A comparison of three different methodologies for evaluating Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) rnicroplus susceptibility to topical spray compounds
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2015 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , , , , , , , |
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 |