A comparison of three different methodologies for evaluating Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) rnicroplus susceptibility to topical spray compounds

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Correa, Rafael Rodrigues [UNESP]
Data de Publicação: 2015
Outros Autores: Zanetti Lopes, Welber Daniel [UNESP], Pires Teixeira, Weslen Fabricio [UNESP], Cruz, Breno Cayeiro [UNESP], Costa Gomes, Lucas Vinicius [UNESP], Felippelli, Gustavo [UNESP], Maciel, Willian Giquelin [UNESP], Favero, Flavia Carolina [UNESP], Buzzulini, Carolina [UNESP], Bichuette, Murilo Abud [UNESP], Soares, Vando Edesio [UNESP], Costa, Alvimar Jose da [UNESP]
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
DOI: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2014.11.001
Texto Completo: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304401714005639
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/129631
Resumo: This study aimed to compare three different methodologies (Adult Immersion Tests, field trials with naturally infected animals, and a Stall Test using artificially infested cattle) to evaluate the efficacy of two topical formulations that we administered as whole body sprays (15% Cypermethrin + 30% Chlorpyriphos + 15% Fenthion-Colosso (R) FC 30, Ouro Fino Agronegocios; and 60% Dichlorvos + 20% Chlorpyriphos-Ectofos (R), Vallee Saude Animal Ltd.), against a susceptible strain of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus. To achieve this objective, two natural infestation trials were conducted, as well as two artificial infestation trials (Stall Tests) and two Adult Immersion Tests (AIT). The AIT results showed that both spray formulations achieved 100% efficacy against R. (B.) micro plus fully engorged females. However, when observing results obtained by field trials (natural infestations) and Stall Tests, none of these topically applied compounds reached 100% efficacy or affected the reproductive capacity of the fully engorged female ticks. Additional studies must be conducted to compare these in vivo methodologies with different in vitro techniques, such as the Larval Packet Test. However, based on results obtained here, we can conclude that depending on the spray formulations used, the AIT can overestimate acaricidal efficacy and values of reproductive efficiency of such compounds against R (B.) micro plus. Specifically, when dealing with spray formulations in the Stall Tests, the period of residual action can increase because these animals are sheltered from contact with environmental factors that might interfere with the efficacy of the products tested. It may be necessary to take in vivo trial results into consideration (such as field trials with naturally infested animals or Stall Tests) to standardize a specific in vitro assay, such as the Adult Immersion Test. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
id UNSP_bf19fd8f63d4351d65678de44be842f7
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/129631
network_acronym_str UNSP
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository_id_str 2946
spelling A comparison of three different methodologies for evaluating Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) rnicroplus susceptibility to topical spray compoundsAdult immersion testArtificial infestationsNatural infestationSpray formulationsStall testThis study aimed to compare three different methodologies (Adult Immersion Tests, field trials with naturally infected animals, and a Stall Test using artificially infested cattle) to evaluate the efficacy of two topical formulations that we administered as whole body sprays (15% Cypermethrin + 30% Chlorpyriphos + 15% Fenthion-Colosso (R) FC 30, Ouro Fino Agronegocios; and 60% Dichlorvos + 20% Chlorpyriphos-Ectofos (R), Vallee Saude Animal Ltd.), against a susceptible strain of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus. To achieve this objective, two natural infestation trials were conducted, as well as two artificial infestation trials (Stall Tests) and two Adult Immersion Tests (AIT). The AIT results showed that both spray formulations achieved 100% efficacy against R. (B.) micro plus fully engorged females. However, when observing results obtained by field trials (natural infestations) and Stall Tests, none of these topically applied compounds reached 100% efficacy or affected the reproductive capacity of the fully engorged female ticks. Additional studies must be conducted to compare these in vivo methodologies with different in vitro techniques, such as the Larval Packet Test. However, based on results obtained here, we can conclude that depending on the spray formulations used, the AIT can overestimate acaricidal efficacy and values of reproductive efficiency of such compounds against R (B.) micro plus. Specifically, when dealing with spray formulations in the Stall Tests, the period of residual action can increase because these animals are sheltered from contact with environmental factors that might interfere with the efficacy of the products tested. It may be necessary to take in vivo trial results into consideration (such as field trials with naturally infested animals or Stall Tests) to standardize a specific in vitro assay, such as the Adult Immersion Test. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) - Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias, Jaboticabal, São Paulo, Brasil|Universidade Federal de Goiás, Regional de Jataí, Goiás, BrasilUniversidade Camilo Castelo Branco (UNICASTELO), Descalvado, São Paulo, BrasilUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) - Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias, Jaboticabal, São Paulo, BrasilElsevier B.V.Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)Universidade Federal de Goiás (UFG)Universidade Camilo Castelo Branco (UNICASTELO)Correa, Rafael Rodrigues [UNESP]Zanetti Lopes, Welber Daniel [UNESP]Pires Teixeira, Weslen Fabricio [UNESP]Cruz, Breno Cayeiro [UNESP]Costa Gomes, Lucas Vinicius [UNESP]Felippelli, Gustavo [UNESP]Maciel, Willian Giquelin [UNESP]Favero, Flavia Carolina [UNESP]Buzzulini, Carolina [UNESP]Bichuette, Murilo Abud [UNESP]Soares, Vando Edesio [UNESP]Costa, Alvimar Jose da [UNESP]2015-10-22T06:19:43Z2015-10-22T06:19:43Z2015-01-15info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/article115-124http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304401714005639Veterinary Parasitology. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Bv, v. 207, n. 1-2, p. 115-124, 2015.0304-4017http://hdl.handle.net/11449/12963110.1016/j.vetpar.2014.11.001WOS:000348949200015Web of Sciencereponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPengVeterinary Parasitology2.4221,275info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2024-06-07T13:03:07Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/129631Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestopendoar:29462024-08-05T22:30:16.805402Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv A comparison of three different methodologies for evaluating Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) rnicroplus susceptibility to topical spray compounds
title A comparison of three different methodologies for evaluating Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) rnicroplus susceptibility to topical spray compounds
spellingShingle A comparison of three different methodologies for evaluating Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) rnicroplus susceptibility to topical spray compounds
A comparison of three different methodologies for evaluating Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) rnicroplus susceptibility to topical spray compounds
Correa, Rafael Rodrigues [UNESP]
Adult immersion test
Artificial infestations
Natural infestation
Spray formulations
Stall test
Correa, Rafael Rodrigues [UNESP]
Adult immersion test
Artificial infestations
Natural infestation
Spray formulations
Stall test
title_short A comparison of three different methodologies for evaluating Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) rnicroplus susceptibility to topical spray compounds
title_full A comparison of three different methodologies for evaluating Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) rnicroplus susceptibility to topical spray compounds
title_fullStr A comparison of three different methodologies for evaluating Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) rnicroplus susceptibility to topical spray compounds
A comparison of three different methodologies for evaluating Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) rnicroplus susceptibility to topical spray compounds
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of three different methodologies for evaluating Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) rnicroplus susceptibility to topical spray compounds
A comparison of three different methodologies for evaluating Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) rnicroplus susceptibility to topical spray compounds
title_sort A comparison of three different methodologies for evaluating Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) rnicroplus susceptibility to topical spray compounds
author Correa, Rafael Rodrigues [UNESP]
author_facet Correa, Rafael Rodrigues [UNESP]
Correa, Rafael Rodrigues [UNESP]
Zanetti Lopes, Welber Daniel [UNESP]
Pires Teixeira, Weslen Fabricio [UNESP]
Cruz, Breno Cayeiro [UNESP]
Costa Gomes, Lucas Vinicius [UNESP]
Felippelli, Gustavo [UNESP]
Maciel, Willian Giquelin [UNESP]
Favero, Flavia Carolina [UNESP]
Buzzulini, Carolina [UNESP]
Bichuette, Murilo Abud [UNESP]
Soares, Vando Edesio [UNESP]
Costa, Alvimar Jose da [UNESP]
Zanetti Lopes, Welber Daniel [UNESP]
Pires Teixeira, Weslen Fabricio [UNESP]
Cruz, Breno Cayeiro [UNESP]
Costa Gomes, Lucas Vinicius [UNESP]
