‘Superweeds’: How the pigweed Palmer amaranth developed resistance to the herbicide glyphosate, and why the news isn’t all bad

Earlier this spring, researchers at Kansas State University released new findings on the evolution of glyphosate resistance in Palmer amaranth (pigweed) that are really interesting in their own right, but also for a general reminder about how evolution works. And for what they might tell us about staving off herbicide resistance in invasive weeds.

Before we get to the new science, let’s cover some old science.

There is a free floating sense that herbicide resistance evolves via random useful mutations that happen after the application of herbicide and then natural selection kicks in. While not impossible, that’s not generally what’s going on. What’s happening is that the weeds start selecting for a trait they already have, expressing it in greater degrees as it starts conferring new found Darwinian fitness.

palmer 4 23 18 3.jpg.pngIn a discussion of the Kansas State research, Washington State University agronomist Andrew McGuire pointed to language on the front page of the website for The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds, which notes that weeds have evolved resistance to 23 of the 26 known herbicide sites of action and to 163 different herbicides. “These types of statements make it sound like weeds actively did something, but they didn’t,” McGuire said. We’re talking about “random mutations (491 and counting) that were maintained in weed species until they were sprayed with an herbicide that the mutation interfered with.” He then pointed to a blog post by University of Wyoming weed science professor Andrew Kniss on research that found latent traits for herbicide resistance to an herbicide that wouldn’t be developed for another 80 years:

There is evidence that individual weeds resistant to herbicides existed long before we even discovered synthetic herbicides. French researchers screened herbarium specimens for a weed called blackgrass (Alopecurus myosuroides). They then tested those blackgrass specimens to see if any of them carried genetic mutations known to confer resistance to a certain type of herbicide (ACCase inhibitors). They found a mutant collected in 1888 near Bordeaux, France and kept at the Montpellier herbarium that had the same kind of mutation that causes herbicide resistance in blackgrass today. The study was published in PLOS ONE in 2013.

Herbicides that inhibit the ACCase enzyme were not commercialized until the 1970s, which means that the herbicide resistant plant in the French study was collected over 80 years before the herbicide had ever been sprayed.

Although it is a really cool study, it isn’t actually surprising based on what we currently know about herbicide resistance. Weed scientists have long suspected that spraying herbicides doesn’t cause resistance mutations to occur in the plant; it simply removes all of the susceptible plants so that any plants that are resistant can grow and survive. Over time, continued use of the herbicide selects for the resistant plants to become more common, and to eventually dominate the field. Herbicide use selects for the resistant plants that occur naturally within a weed population.

So, now that we’ve all updated our mental model of how herbicide resistance develops in weeds, let’s take a look at the particularly dramatic version of this that the Kansas team found.

“We found that glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth plants carry the glyphosate target gene in hundreds of copies,” Jugulam said. “Therefore, even if you applied an amount much higher than the recommended dose of glyphosate, the plants would not be killed.”

Bikram Gill, director of Kansas State University’s Wheat Genetics Resource Center who has worked in plant genetics for nearly 50 years, said the researchers knew pretty quickly that the genetic makeup of resistant weeds was different.

“Normally, the genetic material in all organisms – including humans – is found in long, linear DNA molecules, called chromosomes,” said Gill, another co-author of the study. “But when (K-State researchers) Dal-Hoe Koo and Bernd Friebe, the chromosome experts in the team, looked at these glyphosate-resistant weeds, the glyphosate target gene, along with other genes actually escaped from the chromosomes and formed a separate, self-replicating circular DNA structure.”

Scientists refer to this structure as extra-chromosomal circular DNA (eccDNA). Each eccDNA has one copy of the gene that produces an enzyme that is the target for glyphosate.

“Because of the presence of hundreds of eccDNAs in each cell, the amount of the enzyme is also abundant,” Gill said. “Therefore, the plant is not affected by glyphosate application and thus the weed is resistant to the herbicide.”

Want to follow the latest news and policy debates over agricultural biotechnology and biomedicine? Subscribe to our free newsletter.

It’s worth unpacking this process a bit more, just because it’s really interesting.

Related article:  USDA's hands-off approach to gene-edited crops could revolutionize research and development

From the paper:

Living organisms, including plants and insects, have also evolved resistance to xenobiotics compounds, such as herbicides and insecticides, via gene amplification. In all reported studies, amplified gene copies were located in specific chromosomes or multiple chromosomal regions, but not in the form of eccDNAs. Therefore, gene amplification in these living organisms is thought to have occurred by chromosomal rearrangements, such as inversion and reciprocal exchanges, or in association with transposable elements.

A 40-fold to >100-fold amplification of the 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) gene is associated with glyphosate resistance in Amaranthus palmeri populations. Initial reports suggested that the EPSPS amplicon was at least 30 kb in length and contained miniature inverted-repeat transposable elements (MITEs), which were postulated to disperse the amplicon to all of the glyphosate-resistant (GR) A. palmeri chromosomes at multiple sites (23, 31). More recently, the length of the EPSPS amplicon was extended to 297 kb, and termed the “EPSPS cassette,” by sequencing overlapping large-insert clones derived from a bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) library. These clones flank the EPSPS gene, which was unique to GR A. palmeri across the United States, suggesting a single origin.

palmer 4 23 18 2.jpg
Image credit: Nebraska Extension

Here’s what’s going on: Glyphosate use creates stress that triggers extrachromosomal circular DNA-based amplification of the gene for the metabolic enzyme enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) which glyphosate inhibits.

