Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10021773›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences1998

Predicting insecticide resistance: mutagenesis, selection and response.

J A McKenzie, P Batterham

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. The evolutionary origins of pesticide resistance.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2019
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

J A McKenzieDepartment of Genetics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. j.mc.kenzie@genetics.unimelb.edu.au
P Batterham

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Strategies to manage resistance to a particular insecticide have usually been devised after resistance has evolved. If it were possible to predict likely resistance mechanisms to novel insecticides before they evolved in the field, it might be feasible to have programmes that manage susceptibility. With this approach in mind, single-gene variants of the Australian sheep blowfly, Lucilia cuprina, resistant to dieldrin, diazinon and malathion, were selected in the laboratory after mutagenesis of susceptible strains. The genetic and molecular bases of resistance in these variants were identical to those that had previously evolved in natural populations. Given this predictive capacity for known resistances, the approach was extended to anticipate possible mechanisms of resistance to cyromazine, an insecticide to which L. cuprina populations remain susceptible after almost 20 years of exposure. Analysis of the laboratory-generated resistant variants provides an explanation for this observation. The variants show low levels of resistance and a selective advantage over susceptibles for only a limited concentration range. These results are discussed in the context of the choice of insecticides for control purposes and of delivery strategies to minimize the evolution of resistance.

Indexed as

AnimalsDiazinonDieldrinDipteraEctoparasitic InfestationsGenes, InsectInsecticide ResistanceMalathionMutagenesisSelection, GeneticSheepSheep DiseasesTriazinescyromazineDiazinonDieldrinMalathionTriazines

Identifiers

PMID10021773
PMCPMC1692398

What OpenQuestion holds

Texttitle and abstract
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.