. The information learned will help to understand how environment influences genetic makeup to shape behavior across all animals.

Global impact, local solutions

“Currently, when locusts outbreak, they can affect one in 10 people globally,” Behmer said. “The impact and the benefits to society that might come from this institute are pretty enormous.”

To better understand the scope of locusts’ impact, one must consider the situation of places affected by swarms, Sword said.

“When we have disasters in developed countries, we have mechanisms in place to get people support and relief they need,” Sword said. “But in a country dependent on small-holder subsistence agricultural operations, a locust swarm can literally take away a family’s entire source of income and food for the year.”

Hence, to gain a fuller understanding of the problem and provide individualized solutions, the institute will involve people with diverse backgrounds.

“Every step of the way, we will ask the question of whether we are being inclusive and hearing all the perspectives,” Song said. “We need to work across subdisciplines and try to get at the big picture rather than focusing on little slices. I believe that by bringing all these people together, within the next five or 10 years, we can make amazing changes.”

Ten integrative research projects

Researchers with the BPRI plan to carry out 10 integrative research activities. The projects will use three locust and three non-swarming grasshopper species with varying degrees of plasticity. The researchers will work with genomes, tissue-specific and time-resolved transcriptomes and epigenomes, as well as CRISPR/Cas9 and reverse genetics tools to understand the functional genetics of locust phase polyphenism, all considered within an evolutionary framework.

“We’ll be studying the factors that nudge individual locusts to join a larger group and the changes that follow,” Raman said. “Given the reports of massive, destructive locust swarms in many African and Asian countries this year, this is indeed a timely investigation of a well-reported, but not yet fully understood phenomenon.”

In essence, the institute will aim to solve problems humans have faced for thousands of years due to locusts, Song said.

“We’ve had the locust problem for millennia,” Song said. “But, we still struggle to control these pests. I believe that the discoveries made through the BPRI will fundamentally transform our understanding of why and how locusts swarm, which will ultimately translate into sustainable management practices.”

  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 12
  • Go to Next Page »

A member of
Texas A&M AgriLife

Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service | Texas A&M AgriLife Research | Texas A&M Forest Service | Texas A&M AgriLife Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Lab | College of Agriculture & Life Sciences

Texas A&M Entomology Research Network

Copyright © 2025 · Monochrome Pro Child for AgriLife on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in