Dhiraj Saha

[38] Dong K. Insect sodium channels and insecticide resistance. Invertebrate Neuro‐

[39] Rosario-Cruz R, Guerrero FD, Miller RJ, Rodriguez-Vivas RI, Tijerina M, Domi‐ nguez-Garcia DI, Hernandez-Ortiz R, Cornel AJ, McAbee RD, Alonso-Diaz MA. Mo‐ lecular survey of pyrethroid resistance mechanisms in Mexican field populations of *Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus*. Parasitology Research. 2009; 105(4): 1145–1153.

[40] Miller RJ, Davey RB, George JE. First report of permethrin-resistant *Boophilus micro‐ plus* (Acari: Ixodidae) collected within the United States. Journal of Medical Entomol‐

[41] Li AY, Davey RB, Miller RJ, Guerrero FD, George JE. Genetics and mechanisms of permethrin resistance in the Santa Luiza strain of *Boophilus microplus* (Acari: Ixodi‐

[42] Lovis L, Guerrero FD, Miller RJ, Bodine DM, Betschart B, Sager H. Distribution pat‐ terns of three sodium channel mutations associated with pyrethroid resistance in *Rhi‐ picephalus (Boophilus) microplus* populations from North and South America, South Africa and Australia. International Journal of Parasitology. 2012; 2: 216–224. DOI:

[43] Temeyer KB, Chen AC, Davey RB, Guerrero F, Freeman JM, Kammlah DM, Li AY, Lohmeyer K H, Olafson P, Pérez de León AA, Phillips P L, Pound JM, Welch JB. Novel approaches for control of *Rhipicephalus* (*Boophilus*) *microplus*. Revista Mexicana

[44] Guerrero FD, Jamroz RD, Kammlah D, Kunz SE. Toxicological and molecular charac‐ terization of pyrethroid-resistant horn flies, *Haematobia irritans*: identification of kdr and super-kdr point mutations. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. 1997; 27:

[45] Miller R, Estrada-Peña A, Almazan C, Yeater KM, Messenger M, Ellis D, and Pérez de León, AA. Exploring the use of an anti-tick vaccine as a tool for the integrated eradication of the cattle fever tick, *Rhipicephalus* (*Boophilus*) *annulatus*. Vaccine. 2012;

[46] Williamson MS, Martinez-Torres D, Hick CA, Devonshire A.L. Identification of mu‐ tations in house-fly para-sodium channel gene associated with knockdown resistance (*Kdr*) to pyrethroid insecticides. Molecular and General Genetics. 1996; 252: 51–60. [47] Temeyer KB, Pruett JH, Chen AC. R86Q a mutation in BmAChE3 yielding a *Rhipice‐ phalus microplus* organophosphate insensitive acetylcholinesterase. Journal of Medical

science. 2007; 7(1): 17–30. DOI: 10.1007/s10158-006-0036-9.

dae). Journal of Medical Entomology. 2008; 45(3): 427–438.

DOI: 10.1007/s00436-009-1539-1.

ogy. 2007; 44(2): 308–315.

346 Insecticides Resistance

10.1016/j.ijpddr.2012.08.001.

Entomology. 2007; 1013–1018.

de Ciencias Pecuarias. 2012; 3(Supl 1): 25–40.

745–755. DOI: 10.1016/S0965-1748(97)00057-X.

30: 5682–5687. DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.05.061.

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61949

#### **Abstract**

Polyphagous insect herbivores encounter numerous toxins (xenobiotics) as they pass through their life cycle; some toxins are produced naturally by the host plants (allelochemicals) and others by humans (insecticides) to manage these insects hav‐ ing pest status. The host plants have evolved defensive mechanisms for protection from herbivory, including chemical repellents and toxins (secondary metabolites). Many classes of insect repellents and toxic substances, such as isoflavonoids, fura‐ nocoumarins, terpenoids, alkaloids and cyanogenic glycosides are synthesized in plants. The biosynthetic pathways leading to these allelochemicals are continually evolving to generate new secondary metabolites. Similarly, to control the herbivo‐ rous insect pests, numerous chemicals of synthetic origin are used continuously against them. In response, the attacking organisms also evolve mechanisms that en‐ able them to resist the defensive chemicals of their hosts and those toxins of syn‐ thetic origin applied for their control. A variety of defence mechanisms, including enzymatic detoxification systems, physiological tolerance and behavioural avoid‐ ance, protect insect herbivores from these xenobiotic compounds. Insect pests have evolved the mechanisms to degrade metabolically (enzymatically) or otherwise cir‐ cumvent the toxic effect of many types of chemicals that we have synthesized as modern insecticides. The extent to which insects can metabolize and thereby de‐ grade these antibiotics or toxins is of considerable importance for their survival in hostile chemical environment. These mechanisms continue to evolve as insects at‐ tempt to colonize new plant species or encounter newer molecules of synthetic in‐ secticides. Generally, three main enzymes, general esterases (GEs), glutathione Stransferases (GSTs) and cytochrome P450-mediated monooxygenases (CYPs), are involved in the process of metabolic detoxification of insecticides. During the past 70 years, following the discovery and extensive use of synthetic insecticides, resist‐ ance of insects to insecticides has registered the greatest increase and strongest im‐ pact. The evolution of resistance to insecticides is an example of evolutionary process. An insecticide is the selection pressure, which results in a very strong but differential fitness of the individual in a population having susceptible and resistant genotypes. The survival and subsequent reproduction of resistant individuals lead to a change in the frequency of alleles conferring resistance in the population over

© 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

time. While selection pressure acts to change allele frequencies within pest popula‐ tions, the phenotype upon which selection operates is a function of both genotype and the environment. Recent studies in insect detoxifying enzymes have revealed further versatility in the adaptation of insects to their environment by the phenom‐ enon of induction. This is the process in which a chemical stimulus enhances the ac‐ tivity of the detoxification enzyme systems by the production of additional enzymes that metabolize toxic chemical substances. Hence, the influence of envi‐ ronmental factors such as continuous usage of insecticides and the chemical constit‐ uents (allelochemicals) of host plants on phytophagous insects can have a great impact to induce the enzymatic detoxification systems of insects, thereby promoting the insecticide resistance mechanisms. While all insects do possess detoxification ability, its magnitude is expected to vary among the species with the nature of its recent environment and feeding ecology. The level and type of detoxifying mecha‐ nisms differ greatly, which therefore result in varying toxicity among different de‐ velopmental stages, species and populations. Variation in detoxifying enzyme activity is responsible in part for the selective toxicity of different insecticides, the development of resistance to insecticides and selective adaptation to host plants. Over-expression of these detoxifying enzymes, capable of metabolizing insecticides, can result in a high level of metabolic tolerance/resistance to synthetic insecticides. Increased expressions of genes encoding the major xenobiotic metabolizing en‐ zymes are the most common cause of insecticide resistance in insects.

**Keywords:** Insecticide resistance, tea, insect pests, detoxifying enzymes, cyto‐ chrome p450, carboxylesterases, glutathione S-transferases, monooxygenases, allelo‐ chemical, *Helopeltis theivora*, *Scirtothrips dorsalis*, *Empoasca flavescens*
