ArticlePloS one2025
Comparison of absorption and excretion of test compounds in sucking versus chewing pests.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A critical understanding of how pests interact with active ingredients is essential for the development of new insect control solutions to maintain crop quality and quantity by reducing insect damage. Absorption of insecticides into insect bodies of targeted pest species is the first critical step that confounds the efficacy of insecticides. This study investigated how different feeding behaviour of two pests, Myzus persicae and Spodoptera littoralis, affects the absorption, metabolism, and excretion (AME) of seven insecticidally inactive test compounds. A feeding contact assay for the chewing pest (Lepidopteran larvae) and an oral ingestion assay for the sucking pest (aphids) was used to investigate the AME of test compounds with agrochemical-like structural motifs. The standardized assays comprised of an exposure period with treated diet and a subsequent depuration period with untreated diet. The results showed that S. littoralis larvae differed from M. persicae in their compound quantities absorbed into the insect body and in their excretion products at the end of the exposure or depuration periods. We suggest that this is caused by their different ingestion types and rates resulting in different absorption and excretion quantities. Further, we found differences in the metabolism (timing and biotransformation pathways) of compounds between both species. Notably, certain compounds remained detectable in both pests after the depuration period, suggesting compound and species-specific metabolism and excretion. Our results highlight the complex interplay between feeding biology of insects, in particular the critical role of excretion products, and the exposure to different compounds that lead to species-specific AME.
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.