Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40388535›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Yeast-based attract-and-kill strategies for Drosophila suzukii management without disrupting honey bee activity.

Claire Duménil, Urban Spitaler, Guillermo Rehermann, Flavia Bianchi, Riccardo Favaro, Irene Castellan, Silvia Schmidt, Daniela Eisenstecken, Paul G Becher, Sergio Angeli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

10 authors.

Claire DuménilFaculty of Agricultural, Environmental and Food Sciences, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Piazza Università 1, Bolzano, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8339-5540
Urban SpitalerInstitute for Plant Health, Laimburg Research Centre, Laimburg 6, Auer-Ora, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0492-6129
Guillermo RehermannDepartment of Plant Protection Biology, Chemical Ecology Horticulture Unit, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp, Sweden.
Flavia BianchiLaboratory for Flavours and Metabolites, Institute for Agricultural Chemistry and Food Quality, Laimburg Research Centre, Laimburg 6, Auer-Ora, Italy.
Riccardo FavaroFaculty of Agricultural, Environmental and Food Sciences, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Piazza Università 1, Bolzano, Italy.
Irene CastellanFaculty of Agricultural, Environmental and Food Sciences, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Piazza Università 1, Bolzano, Italy.
Silvia SchmidtInstitute for Plant Health, Laimburg Research Centre, Laimburg 6, Auer-Ora, Italy.
Daniela EisensteckenLaboratory for Flavours and Metabolites, Institute for Agricultural Chemistry and Food Quality, Laimburg Research Centre, Laimburg 6, Auer-Ora, Italy.
Paul G BecherDepartment of Plant Protection Biology, Chemical Ecology Horticulture Unit, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp, Sweden.
Sergio AngeliFaculty of Agricultural, Environmental and Food Sciences, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Piazza Università 1, Bolzano, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8463-7476

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Attract-and-kill strategies are effective, sustainable pest control methods. Formulations combining the insecticide spinosad, at a lower dose than conventional methods, with the Drosophila-associated yeast Hanseniaspora uvarum have shown promising results. Recently, Saccharomycopsis vini was identified as the most attractive yeast for ovipositing females. In this study, the potential of S. vini for use in attract-and-kill formulations against D. suzukii was evaluated alongside H. uvarum. Behavioural assays demonstrated that D. suzukii preferred S. vini when both yeasts are simultaneously present in a close range setting but was attracted to both in long range attraction assays. In efficacy assays, S. vini and H. uvarum were equally efficient at reducing oviposition and increasing mortality in formulation with spinosad. Offering yeast formulations at the foraging sites of trained honey bees did not stimulate more feeding when compared to sugar syrup. The characterisation of the organic volatile compounds released from the cultures demonstrated that S. vini and H. uvarum were composed of overlapping as well as distinct chemicals. The antennally active compounds ethyl acetate and ethyl propanoate were abundant in the more attractive S. vini and H. uvarum, while the compounds 3-methyl-1-butanol and 2-methylthiolan-3-one were more abundant in the less attractive S. cerevisiae. These chemicals may be further studied as possible attractants or repellents for D. suzukii. We propose S. vini as a new yeast with potential for use in integrated pest management, with a distinctive volatile profile while maintaining a similar efficacy compared to H. uvarum against D. suzukii. Neither H. uvarum nor S. vini stimulated honey bee foraging behaviour, suggesting that both yeast-based attract-and-kill formulations pose a low non-target risk to honey bees.

Indexed as

DrosophilaHanseniasporaInsect ControlPest Control, BiologicalAnimalsBeesDrug CombinationsFemaleInsecticidesMacrolidesOvipositionVolatile Organic CompoundsDrug CombinationsInsecticidesMacrolidesspinosadVolatile Organic Compounds

Identifiers

PMID40388535
PMCPMC12088520

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.