Resistance isn’t a function of sidestepping the inhibition of EPSPS production, which is how the RoundUp Ready trait works. RoundUp Ready crops are tolerant of glyphosate because they produce a different version of EPSPS with a different gene than the one glyphosate targets. In Palmer amaranth, what we see instead is the DNA replicating so many of the genes for EPSPS through eccDNA that the plant cells produce more of them than the glyphosate can overwhelm.

Plant responds to stress with eccDNA, resulting in multiple replications of genes. That process increases the chances of producing an adaptation that increases fitness for the plant. Those new replications that prove adaptive become sticky in the genome, those that don’t select back out. Once the replication of many multiples of the EPSPS gene are produced, resistance isn’t going anywhere soon. If you can remove evolutionary pressure for over-production of EPSPS before it gets out of hand, those copies might select back out.

The Kansas State team explains:

Armed with their new knowledge, the researchers can begin work on developing strategies to negate resistance in weeds.

“It’s been known that these circular DNA/chromosomal structures can be unstable,” Jugulam said. “What we want to explore is, for example, if we do not apply glyphosate repeatedly or reduce the selection by glyphosate, can we make these ring-structured chromosomes unstable and once again make these plants susceptible to glyphosate.”

The research team notes that farmers should incorporate best management strategies – such as rotating herbicides and crops – to reduce weed pressure: “This may allow evolving resistance to dissipate as we know that these eccDNAs and ring chromosomes are unstable and can be lost in the absence of herbicide selection pressure,” Jugulam said.

It seems to me that there is good news bound up with the bad news. The bad news (and it may not seem like “news” to farmers who’ve seen resistance develop with lightning speed in pigweed) is that resistance in this case doesn’t develop linearly, over time. Once the mechanism switches on, it develops really fast. The good news is that you’ve got a window where the resistance has no stable foundation and you’ve got a chance to select it back out if you act fast.

Marc Brazeau is a frequent contributor to the GLP. He also is the editor of Food and Farm Discussion Lab. Follow him on Twitter @eatcookwrite.

 

10 thoughts on “‘Superweeds’: How the pigweed Palmer amaranth developed resistance to the herbicide glyphosate, and why the news isn’t all bad”

  1. Interesting , to combat weed , researcher have found that thousands of year in agriculture ws more efficient than the Monsanto garbage , Crop rotation ! not my words theirs , sometimes it work to come from a Family of Farmer who did not need to use the junk this web site is promoting , in addition crop rotation refresh and add nutrient to the soil …..Who need Monsanto ?

    • Snow White, aptly named. Seems you have been asleep for the past 100 years. Here’s what you might do to catch up: put on some jeans and go grow your own food instead of depending on them dwarves to feed ya!

    • The thing is…and there are several….that crop rotation is not always economically possible. I farm just outside of the corn belt where my yields average 100 bu/acre less than say in Iowa…with corn prices the way they are now…if I plant corn I will be automatically losing money. Just how much is up to the weather and insurance only covers 80% of your average yield which will be less than your costs. Corn inputs are much costlier than soybeans. Same goes for wheat. Another factor is that corn must be planted early in the year and a cold wet spring may not allow that….so soybeans it is because they have a longer planting “window” where you can still be profitable. There are other reasons as well but for you to just make a blanket statement on farm cropping practices is not very accurate in the least.

  2. More simply put: weeds with herbicide resistance traits are selected for by application of herbicides and can become the majority of the weed population. So to prevent the herbicide resistant variants from becoming the majority – either vary herbicides or stagger applications of herbicides- to prevent the herbicide resistant variety from becoming the majority of the weed population.

  3. This is all very interesting but for those of us with some long term perspective on weed science there is nothing terribly new here. Resistance to atrazine, for example, started developing over 4 decades ago. Farmers, extension agents and weed scientists came up with tank mix and mode of activity rotation mitigation strategies to deal with this. The result is that atrazine is still very widely used in the corn belt. The same thing is happening with glyphosate. The thing that really stands out to me is that when the issue was atrazine resistance it was pretty much an issue of agriculture. With glyphosate it seems to be a existential crisis and the end of the world. The difference is the company involved and the pervasive destructive effect of social media IMHO.

    • True, the resistance to atrazine did develop several decades ago, but the herbicidal mechanism of the triazines is different from glyphosate so possibly there is a different type of resistance factor than the extrachromosomal trait that is described in this article. As well, the rapid proliferation the resistance trait in Amaranthus palmeri may have been augmented by the extremely high fecundity rate of that weed species in its geographic center of origin, i.e. the Southeast, whereas atrazine resistance may have developed first in weed species with lower fecundity and dissemination rates. A third factor is that atrazine only works against seedling weeds, so the selection pressure might be less than for glyphosate which is effective against all absorptive green plant tissue.

      I’m amused by your accurate characterization of the existential end-of-the-world crisis that’s been ginned up by the anti-GMO screamers over glyphosate. I wonder what they would do if a non-Monsanto entity were to come up with a pyridazolinone or sulfonylurea resistant crop.

      • No argument here. Also important to keep in mind that atrazine has residual soil activity and glyphosate is contact only so the selection pressure would be quite different. My main point is that these things happen, for different technical reasons and farmers and their expert advisors deal with it.

        NB. Funny you mention it but the company I spent most of my early years in this technology working for developed the imidazolinone tolerant trait and I don’t recall much sturm und drang about that.

  4. Really interesting mechanism. It’s an almost identical resistance mode to certain cancer cells that become resistant to chemotherapies. Isolating that origin of replication would be a great start to making artificial chromosomes!

Leave a Comment

News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.

Send this to a friend