Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis bti

Bti for Mosquito Control

Esta página Web está disponible en español

On this page:

1. What is Bti?

Bti is a biological or a naturally occurring bacterium found in soils. (Bti is short for Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies israelensis.) It contains spores that produce toxins that specifically target and only affect the larvae of the mosquito, blackfly and fungus gnat. EPA has registered five different strains of Bti found in 48 pesticide products that are approved for use in residential, commercial and agricultural settings primarily for control of mosquito larvae.

2. Does Bti pose health risks to humans?

No. Bti has no toxicity to people and is approved for use for pest control in organic farming operations. It has been well tested by many studies on acute toxicity and pathogenicity (ability to cause disease) for Bacillus thuringiensis including studies specifically on Bti. Based on these studies, EPA has concluded that Bti does not pose a risk to humans.

3. Where has Bti been used for mosquito control?

Bti is used across the United States for mosquito control. Bti is approved for aerial spraying, which has taken place in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Michigan, among other states. Bti can be sprayed over waterbodies such as ponds, lakes, rivers and streams. Bti is used to kill developing mosquito larvae by being applied to standing water where those larvae are found. Bti can be used around homes in areas and containers where water can collect, such as flower pots, tires, and bird baths. Bti can also be used to treat larger bodies of water like ponds, lakes and irrigation ditches.

Top of Page

4. Will Bti work to control mosquito larvae?

Yes, Bti has been shown to be effective in reducing mosquito larval populations and could be effective in controlling mosquitos carrying Zika, dengue and chikungunya in places like Puerto Rico and other areas where these diseases have been identified.

5. Are insects becoming resistant to Bti?

No. There is no documented resistance to Bti as a larvicide. A recent study (Tetreau et al. 2013) confirmed previous research showing a lack of Bti resistance in mosquito populations that had been treated for decades with Bti.

6. Are there special precautions to be taken during Bti spraying?

No special precautions are needed for applying Bti. A number of Bti products are sold as “homeowner” products and are easy and safe to use. People do not need to leave areas being treated. However, as is the case with many microbial pesticides, some commercial use Bti products may require applicators to wear a dust/mist filtering mask.

7. How will I know if aerial spraying is going to take place?

Decisions about where and when to spray will be made by local officials. Listen for announcements in your community with the dates, times and locations of upcoming sprayings on social media sites, newspapers or radios.

8. Does Bti pose risk to crops or water supplies?

No. Bti has no toxicity to people, so it can be applied safely to mosquito habitat without a detrimental impact on food crops or water supplies. In fact, Bti can be used for pest control in organic farming operations. It is important to follow the label for any Bti product to ensure that the product is being used correctly. There are multiple Bti products and some are allowed to be used on certain drinking water (e.g., cisterns) while others are not intended for that use.

Top of Page

9. Is Bti harmful to wildlife including honey bees?

Studies indicate Bti has minimal toxicity to honey bees. Bti produces toxins that specifically affect the larvae of only mosquitoes, black flies and fungus gnats. These toxins do not affect other types of insects including honey bees.

10. Is there a medical test to show whether I’ve been exposed to Bti?

Since Bti has no toxicity to humans, a medical test to show exposure to the active ingredient has not been developed.

11. What other measures should be taken to control mosquitoes besides aerial spraying?

  • Eliminate any standing water (even tiny amounts) to prevent infected mosquitoes from laying their eggs (breeding) in standing water.
  • Use window and door screens to block infected mosquitoes from entering your home, workplace or children’s schools.
  • Use EPA-registered insect repellents to prevent getting bitten. EPA-registered means the product works and is safe when you follow the directions.
  • Dress in light-colored clothing, long pants, and long sleeves and try to avoid areas where mosquitoes are present.

Top of Page

Environmental risks of mosquito control with Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti)

The midge species Chironomus riparius in the standardised laboratory study. Credit: Carsten Brühl

Researchers of the University Koblenz-Landau studied the sensitivity of midges, central food resources of wetlands in a standardised laboratory design against the biocide Bti used in mosquito control. The young larval stages were up to 100 times more sensitive than the older stages and are more than 200 times below the environmental concentrations used in the Upper Rhine Valley, Germany. The data indicate the crossing of a risk threshold factor used in biocide regulation by three orders of magnitude. A potential risk for other animal groups via food web effects in treated conservation areas cannot be excluded.