Felippelli, Gustavo [UNESP]
Maciel, Willian Giquelin [UNESP]
Favero, Flavia Carolina [UNESP]
Buzzulini, Carolina [UNESP]
Bichuette, Murilo Abud [UNESP]
Soares, Vando Edesio [UNESP]
Costa, Alvimar Jose da [UNESP]
author_role author
author2 Zanetti Lopes, Welber Daniel [UNESP]
Pires Teixeira, Weslen Fabricio [UNESP]
Cruz, Breno Cayeiro [UNESP]
Costa Gomes, Lucas Vinicius [UNESP]
Felippelli, Gustavo [UNESP]
Maciel, Willian Giquelin [UNESP]
Favero, Flavia Carolina [UNESP]
Buzzulini, Carolina [UNESP]
Bichuette, Murilo Abud [UNESP]
Soares, Vando Edesio [UNESP]
Costa, Alvimar Jose da [UNESP]
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
Universidade Federal de Goiás (UFG)
Universidade Camilo Castelo Branco (UNICASTELO)
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Correa, Rafael Rodrigues [UNESP]
Zanetti Lopes, Welber Daniel [UNESP]
Pires Teixeira, Weslen Fabricio [UNESP]
Cruz, Breno Cayeiro [UNESP]
Costa Gomes, Lucas Vinicius [UNESP]
Felippelli, Gustavo [UNESP]
Maciel, Willian Giquelin [UNESP]
Favero, Flavia Carolina [UNESP]
Buzzulini, Carolina [UNESP]
Bichuette, Murilo Abud [UNESP]
Soares, Vando Edesio [UNESP]
Costa, Alvimar Jose da [UNESP]
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Adult immersion test
Artificial infestations
Natural infestation
Spray formulations
Stall test
topic Adult immersion test
Artificial infestations
Natural infestation
Spray formulations
Stall test
description This study aimed to compare three different methodologies (Adult Immersion Tests, field trials with naturally infected animals, and a Stall Test using artificially infested cattle) to evaluate the efficacy of two topical formulations that we administered as whole body sprays (15% Cypermethrin + 30% Chlorpyriphos + 15% Fenthion-Colosso (R) FC 30, Ouro Fino Agronegocios; and 60% Dichlorvos + 20% Chlorpyriphos-Ectofos (R), Vallee Saude Animal Ltd.), against a susceptible strain of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus. To achieve this objective, two natural infestation trials were conducted, as well as two artificial infestation trials (Stall Tests) and two Adult Immersion Tests (AIT). The AIT results showed that both spray formulations achieved 100% efficacy against R. (B.) micro plus fully engorged females. However, when observing results obtained by field trials (natural infestations) and Stall Tests, none of these topically applied compounds reached 100% efficacy or affected the reproductive capacity of the fully engorged female ticks. Additional studies must be conducted to compare these in vivo methodologies with different in vitro techniques, such as the Larval Packet Test. However, based on results obtained here, we can conclude that depending on the spray formulations used, the AIT can overestimate acaricidal efficacy and values of reproductive efficiency of such compounds against R (B.) micro plus. Specifically, when dealing with spray formulations in the Stall Tests, the period of residual action can increase because these animals are sheltered from contact with environmental factors that might interfere with the efficacy of the products tested. It may be necessary to take in vivo trial results into consideration (such as field trials with naturally infested animals or Stall Tests) to standardize a specific in vitro assay, such as the Adult Immersion Test. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
publishDate 2015
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2015-10-22T06:19:43Z
2015-10-22T06:19:43Z
2015-01-15
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304401714005639
Veterinary Parasitology. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Bv, v. 207, n. 1-2, p. 115-124, 2015.
0304-4017
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/129631
10.1016/j.vetpar.2014.11.001
WOS:000348949200015
url http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304401714005639
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/129631
identifier_str_mv Veterinary Parasitology. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Bv, v. 207, n. 1-2, p. 115-124, 2015.
0304-4017
10.1016/j.vetpar.2014.11.001
WOS:000348949200015
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Veterinary Parasitology
2.422
1,275
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv 115-124
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier B.V.
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier B.V.
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Web of Science
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP
instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron:UNESP
instname_str Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron_str UNESP
institution UNESP
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
collection Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1822182563185164288
dc.identifier.doi.none.fl_str_mv 10.1016/j.vetpar.2014.11.001