Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-07T18:27:22.853Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cross-resistance in DDT-resistant strains of various mosquitoes (Diptera, Culicidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

Y. Rongsriyam  and
J. R. Busvine
Y. Rongsriyam
Affiliation:
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT
J. R. Busvine
Affiliation:
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Larvicide tests were conducted on five species of mosquitoes, each of which had one or more DDT-resistant strains. The high potencies of DDT and, to a large degree, of DDD were completely lost by resistance. Other compounds were affected in different degrees according to the resistance mechanisms present, as indicated by resistance spectra and the effects of synergists. DDT-resistant strains of Culex pipiens fatigans Wied., Anopheles quadrimaculatus Say and A. stephensi List, showed highly specific resistance to DDT, probably dependent on a dehydrochlorination mechanism. DDT-resistance in Aedes aegypti (L.) and A. gambiae was also high, but there was definite evidence of cross-resistance to biodegradable DDT-analogues (about ×4 and ×10, respectively). This low-level, but definite, cross-resistance extended to a number of other compounds, notably pyrethroids, insect development inhibitors, amines, etc. The presence of synergistic action by piperonyl butoxide suggested that this depended on a microsomal oxidation system.

Isotopically labelled (14C) DDT and malathion were used to study pick-up and penetration of these insecticides by larvae of normal and resistant Ae. aegypti. Both the actual and the percentage penetration of DDT were greater in the resistant than in the normal strain. Whatever the reason for this, it disposes of the possibility of reduced pick-up and penetration as a factor in DDT-resistance. With malathion, the percentage penetration was always higher in the susceptible strain than in the resistant one, though in some cases the actual amount was less.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 65 , Issue 3 , October 1975 , pp. 459 - 471
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anon, . (1971). The importance of insecticides in public health.—WHO Chron. 25, 209–213.Google Scholar
Benskin, J. & Vinson, S. B. (1973). Factors affecting juvenile hormone analogue activity in the tobacco budworm.—J. econ. Ent. 66, 15–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A. W. A. & Pal, R. (1971). Insecticide resistance in arthropods, 2nd edn.—Monogr. Ser. WHO no. 38, 491 pp.Google ScholarPubMed
Busvine, J. R. (1968). Design of tests for detecting and measuring insecticide resistance.—S.C.I. Monogr. no. 29, 18–34.Google Scholar
Cerf, D. C. & Georghiou, G. P. (1972). Evidence of cross-resistance to a juvenile hormone analogue in some insecticide-resistant houseflies.—Nature, Lond. 239, 401–402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cline, R. E. (1972). Lethal effects of aqueous formulations containing fatty amines or acids against eggs and larvae of Aedes aegypti.—J. econ. Ent. 65, 177–181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dyte, C. E. (1972). Resistance to synthetic juvenile hormone in a strain of the flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum.—Nature, Lond. 238, 48–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holan, G. (1971). Rational design of insecticides.—Bull. Wld Hlth Org. 44, 355–362.Google ScholarPubMed
Kalra, R. L. (1974). Mechanisms of DDT resistance in Culex pipiens fatigans.—J. med. Entomol. 11, 437–441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kimura, T., Duffy, J. R. & Brown, A. W. A. (1965). Dehydrochlorination and DDT-resistance in Culex mosquitoes.—Bull. Wld Hlth Org. 32, 557–561.Google Scholar
Metcalf, R. L., Kapoor, I. P. & Hirwe, A. S. (1971). Biodegradable analogues of DDT.—Bull. Wld Hlth Org. 44, 363–374.Google ScholarPubMed
Miller, S. & Maddock, D. R. (1970). Ovicidal effect of selected compounds on the eggs of Anopheles albimanus.—J. econ. Ent. 63, 1151–1154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mulla, M. S., Darwazeh, H. A. & Gillies, P. A. (1970). Evaluation of aliphatic amines against larvae and pupae of mosquitoes.—J. econ. Ent. 63, 1472–1475.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perry, A. S. & Buckner, A. J. (1959). The metabolic rate of Prolan in a Dilan-resistant strain of houseflies.—J. econ. Ent. 52, 997–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plapp, F. W. Jr. & Vinson, S. B. (1973). Juvenile hormone analogs: toxicity and cross-resistance in the housefly.—Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 3, 131–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quraishi, M. S. (1971). Toxic and teratogenic effects of saturated and unsaturated fatty acids on house fly larvae.—J. econ. Ent. 64, 787–792.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sakai, M., Sato, Y. & Kato, M. (1967). Insecticidal activity of cartap, with special references to the effectiveness for controlling the rice stem borer.—Jap. J. appl. Ent. Zool. 11, 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternburg, J., Kearns, C. W. & Bruce, W. N. (1950). Absorption and metabolism of DDT by resistant and susceptible house flies.—J. econ. Ent. 43, 214–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Health Organization (1970). Insecticide resistance and vector control. 17th Report WHO Expert Committee on Insecticides.—Tech. Rep. Ser. Wld Hlth Org. no. 443, 279 pp.Google Scholar