A comparison of two in vitro bioassays to detect resistance of the cattle tick Rhipicephalus microplus to fipronil
The aim of this work is to compare the sensitivity of two in vitro bioassays to detect resistant to fipronil in Argentinean populations of the cattle tick Rhipicephalus microplus. Two different larval bioassays prepared with technical grade (97%) fipronil were compared: larval immersion test (LIT) a...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | info:ar-repo/semantics/artículo |
| Language: | Inglés |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2022
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/13726 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405939022001320 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vprsr.2022.100816 |
| _version_ | 1855036989744611328 |
|---|---|
| author | Torrents, Jorgelina Morel, Nicolas Rossner, Maria Victoria Martinez, Norberto Claudio Nava, Santiago |
| author_browse | Martinez, Norberto Claudio Morel, Nicolas Nava, Santiago Rossner, Maria Victoria Torrents, Jorgelina |
| author_facet | Torrents, Jorgelina Morel, Nicolas Rossner, Maria Victoria Martinez, Norberto Claudio Nava, Santiago |
| author_sort | Torrents, Jorgelina |
| collection | INTA Digital |
| description | The aim of this work is to compare the sensitivity of two in vitro bioassays to detect resistant to fipronil in Argentinean populations of the cattle tick Rhipicephalus microplus. Two different larval bioassays prepared with technical grade (97%) fipronil were compared: larval immersion test (LIT) and larval packet test (LPT). Seven strains from different provinces were treated with both assays. Colonia Tabay, Colonia Benítez, Intiyaco and Quimili strains were considered resistant in both LIT and LPT bioassays. The 95% confidence intervals (IC95) for lethal concentration 50% (LC50) did not overlap with the susceptible reference strain (SRS) and all the values of RR50 obtained were higher than 2. Garabato and Federal strains were considered as susceptible for both techniques because the IC95 for the LC50 overlapped with those of the SRS and the RR50 values were lesser than 2. An ambiguous situation occurs with Reconquista strain. This strain was considered as susceptible with LPT and with incipient resistant after LIT trial. The analysis of the results indicates that both LIT and LPT trials have enough sensibility to differentiate resistant and susceptible strains, but LIT was more sensitive than LPT when the resistance is incipient. |
| format | info:ar-repo/semantics/artículo |
| id | INTA13726 |
| institution | Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA -Argentina) |
| language | Inglés |
| publishDate | 2022 |
| publishDateRange | 2022 |
| publishDateSort | 2022 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| publisherStr | Elsevier |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | INTA137262024-01-10T13:37:50Z A comparison of two in vitro bioassays to detect resistance of the cattle tick Rhipicephalus microplus to fipronil Torrents, Jorgelina Morel, Nicolas Rossner, Maria Victoria Martinez, Norberto Claudio Nava, Santiago Rhipicephalus Fipronil Resistance to Acaricides Bio-assays Cattle Resistencia a los Acaricidas Ensayo Biológico Ganado Bovino The aim of this work is to compare the sensitivity of two in vitro bioassays to detect resistant to fipronil in Argentinean populations of the cattle tick Rhipicephalus microplus. Two different larval bioassays prepared with technical grade (97%) fipronil were compared: larval immersion test (LIT) and larval packet test (LPT). Seven strains from different provinces were treated with both assays. Colonia Tabay, Colonia Benítez, Intiyaco and Quimili strains were considered resistant in both LIT and LPT bioassays. The 95% confidence intervals (IC95) for lethal concentration 50% (LC50) did not overlap with the susceptible reference strain (SRS) and all the values of RR50 obtained were higher than 2. Garabato and Federal strains were considered as susceptible for both techniques because the IC95 for the LC50 overlapped with those of the SRS and the RR50 values were lesser than 2. An ambiguous situation occurs with Reconquista strain. This strain was considered as susceptible with LPT and with incipient resistant after LIT trial. The analysis of the results indicates that both LIT and LPT trials have enough sensibility to differentiate resistant and susceptible strains, but LIT was more sensitive than LPT when the resistance is incipient. EEA Rafaela Fil: Torrents, Jorgelina. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias; Argentina Fil: Morel, Nicolas. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Rafaela; Argentina Fil: Morel, Nicolas. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Investigación de la Cadena Láctea (IDICAL); Argentina Fil: Rossner, Maria Victoria. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Colonia Benitez; Argentina Fil: Martinez, Norberto Claudio. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Reconquista. Agencia de Extensión Rural Garabato; Argentina Fil: Nava, Santiago. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Rafaela; Argentina Fil: Nava, Santiago. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina Fil: Nava, Santiago. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Instituto de Investigación de la Cadena Láctea (IDICAL); Argentina 2022-12-27T13:11:34Z 2022-12-27T13:11:34Z 2023-01 info:ar-repo/semantics/artículo info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/13726 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405939022001320 2405-9390 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vprsr.2022.100816 eng info:eu-repograntAgreement/INTA/2019-PE-E5-I109-001/2019-PE-E5-I109-001/AR./Convocatoria: Estudios para el control de enfermedades subtropicales y/o transmitidas por vectores (Tristeza Bovina, Garrapatas, Miasis, Tripanosomiasis, Lengua Azul y la info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess application/pdf Elsevier Veterinary Parasitology : Regional Studies and Reports; 37: 100816 (January 2023) |
| spellingShingle | Rhipicephalus Fipronil Resistance to Acaricides Bio-assays Cattle Resistencia a los Acaricidas Ensayo Biológico Ganado Bovino Torrents, Jorgelina Morel, Nicolas Rossner, Maria Victoria Martinez, Norberto Claudio Nava, Santiago A comparison of two in vitro bioassays to detect resistance of the cattle tick Rhipicephalus microplus to fipronil |
| title | A comparison of two in vitro bioassays to detect resistance of the cattle tick Rhipicephalus microplus to fipronil |
| title_full | A comparison of two in vitro bioassays to detect resistance of the cattle tick Rhipicephalus microplus to fipronil |
| title_fullStr | A comparison of two in vitro bioassays to detect resistance of the cattle tick Rhipicephalus microplus to fipronil |
| title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of two in vitro bioassays to detect resistance of the cattle tick Rhipicephalus microplus to fipronil |
| title_short | A comparison of two in vitro bioassays to detect resistance of the cattle tick Rhipicephalus microplus to fipronil |
| title_sort | comparison of two in vitro bioassays to detect resistance of the cattle tick rhipicephalus microplus to fipronil |
| topic | Rhipicephalus Fipronil Resistance to Acaricides Bio-assays Cattle Resistencia a los Acaricidas Ensayo Biológico Ganado Bovino |
| url | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/13726 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405939022001320 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vprsr.2022.100816 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT torrentsjorgelina acomparisonoftwoinvitrobioassaystodetectresistanceofthecattletickrhipicephalusmicroplustofipronil AT morelnicolas acomparisonoftwoinvitrobioassaystodetectresistanceofthecattletickrhipicephalusmicroplustofipronil AT rossnermariavictoria acomparisonoftwoinvitrobioassaystodetectresistanceofthecattletickrhipicephalusmicroplustofipronil AT martineznorbertoclaudio acomparisonoftwoinvitrobioassaystodetectresistanceofthecattletickrhipicephalusmicroplustofipronil AT navasantiago acomparisonoftwoinvitrobioassaystodetectresistanceofthecattletickrhipicephalusmicroplustofipronil AT torrentsjorgelina comparisonoftwoinvitrobioassaystodetectresistanceofthecattletickrhipicephalusmicroplustofipronil AT morelnicolas comparisonoftwoinvitrobioassaystodetectresistanceofthecattletickrhipicephalusmicroplustofipronil AT rossnermariavictoria comparisonoftwoinvitrobioassaystodetectresistanceofthecattletickrhipicephalusmicroplustofipronil AT martineznorbertoclaudio comparisonoftwoinvitrobioassaystodetectresistanceofthecattletickrhipicephalusmicroplustofipronil AT navasantiago comparisonoftwoinvitrobioassaystodetectresistanceofthecattletickrhipicephalusmicroplustofipronil |