Mosquito control is established at a global scale and along the Upper Rhine Valley in Germany a treatment scheme is in place for decades. Mosquito control based on the use of Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) is regarded as an environmental friendly method, because it efficiently kills mosquitos but has no lethal effects on other organisms. However, the closely related non-biting midges, present in high abundances and species numbers in wetlands, are also Bti sensitive. Midges represent central food sources in wetland food webs because of their high biomass and protein content. Their larvae are eaten by other aquatic insects and fish, the emerging adults represent food for birds, bats or dragonflies.

The environmental scientists of the University Koblenz-Landau studied the sensitivity of the midge Chironomus riparius against Bti concentrations following the entire life cycle including four larval stages. Until now only data for older larval stages were available, and generally a higher sensitivity of younger, smaller larvae is assumed. The researchers around Carsten Brühl used an OECD approved test design for their study, established for the risk assessment of pesticides.

The results show that the youngest larvae are up to 100 times more sensitive than the oldest 4th instar larvae. Their sensitivity was more than 200 times below the lowest field application concentration used in mosquito control in the Upper Rhine Valley. Using the new data of the most sensitive larval stage together with the lowest resulting Bti field concentration indicates a 2000 time exceedance of a risk threshold factor.

The conducted laboratory study represents a simplification of environmental conditions. “In reality the efficiency of Bti can be reduced by the presence of sediments, water turbidity and other factors” explains Carsten Brühl, however “the high values indicate probable effects on midges in Bti treated wetlands.”

In currently available field studies in different ecosystems around the world some showed effects on midges, others did not. “The results are dependent on the environmental conditions of the studied wetlands; salt marshes have different species compositions than floodplains of large rivers” clarifies the researcher. Recent studies in France showed effects on wetland food webs in Bti treated areas. “A solid evaluation of possible Bti food web effects in the Upper Rhine Valley are difficult since, contrary to Sweden, the USA or France, no long-term monitoring with control areas was established in Germany” regrets Carsten Brühl. As an environmental friendly alternative compared to other insecticides Bti is used multiple times per year in the Upper Rhine Valley in nature conservation areas of European value. The sensitivity of midges against Bti and their possible large scale reduction in treated areas might violate nature protection goals.

Explore further

Unique gene regulation gives chilly bugs survival advantage at bottom of the world More information: Anna Kästel et al. Decreasing Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis sensitivity of Chironomus riparius larvae with age indicates potential environmental risk for mosquito control, Scientific Reports (2017). DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-14019-2 Journal information: Scientific Reports Provided by Universität Koblenz-Landau Citation: Environmental risks of mosquito control with Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) (2017, October 19) retrieved 1 February 2020 from https://phys.org/news/2017-10-environmental-mosquito-bacillus-thuringiensis-israelensis.html This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Valent BioSciences Corporation Launches New VectoMax® Biological Larvicide for Mosquito Control

LIBERTYVILLE, IL., March 26, 2009 — Valent BioSciences Corporation will be introducing a new, advanced biological larvicide for mosquito control professionals worldwide.

The new product VectoMax® Biological Larvicide will be launched officially at the American Mosquito Control Association’s 2009 annual meeting next week in New Orleans.

Developed through extensive research efforts, VectoMax provides control of all mosquitoes through the actions of two naturally occurring microbial species, Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis (Bti) and Bacillus sphaericus (Bsph). Bti and Bsph are combined into every micro-particle for ingestion by mosquito larvae. With each bite, larvae are exposed to the entire suite of Bti and Bsph toxins, resulting in quick kill of all mosquito species and extended residual in many habitats.

The key to the new product’s broad-spectrum, long-lasting mosquito control lies within Valent BioSciences Corporation’s proprietary BioFuseTM technology that combines Bti and Bsph toxins into every micro particle during the manufacturing process. VectoMax is not a mixture of Bti and Bsph, but a unique combination of Bti and Bsph optimized to control all mosquito species.

“In the United States, mosquito control professionals have expressed interest in a microbial product that combines the fast acting, broad spectrum aspects of Bti with the long residual control offered by Bsph,” said Ernest Dankwa, Senior Global Business Manager with Valent BioSciences Corporation. “Extensive, large-scale field research at locations around the world shows VectoMax can meet those needs.”

VectoMax is available in the United States in both granule (G, CG) and water-soluble pouch (WSP) formulations in 2009. For more information, contact Valent BioSciences Corporation toll-free at 800-323-9597, or visit the company’s Web site, www.valentbiosciences.com.

The most effective biolarvicide for mosquito control on the market!

Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) has been used for decades by backyard gardeners and commercial growers to control mosquitoes, fungus gnats and black fly. A bio-rational control, Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis is naturally present in the environment and controls the larval stage of certain Dipterans – the aforementioned mosquitoes, fungus gnats, and black fly. It is target specific, rivals S-methoprene in efficacy and is safe for use around mammals, birds, fish and amphibians – keystone species within an ecosystem.

Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis works similarly to Btk in that it must be ingested by the target pest. Once the bacterium has been ingested, it produces crystalline toxins which disrupt the pest’s digestive system, thus stopping continued development and killing the pest larvae before they reach adulthood. This method allows you to reduce disease vectors and egg populations while simultaneously disrupting the pest’s breeding cycle. For best results using Bti, applications should be made early in the target pest’s life cycle while there are still high numbers of larvae present. Trapping measures are also important when setting up the most effective integrated pest management program for mosquitoes that you can.

Please give us a call at 1-800-827-2847 if you have any questions about Bti, its uses, targeted pests, etc.

  • Bti for Mosquito Control FAQs – Frequently asked questions regarding Bacillus thuringiensis israeliensis and its use in mosquito control. Published by the EPA.
  • Efficacy of Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis against Mosquitoes in Northwestern Burkina Faso – Test results and report for various field experiments conducted in 2012. Published by BioMed and NIH Central.
  • Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) In Drinking-Water – Background document for development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality. Published by the World Health Organization.

VectoBar TM

Introduction
VECTOBAR TM is a biological larvicide based on a selected strain of naturally-occurring beneficial soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis var Israelensis ( VCRC Strain B 17 Serotype 11-14 ) that parasitizes the Mosquito Larvae It is formulated as 4,000 IU/mg Micro Emulsion / Liquid Formulation and used as an effective foliar spray. VECTOBAR TM is a tropicalised formulation that is stable for 24 months at a temperature of 45 Degree Celsius.

Larvicides are more effective and less toxic than adult mosquito sprays and the applications are unlikely to result in adversely affecting human health.

VECTOBAR TM is registered by Indian Pesticides Regulatory Authority – Central Insecticides Board, Govt of India. VECTOBAR TM is approved for use as Bio Larvicide and in Integrated Mosquito Management.

Mode of Action
Protein formation : Bt I is a stomach toxin. It can produce five different microscopic protein pro-toxins that are packaged into a protein container or a crystal. The crystal form of the toxin is referred to as delta-endotoxin. If the endotoxin is ingested, the five proteins are released into the alkaline environment inside the insect’s gut. The toxins work alone or together to break down the gut wall. This leads to paralysis and eventually death for the mosquito larva.

Bt I strains have pBtoxis plasmid which encodes numerous Cry and Cyt toxins, including Cry4, Cry10, Cry11, Cyt1 and Cyt2. The crystal aggregation which these toxins form contains at least four major toxic components but the extent to which each Cry and Cyt protein is represented is not known and likely to vary with strain and formulation. Both Cry and Cyt proteins are pore forming toxins which lyse midgut epithelial cells by inserting into the target cell membrane and forming pores

Method of Application
Foliar application
Mix VECTOBAR TM in water and spray on breeding sites. Mix 250 ml of VECTOBAR TM in 10 L of water and spray evenly @ 20 ml / Sq mt.

5 L /Ha gives 80% control in breeding of Culex spp. In casurina pits / drains / disused wells upto 19 days. It is recommended to use 0.50 ml / Sq Meter. Mix 250 ml / 10 L of water and spray evenly @ 20 ml / Sq mt.

10 L /Ha gives 80% control in breeding of Anopheles spp. In breeding pools upto 4 weeks. It is recommended to use 1.00 ml / Sq Meter. Mix 500 ml / 10 L of water and spray evenly @ 20 ml / Sq mt.

10 L /Ha gives 80% control in breeding of Aedes spp. In tree holes cesspits / drains / disused wells upto 19 days. It is recommended to use 1.00 ml / Sq Meter. Mix 500 ml / 10 L of water and spray evenly @ 20 ml / Sq Meter.

Time of application : The application of VECTOBAR TM for larval control is very time-specific. Mosquito larvae go through four life stages called instars. They do not feed between each instar, nor do they feed much during the fourth instar, as they prepare to become pupae. Therefore, it is crucial that the VECTOBAR TM is not applied during these non-feeding periods. Otherwise, the application is wasted and control is not achieved. It is best to treat larval habitats with VECTOBAR TM when the larvae are in their second or third instar. Larval kills can be observed within one hour of ingestion of the VECTOBAR TM. However, higher larval mortality is noted within twenty-four hours of application.

