ArticlePloS one2019
Quantification of dose-mortality responses in adult Diptera: Validation using Ceratitis capitata and Drosophila suzukii responses to spinosad.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Efficacy of Protective Nets AgainstInsects · 2025Article
- Safety Assessment of the Potential Probiotic Bacterium Limosilactobacillus fermentum J23 Using the Mexican Fruit Fly (Anastrepha ludens Loew, Diptera: Tephritidae) as a Novel In Vivo Model.Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2024Article
- Differential responses of Ceratitis capitata to infection by the entomopathogenic fungus Purpureocillium lilacinum.PloS one · 2023Article
- A High Throughput Microplate Feeder Assay for Quantification of Consumption in Drosophila.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2021Article
- How varying parameters impact insecticide resistance bioassay: An example on the worldwide invasive pest Drosophila suzukii.PloS one · 2021Article
- Potential forToxins · 2020Review
- The Gram-Positive BacteriumInsects · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quantitative laboratory bioassay methods are required to evaluate the toxicity of novel insecticidal compounds for pest control and to determine the presence of resistance traits. We used a radioactive tracer based on 32P-ATP to estimate the volume of a droplet ingested by two dipteran pests: Ceratitis capitata (Tephritidae) and Drosophila suzukii (Drosophilidae). Using blue food dye it was possible to distinguish between individuals that ingested the solution from those that did not. The average volume ingested by C. capitata adults was 1.968 μl. Females ingested a ~20% greater volume of solution than males. Adults of D. suzukii ingested an average of 0.879 μl and females ingested ~30% greater volume than males. The droplet feeding method was validated using the naturally-derived insecticide spinosad as the active ingredient (a.i.). For C. capitata, the concentration-mortality response did not differ between the sexes or among three different batches of insects. Lethal dose values were calculated based on mean ingested volumes. For C. capitata LD50 values were 1.462 and 1.502 ng a.i./insect for males and females, respectively, equivalent to 0.274 and 0.271 ng a.i./mg for males and females, respectively, when sex-specific variation in body weight was considered. Using the same process for D. suzukii, the LD50 value was estimated at 2.927 ng a.i./insect, or 1.994 ng a.i./mg based on a mean body weight of 1.67 mg for both sexes together. We conclude that this technique could be readily employed for determination of the resistance status and dose-mortality responses of insecticidal compounds in many species of pestiferous Diptera.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.