Comparison of three larval bioassays to evaluate susceptibility of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus to amitraz
Field samples of Rhipicephalus(Boophilus) microplus from the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, were assessed using the following methods: larval packet test (LPT), larval immersion test (LIT) and syringe immersion test (SIT). The following parameters were determined for each population and for the...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Colégio Brasileiro de Parasitologia Veterinaria
|
| Series: | Revista Brasileira de Parasitologia Veterinária |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1984-29612013000400495&lng=en&tlng=en |
| _version_ | 1823993257832480768 |
|---|---|
| author | Tânia Regina Bettin Santos Guilherme Marcondes Klafke Felipe Geraldo Pappen Leandro Quintana Nizoli Patrícia Biegelmeyer Nara Amélia Rosa Farias |
| author_facet | Tânia Regina Bettin Santos Guilherme Marcondes Klafke Felipe Geraldo Pappen Leandro Quintana Nizoli Patrícia Biegelmeyer Nara Amélia Rosa Farias |
| author_sort | Tânia Regina Bettin Santos |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Field samples of Rhipicephalus(Boophilus) microplus from the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, were assessed using the following methods: larval packet test (LPT), larval immersion test (LIT) and syringe immersion test (SIT). The following parameters were determined for each population and for the Mozo susceptible reference strain: lethal concentration for 50% (LC50) with its 95% confidence interval (95% CI), regression line slope and resistance ratio (RR). Using the LPT, only one population was susceptible to amitraz, presenting a RR of 1.9. Using the same technique, the other populations presented RRs of between 92.9 and 3445.8 and were considered resistant. The LC50 of the Mozo strain calculated using the LPT, LIT and SIT was 2.9, 27.3, and 52.7 µg/mL, respectively. In general, a good fit to the probit statistical model was only achieved using the LPT. The results obtained in this study impair recommendations for using the LIT and SIT to diagnose amitraz resistance in R. (B.) microplus populations. Additional studies are required to improve the sensitivity of these tests in relation to the LPT. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-18T16:18:36Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-ffa7562dc965400fab2e2c83a014107e |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1984-2961 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-18T16:18:36Z |
| publisher | Colégio Brasileiro de Parasitologia Veterinaria |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Revista Brasileira de Parasitologia Veterinária |
| spelling | doaj.art-ffa7562dc965400fab2e2c83a014107e2022-12-21T21:01:51ZengColégio Brasileiro de Parasitologia VeterinariaRevista Brasileira de Parasitologia Veterinária1984-296122449550110.1590/S1984-29612013000400008S1984-29612013000400495Comparison of three larval bioassays to evaluate susceptibility of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus to amitrazTânia Regina Bettin SantosGuilherme Marcondes KlafkeFelipe Geraldo PappenLeandro Quintana NizoliPatrícia BiegelmeyerNara Amélia Rosa FariasField samples of Rhipicephalus(Boophilus) microplus from the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, were assessed using the following methods: larval packet test (LPT), larval immersion test (LIT) and syringe immersion test (SIT). The following parameters were determined for each population and for the Mozo susceptible reference strain: lethal concentration for 50% (LC50) with its 95% confidence interval (95% CI), regression line slope and resistance ratio (RR). Using the LPT, only one population was susceptible to amitraz, presenting a RR of 1.9. Using the same technique, the other populations presented RRs of between 92.9 and 3445.8 and were considered resistant. The LC50 of the Mozo strain calculated using the LPT, LIT and SIT was 2.9, 27.3, and 52.7 µg/mL, respectively. In general, a good fit to the probit statistical model was only achieved using the LPT. The results obtained in this study impair recommendations for using the LIT and SIT to diagnose amitraz resistance in R. (B.) microplus populations. Additional studies are required to improve the sensitivity of these tests in relation to the LPT.http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1984-29612013000400495&lng=en&tlng=enRhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplusamitrazbioassaysresistance diagnosis |
| spellingShingle | Tânia Regina Bettin Santos Guilherme Marcondes Klafke Felipe Geraldo Pappen Leandro Quintana Nizoli Patrícia Biegelmeyer Nara Amélia Rosa Farias Comparison of three larval bioassays to evaluate susceptibility of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus to amitraz Revista Brasileira de Parasitologia Veterinária Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus amitraz bioassays resistance diagnosis |
| title | Comparison of three larval bioassays to evaluate susceptibility of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus to amitraz |
| title_full | Comparison of three larval bioassays to evaluate susceptibility of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus to amitraz |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of three larval bioassays to evaluate susceptibility of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus to amitraz |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of three larval bioassays to evaluate susceptibility of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus to amitraz |
| title_short | Comparison of three larval bioassays to evaluate susceptibility of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus to amitraz |
| title_sort | comparison of three larval bioassays to evaluate susceptibility of rhipicephalus boophilus microplus to amitraz |
| topic | Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus amitraz bioassays resistance diagnosis |
| url | http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1984-29612013000400495&lng=en&tlng=en |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT taniareginabettinsantos comparisonofthreelarvalbioassaystoevaluatesusceptibilityofrhipicephalusboophilusmicroplustoamitraz AT guilhermemarcondesklafke comparisonofthreelarvalbioassaystoevaluatesusceptibilityofrhipicephalusboophilusmicroplustoamitraz AT felipegeraldopappen comparisonofthreelarvalbioassaystoevaluatesusceptibilityofrhipicephalusboophilusmicroplustoamitraz AT leandroquintananizoli comparisonofthreelarvalbioassaystoevaluatesusceptibilityofrhipicephalusboophilusmicroplustoamitraz AT patriciabiegelmeyer comparisonofthreelarvalbioassaystoevaluatesusceptibilityofrhipicephalusboophilusmicroplustoamitraz AT naraameliarosafarias comparisonofthreelarvalbioassaystoevaluatesusceptibilityofrhipicephalusboophilusmicroplustoamitraz |