Note : It should not be mixed with strong alkaline chemicals or bactericides. Since it is poisonous to silkworm, it is advised not to use VECTOBAR TM near Sericulture area

Target Diseases
Culex quinquefasciatus , Anopheles stephensi

Shelf Life
VECTOBAR TM is stable for a period of 24 months from the date of manufacturing.

More information

MSDS | Dextrose | Liquid |
TDS | COA | MOA | Trials | Pictures

Bti Mozzie Stop Mosquito Dunks (10pc)

Mozzie Stop Mosquito Dunks – Ten Pack (Information Sheet )(MSDS )
Bti – Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis is a group of bacteria used for the biological control of mosquito larvae (1st instar – to early 4th instar). Bti produces a toxin in the gut of the mosquito larvae, which destroys the larvae gut lining causing death, usually within 12 hours. 4th Instar larvae and pupae are non-feeding and thus won’t be affected by Bti.
Apply Bti to areas of mosquito larvae populations to obtain a quick knock down effect of mosquito larvae. Fewer larvae means fewer biting adults. Bti liquid can be applied every few days to minimise population numbers.
Mosquito larvae can be found in almost any location where there is water. Your backyard has lots of natural (and probably artificial) containers that mosquitoes love to breed in.
This product has been repackaged to provide smaller quantities suitable for the household. Please follow manufacturers instructions. We can help if you need further advise!
The Mozzie Stop Mosquito Dunks have a residual of up to 30 days (varies according to surrounding conditions). The Mosquito Dunks slowly release the Bti into the water column for the mosquito larvae to eat.
Once a month leave a floating mosquito dunk in each place where water collects around your home. Mosquito larvae feed on the dunks material and are killed by the Bti toxin.
Any Mozzie Stop dunks which dry out will usually start working again when they become wet and unused dunks will remain active indefinitely if stored appropriately (in sealed container, cool, dark and dry conditions). You can break the dunks into smaller pieces for smaller water volumes.
Mozzie Stop Mosquito Dunks are non-toxic to humans and non-target organisms, Fish safe and animal friendly – safe for fish ponds.
Users of mosquito dunks and Liquid Bti should wash hands with soap thoroughly after using and avoid contact with eyes, skin and clothing.
Liquid Bti breaks down rapidly in the environment and is only effective for up to 48 hours against mosquito larvae.
Refer to the information sheets and MSDS, and also the Vectobac label for more detailed information. Or send us an enquiry we are happy to help!

Long-term exposure of Aedes aegypti to Bacillus thuringiensis svar. israelensis did not involve altered susceptibility to this microbial larvicide or to other control agents

  1. 1.

    Fares RC, Souza KP, Anez G, Rios M. Epidemiological scenario of dengue in Brazil. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:321873.

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  2. 2.

    Teixeira MG, Siqueira JB Jr, Ferreira GL, Bricks L, Joint G. Epidemiological trends of dengue disease in Brazil (2000–2010): a systematic literature search and analysis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7:e2520.

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  3. 3.

    Patterson J, Sammon M, Garg M. Dengue, Zika and chikungunya: emerging arboviruses in the New World. West J Emerg Med. 2016;17:671–9.

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  4. 4.

    Maciel-de-Freitas R, Valle D. Challenges encountered using standard vector control measures for dengue in Boa Vista, Brazil. Bull World Health Organ. 2014;92:685–9.

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  5. 5.

    Araujo AP, Araujo Diniz DF, Helvecio E, de Barros RA, de Oliveira CM, Ayres CF, et al. The susceptibility of Aedes aegypti populations displaying temephos resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis: a basis for management. Parasit Vectors. 2013;6:297.

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  6. 6.

    Braga IA, Valle D. Aedes aegypti: history of control in Brazil. Epidemiol Serv Saúde. 2007;16:113–8.

    • Google Scholar
  7. 7.

    Maciel-de-Freitas R, Avendanho FC, Santos R, Sylvestre G, Araujo SC, Lima JB, et al. Undesirable consequences of insecticide resistance following Aedes aegypti control activities due to a dengue outbreak. PLoS One. 2014;9:e92424.

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  8. 8.

    Macoris MLG, Andrighetti MT, Wanderley DMV, Ribolla PE. Impact of insecticide resistance on the field control of Aedes aegypti in the State of São Paulo. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2014;47:573–8.

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  9. 9.

    Montella IR, Martins AJ, Viana-Medeiros PF, Lima JB, Braga IA, Valle D. Insecticide resistance mechanisms of Brazilian Aedes aegypti populations from 2001 to 2004. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2007;77:467–77.

