Suppr超能文献

三种生物测定技术用于确定微小牛蜱(蜱螨亚纲:硬蜱科)对双甲脒敏感性的比较

A comparison of three bioassay techniques to determine amitraz susceptibility in Boophilus microplus (Acari: Ixodidae).

作者信息

Miller Robert J, Davey Ronald B, White W Hunter, George John E

机构信息

USDA-ARS, Cattle Fever Tick Research Laboratory, Moore Air Base, Building 6419, 22675 North Moorefield Road, Edinburgh, TX 78541, USA.

出版信息

J Med Entomol. 2007 Mar;44(2):283-94. doi: 10.1603/0022-2585(2007)44[283:acotbt]2.0.co;2.

Abstract

The ability of the Miller, Soberanes, and White bioassay techniques to describe amitraz susceptibility in three different strains of Boophilus microplus (Canestrini) (Acari: Ixodidae) was compared. For a susceptible strain, all techniques adequately described amitraz susceptibility by producing a full range of mortality that corresponded with increasing concentration of amitraz. However, when resistant strains were evaluated, only the Miller and the Soberanes techniques adequately estimated the dose-response relationship. Lethal concentrations were not precisely estimated when all the data were included in the analyses for every strain and technique tested. Better estimates were obtained when subsets of data around the range of interest were subjected to probit analysis. For the Soberanes technique, the slope of the probit regression was steeper for the Brazilian resistant and Texan susceptible strains compared with the heterozygous Mexican strain. The pattern was different when the same strains were tested with the Miller technique. The slopes of the regressions for the Mexican and the Texan strains did not differ significantly, but the Brazilian strain had a steeper slope than the other strains. Resistance ratios were much greater when the Soberanes technique was used than when the Miller technique was used on the same strains. However, neither technique produced enough separation between susceptible and resistant strains to develop a traditional discriminating dose (DD) test that required a concentration of 2x LC99.9 estimate. A DD test at the LC99 would be possible for both techniques. We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the three techniques, including potential improvements to the White technique. The White technique has the greatest potential to determine the mechanisms of amitraz resistance in detailed synergist studies. Currently, only the Miller method can fulfill this task. The Miller and Soberanes techniques are well suited for the study of the epidemiology of resistance worldwide, because they use commercially available, formulated amitraz that is easy and inexpensive to obtain.

摘要

比较了米勒、索贝兰斯和怀特生物测定技术描述微小牛蜱(卡内斯特里尼)(蜱螨目:硬蜱科)三种不同品系对双甲脒敏感性的能力。对于一个敏感品系,所有技术都能通过产生与双甲脒浓度增加相对应的全范围死亡率来充分描述双甲脒敏感性。然而,在评估抗性品系时,只有米勒和索贝兰斯技术能充分估计剂量反应关系。当将所有数据纳入对每个测试品系和技术的分析时,致死浓度无法精确估计。当对感兴趣范围附近的数据子集进行概率分析时,能得到更好的估计值。对于索贝兰斯技术,与杂合的墨西哥品系相比,巴西抗性品系和得克萨斯敏感品系的概率回归斜率更陡。用米勒技术测试相同品系时,情况则不同。墨西哥品系和得克萨斯品系回归的斜率没有显著差异,但巴西品系的斜率比其他品系更陡。在相同品系上使用索贝兰斯技术时的抗性比率比使用米勒技术时大得多。然而,这两种技术都没有在敏感品系和抗性品系之间产生足够的区分度,以建立需要2倍LC99.9估计浓度的传统区分剂量(DD)测试。两种技术在LC99水平进行DD测试都是可行的。我们讨论了这三种技术的优缺点,包括对怀特技术的潜在改进。在详细的增效剂研究中,怀特技术在确定双甲脒抗性机制方面潜力最大。目前,只有米勒方法能完成这项任务。米勒和索贝兰斯技术非常适合全球抗性流行病学研究,因为它们使用易于获得且价格便宜的市售双甲脒制剂。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验