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  10. 10.

    Pocquet N, Darriet F, Zumbo B, Milesi P, Thiria J, Bernard V, et al. Insecticide resistance in disease vectors from Mayotte: an opportunity for integrated vector management. Parasit Vectors. 2014;7:299.

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  11. 11.

    Becker N. Microbial control of mosquitoes: management of the Upper Rhine mosquito population as a model programme. Parasitol Today. 1997;13:485–7.

    • CAS
    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  12. 12.

    Flacio E, Engeler L, Tonolla M, Luthy P, Patocchi N. Strategies of a thirteen year surveillance programme on Aedes albopictus (Stegomyia albopicta) in southern Switzerland. Parasit Vectors. 2015;8:208.

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  13. 13.

    Guidi V, Patocchi N, Luthy P, Tonolla M. Distribution of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis in soil of a swiss wetland reserve after 22 years of mosquito control. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011;77:3663–8.

    • CAS
    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  14. 14.

    Guillet P, Kurtak DC, Phillipon B, Meyer R. Use of Bacillus thuringiensis for onchorcercosis control in West Africa. In: de Barjac H, Sutherland DJ, editors. Bacterial Control of Mosquitoes and Black-flies. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press; 1990. p. 187–201.

    • Google Scholar
  15. 15.

    Regis L, Silva-Filha MH, Nielsen-LeRoux C, Charles JF. Bacteriological larvicides of dipteran disease vectors. Trends Parasitol. 2001;17:377–80.

    • CAS
    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  16. 16.

    Berry C, O’Neil S, Ben-Dov E, Jones AF, Murphy L, Quail MA, et al. Complete sequence and organization of pBtoxis, the toxin-coding plasmid of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis. App Environ Microbiol. 2002;68:5082–95.

    • CAS
    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  17. 17.

    Lacey L. Bacillus thuringiensis serovariety israelensis and Bacillus sphaericus for mosquito control. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2007;23:133–63.

    • CAS
    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  18. 18.

    Crickmore N, Bone EJ, Wiliams JA, Ellar DJ. Contribution of the individual components of the delta-endotoxin crystal to the mosquitocidal activity of Bacillus thuringiensis subs. israelensis. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 1995;131:249–54.

    • CAS
    • Google Scholar
  19. 19.

    Vachon V, Laprade R, Schwartz JL. Current models of the mode of action of Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal crystal proteins: a critical review. J Invertebr Pathol. 2012;111:1–12.

    • CAS
    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  20. 20.

    Bravo A, Gill SS, Soberón M. Mode of action of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry and Cyt toxins and their potential for insect control. Toxicon. 2007;49:423–35.

    • CAS
    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  21. 21.

    Bravo A, Gómez I, Conde J, Muñoz-Garay C, Sánchez J, Miranda R, et al. Oligomerization triggers binding of a Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab pore-forming toxin to aminopeptidase N receptor leading to insertion into membrane microdomains. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2004;1667:38–46.

    • CAS
    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  22. 22.

    Cantón PE, Zanicthe Reyes EZ, Ruiz de Escudero I, Bravo A, Soberón M. Binding of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis Cry4Ba to Cyt1Aa has an important role in synergism. Peptides. 2011;32:595–600.

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  23. 23.

    Pérez C, Fernandez LE, Sun J, Folch JL, Gill SS, Soberón M, et al. Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis Cyt1Aa synergizes Cry11Aa toxin by functioning as a membrane-bound receptor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102:18303–8.

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  24. 24.

    Likitvivatanavong S, Chen J, Evans AM, Bravo A, Soberón M, Gill SS. Multiple receptors as targets of Cry toxins in mosquitoes. J Agricult Food Chem. 2011;59:2829–38.

    • CAS
    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  25. 25.

    Soberón M, Fernández LE, Pérez C, Gill SS, Bravo A. Mode of action of mosquitocidal Bacillus thuringiensis toxins. Toxicon. 2007;49:597–600.

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  26. 26.

    Pardo-Lopez L, Soberon M, Bravo A. Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal three-domain Cry toxins: mode of action, insect resistance and consequences for crop protection. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2012;37:3–22.

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  27. 27.

    Zhang X, Candas M, Griko NB, Taussig R, Bulla LA Jr. A mechanism of cell death involving an adenylyl cyclase/PKA signaling pathway is induced by the Cry1Ab toxin of Bacillus thuringiensis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006;103:9897–902.

    • CAS
    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  28. 28.

    Jurat-Fuentes JL, Adang MJ. Cry toxin mode of action in susceptible and resistant Heliothis virescens larvae. J Invertebr Pathol. 2006;92:166–71.

    • CAS
    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  29. 29.

    Gómez I, Pardo-López L, Muñoz-Garay C, Fernandez LE, Pérez C, Sánchez J, et al. Role of receptor interaction in the mode of action of insecticidal Cry and Cyt toxins produced by Bacillus thuringiensis. Peptides. 2007;28:169–73.

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  30. 30.

    Ferreira LM, Silva-Filha MHNL. Bacterial larvicides for vector control: mode of action of toxins and implications for resistance. Biocontrol Sci Technol. 2013;23:1137–68.

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  31. 31.

    Georghiou GP, Wirth MC. Influence of exposure to single versus multiple toxins of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis on development of resistance in the mosquito Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae). Appl Environ Microbiol. 1997;63:1095–101.

    • CAS
    • PubMed
    • PubMed Central
    • Google Scholar
  32. 32.

    Cadavid-Restrepo G, Sahaza J, Orduz S. Treatment of an Aedes aegypti colony with the Cry11Aa toxin for 54 generations results in the development of resistance. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2012;107:74–9.

    • CAS
    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  33. 33.

    Lee SB, Aimanova KG, Gill SS. Alkaline phosphatases and aminopeptidases are altered in a Cry11Aa resistant strain of Aedes aegypti. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2014;54:112–21.

    • CAS
    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  34. 34.

    Paris M, Tetreau G, Laurent F, Lelu M, Després L, David JP. Persistence of Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) in the environment induces resistance to multiple Bti toxins in mosquitoes. Pest Manag Sci. 2011;67:122–8.

    • CAS
    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  35. 35.

    Stalinski R, Laporte F, Despres L, Tetreau G. Alkaline phosphatases are involved in the response of Aedes aegypti larvae to intoxication with Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis Cry toxins. Environ Microbiol. 2016;18:1022–36.

    • CAS
    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  36. 36.

    Stalinski R, Tetreau G, Gaude T, Despres L. Pre-selecting resistance against individual Bti Cry toxins facilitates the development of resistance to the Bti toxins cocktail. J Invertebr Pathol. 2014;119:50–3.

    • CAS
    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  37. 37.

    Tetreau G, Stalinski R, Kersusan D, Veyrenc S, David JP, Reynaud S, et al. Decreased toxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis to mosquito larvae after contact with leaf litter. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2012;78:5189–95.

  38. 38.

    Boyer S, David JP, Rey D, Lemperiere G, Ravanel P. Response of Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) larvae to three xenobiotic exposures: larval tolerance and detoxifying enzyme activities. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2006;25:470–6.

    • CAS
    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  39. 39.

    Boyer S, Tilquin M, Ravanel P. Differential sensitivity to Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis and temephos in field mosquito populations of Ochlerotatus cataphylla (Diptera: Culicidae): toward resistance? Environ Toxicol Chem. 2007;26:157–62.

    • CAS
    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  40. 40.

    Hu X, Guo Y, Wu S, Liu Z, Fu T, Shao E, et al. Effect of proteolytic and detoxification enzyme inhibitors on Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis tolerance in the mosquito Aedes aegypti. Biocontrol Sci Technol. 2017;27:169–79.

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  41. 41.

    Hemingway J, Hawkes NJ, McCarroll L, Ranson H. The molecular basis of insecticide resistance in mosquitoes. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2004;34:653–65.

    • CAS
    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  42. 42.

    Moyes CL, Vontas J, Martins AJ, Ng LC, Koou SY, Dusfour I, et al. Contemporary status of insecticide resistance in the major Aedes vectors of arboviruses infecting humans. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11:e0005625.

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  43. 43.

    Becker N, Schon S, Klein AM, Ferstl I, Kizgin A, Tannich E, et al. First mass development of Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) – its surveillance and control in Germany. Parasitol Res. 2017;116:847–58.

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  44. 44.

    Flacio E, Engeler L, Tonolla M, Muller P. Spread and establishment of Aedes albopictus in southern Switzerland between 2003 and 2014: an analysis of oviposition data and weather conditions. Parasit Vectors. 2016;9:304.

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  45. 45.

    Regis LN, Acioli RV, Silveira JC Jr, de Melo-Santos MA, da Cunha MC, Souza F, et al. Characterization of the spatial and temporal dynamics of the dengue vector population established in urban areas of Fernando de Noronha, a Brazilian oceanic island. Acta Trop. 2014;137:80–7.

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  46. 46.

    Suter TT, Flacio E, Feijoo Farina B, Engeler L, Tonolla M, Regis LN, et al. Surveillance and control of Aedes albopictus in the swiss-italian border region: differences in egg densities between intervention and non-intervention areas. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10:e0004315.

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  47. 47.

    WHO. Global vector control response 2017–2030. In: Resolution WHA70.16: An integrated approach for the control of vector-borne diseases. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017.

    • Google Scholar
  48. 48.

    Johnson BJ, Ritchie SA, Fonseca DM. The state of the art of lethal oviposition trap-based mass interventions for arboviral control. Insects. 2017;8:5.

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  49. 49.

    Regis LN, Acioli RV, Silveira JC Jr, Melo-Santos MA, Souza WV, Ribeiro CM, et al. Sustained reduction of the dengue vector population resulting from an integrated control strategy applied in two brazilian cities. PLoS One. 2013;8:e67682.

    • CAS
    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  50. 50.

    Jacups SP, Rapley LP, Johnson PH, Benjamin S, Ritchie SA. Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis misting for control of Aedes in cryptic ground containers in north Queensland, Australia. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2013;88:490–6.

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  51. 51.

    Tan AW, Loke SR, Benjamin S, Lee HL, Chooi KH, Sofian-Azirun M. Spray application of Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti strain AM65-52) against Aedes aegypti (L.) and Ae. albopictus Skuse populations and impact on dengue transmission in a dengue endemic residential site in Malaysia. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2012;43:296–310.

    • CAS
    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
  52. 52.

    de Barros Moreira Beltrão H, Silva-Filha MH. Interaction of Bacillus thuringiensis svar. israelensis Cry toxins with binding sites from Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) larvae midgut. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2007;266:163–9.

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  53. 53.

    Mazzarri MB, Georghiou GP. Characterization of resistance to organophosphate, carbamate, and pyrethroid insecticides in field populations of Aedes aegypti from Venezuela. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 1995;11:315–22.

    • CAS
    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
  54. 54.

    WHO. Guidelines for laboratory and field testing of mosquito larvicides. Geneva: World Healh Organization; 2005.

    • Google Scholar
  55. 55.

    Martins AJ, Belinato TA, Lima JB, Valle D. Chitin synthesis inhibitor effect on Aedes aegypti populations susceptible and resistant to organophosphate temephos. Pest Manag Sci. 2008;64:676–80.

    • CAS
    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  56. 56.

    Ministério da Saúde, Brasília. Metodologia para quantificação de atividade de enzimas relacionadas com a resistência a inseticidas em Aedes aegypti. Brasília: Secretaria de Vigilância em Sáude, Ministério da Saúde, Brazil; 2006.

    • Google Scholar
  57. 57.

    Bradford MM. A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal Biochem. 1976;72:248–54.

    • CAS
    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  58. 58.

    Goldman IF, Arnold J, Carlton BC. Selection for resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies israelensis in field and laboratory populations of the mosquito Aedes aegypti. J Invertebr Pathol. 1986;47:317–24.

    • CAS
    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  59. 59.

    Mittal P. Laboratory selection to investigate the development of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis H-14 in Culex quinquefasciatus Say (Diptera: Culicidae). Nat Acad Sci Lett India. 2005;28:281–3.

    • Google Scholar
  60. 60.

    Paris M, David JP, Despres L. Fitness costs of resistance to Bti toxins in the dengue vector Aedes aegypti. Ecotoxicology. 2011;20:1184–94.

    • CAS
    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  61. 61.

    Saleh MS, El-Meniawi FA, Kelada NL, Zahran HM. Resistance development in mosquito larvae Culex pipiens to the bacterial agent Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis. J Appl Entomol. 2003;127:29–32.

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  62. 62.

    Tetreau G, Bayyareddy K, Jones CM, Stalinski R, Riaz MA, Paris M, et al. Larval midgut modifications associated with Bti resistance in the yellow fever mosquito using proteomic and transcriptomic approaches. BMC Genomics. 2012;13:248.

    • CAS
    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  63. 63.

    Becker N, Ludwig M. Investigation on possible resistance in Aedes vexans field populations after 10-year application of Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 1993;9:221–4.

    • CAS
    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
  64. 64.

    Liu H, Cupp EW, Micher KM, Guo A, Liu N. Insecticide resistance and cross-resistance in Alabama and Florida strains of Culex quinquefasciatus. J Med Entomol. 2004;41:408–13.

    • CAS
    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  65. 65.

    Loke SR, Andy-Tan WA, Benjamin S, Lee HL, Sofian-Azirun M. Susceptibility of field-collected Aedes aegypti (L.) (Diptera: Culicidae) to Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis and temephos. Trop Biomed. 2010;27:493–503.

    • CAS
    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
  66. 66.

    Marcombe S, Darriet F, Agnew P, Etienne M, Yp-Tcha MM, Yebakima A, et al. Field efficacy of new larvicide products for control of multi-resistant Aedes aegypti populations in Martinique (French West Indies). Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2011;84:118–26.

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  67. 67.

    Suter T, Crespo MM, de Oliveira MF, de Oliveira TSA, de Melo-Santos MAV, de Oliveira CMF, et al. Insecticide susceptibility of Aedes albopictus and Ae. aegypti from Brazil and the Swiss-Italian border region. Parasit Vectors. 2017;10:431.

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  68. 68.

    Paul A, Harrington LC, Zhang L, Scott JG. Insecticide resistance in Culex pipiens from New York. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2005;21:305–9.

    • CAS
    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  69. 69.

    Tetreau G, Stalinski R, David JP, Despres L. Monitoring resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis in the field by performing bioassays with each Cry toxin separately. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2013;108:894–900.

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  70. 70.

    Stalinski R, Laporte F, Tetreau G, Despres L. Receptors are affected by selection with each Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis Cry toxin but not with the full Bti mixture in Aedes aegypti. Infect Genet Evol. 2016;44:218–27.

    • CAS
    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  71. 71.

    Grigoraki L, Puggioli A, Mavridis K, Douris V, Montanari M, Bellini R, et al. Striking diflubenzuron resistance in Culex pipiens, the prime vector of West Nile Virus. Sci Rep. 2017;7:11699.

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  72. 72.

    Andrighetti MT, Cerone F, Rigueti M, Galvani KC, Macoris M. Effect of pyriproxyfen in Aedes aegypti populations with different levels of suscetibility to the organophosphate temephos. Dengue Bulletin. 2008;32:187–98.

    • Google Scholar
  73. 73.

    Boyer S, Paris M, Jego S, Lemperiere G, Ravanel P. Influence of insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis subs. israelensis treatments on resistance and enzyme activities in Aedes rusticus larvae (Diptera: Culicidae). Biol Control. 2012;62:75–81.

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  74. 74.

    Robertson JL, Preisler HK, Ng SS, Hinkle LA, Gelernter WD. Natural variations: a complicating factor in bioassays with chemical and microbial pesticides. J Econ Entomol. 1995;88:1–10.

    • CAS
    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  75. 75.

    Dulmage HT, Yousten AA, Singer S, Lacey LA. Guidelines for production of Bacillus thuringiensis H-14 and Bacillus sphaericus. UNDPf World Health Organization/WHO Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR). Geneva: World Health Organization; 1990.

    • Google Scholar
  76. 76.

    Bonin A, Paris M, Frerot H, Bianco E, Tetreau G, Despres L. The genetic architecture of a complex trait: Resistance to multiple toxins produced by Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis in the dengue and yellow fever vector, the mosquito Aedes aegypti. Infect Genet Evol. 2015;35:204–13.

    • CAS
    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  77. 77.

    Aziz AT, Dieng H, Hassan AA, Satho T, Miake F, Salmah MRC, et al. Insecticide suscetibility of the dengue vector Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) in Makkah City, Saudi Arabia. Asian Pac J Trop Dis. 2011;1:94–9.

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  78. 78.

    Kamgang B, Marcombe S, Chandre F, Nchoutpouen E, Nwane P, Etang J, et al. Insecticide susceptibility of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus in Central Africa. Parasit Vectors. 2011;4:79.

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  79. 79.

    Lee YW, Zairi J. Susceptibility of laboratory and field-collected Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus to Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis H-14. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2006;22:97–101.

    • CAS
    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  80. 80.

    Wirth MC, Ferrari JA, Georghiou GP. Baseline susceptibility to bacterial insecticides in populations of Culex pipiens complex (Diptera: Culicidae) from California and from the Mediterranean Island of Cyprus. J Econ Entomol. 2001;94:920–8.

    • CAS
    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  81. 81.

    Despres L, Stalinski R, Faucon F, Navratil V, Viari A, Paris M, et al. Chemical and biological insecticides select distinct gene expression patterns in Aedes aegypti mosquito. Biol Lett. 2014;10:20140716.

    • Article
    • Google Scholar

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *