Comparison of in vitro and in vivo repellency bioassay methods for Ixodes scapularis nymphs.
DEET
Geographic origin
In vitro bioassays
In vivo bioassays
Ixodes scapularis
Peppermint oil
Repellency
Rosemary oil
Journal
Parasites & vectors
ISSN: 1756-3305
Titre abrégé: Parasit Vectors
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101462774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 Jul 2023
10 Jul 2023
Historique:
received:
28
04
2023
accepted:
20
06
2023
medline:
12
7
2023
pubmed:
11
7
2023
entrez:
10
7
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Numerous bioassay methods have been used to test the efficacy of repellents for ticks, but the comparability of results across different methods has only been evaluated in a single study. Of particular interest are comparisons between bioassays that use artificial containers (in vitro) with those conducted on a human subject (in vivo) for efficacy testing of new potential unregistered active ingredients, which most commonly use in vitro methods. We compared four different bioassay methods and evaluated three ingredients (DEET [N,N-Diethyl-meta-toluamide], peppermint oil and rosemary oil) and a negative control (ethanol) over a 6-h period. Two of the methods tested were in vivo bioassay methods in which the active ingredient was applied to human skin (finger and forearm bioassays), and the other two methods were in vitro methods using artificial containers (jar and petri dish bioassays). All four bioassays were conducted using Ixodes scapularis nymphs. We compared the results using nymphs from two different tick colonies that were derived from I. scapularis collected in the US states of Connecticut and Rhode Island (northern origin) and Oklahoma (southern origin), expecting that ticks of different origin would display differences in host-seeking behavior. The results between bioassay methods did not differ significantly, even when comparing those that provide the stimulus of human skin with those that do not. We also found that tick colony source can impact the outcome of repellency bioassays due to differences in movement speed; behavioral differences were incorporated into the assay screening. DEET effectively repelled nymphs for the full 6-h duration of the study. Peppermint oil showed a similar repellent efficacy to DEET during the first hour, but it decreased sharply afterwards. Rosemary oil did not effectively repel nymphs across any of the time points. The repellency results did not differ significantly between the four bioassay methods tested. The results also highlight the need to consider the geographic origin of ticks used in repellency bioassays in addition to species and life stage. Finally, our results indicate a limited repellent efficacy of the two essential oils tested, which highlights the need for further studies on the duration of repellency for similar botanically derived active ingredients and for evaluation of formulated products.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Numerous bioassay methods have been used to test the efficacy of repellents for ticks, but the comparability of results across different methods has only been evaluated in a single study. Of particular interest are comparisons between bioassays that use artificial containers (in vitro) with those conducted on a human subject (in vivo) for efficacy testing of new potential unregistered active ingredients, which most commonly use in vitro methods.
METHODS
METHODS
We compared four different bioassay methods and evaluated three ingredients (DEET [N,N-Diethyl-meta-toluamide], peppermint oil and rosemary oil) and a negative control (ethanol) over a 6-h period. Two of the methods tested were in vivo bioassay methods in which the active ingredient was applied to human skin (finger and forearm bioassays), and the other two methods were in vitro methods using artificial containers (jar and petri dish bioassays). All four bioassays were conducted using Ixodes scapularis nymphs. We compared the results using nymphs from two different tick colonies that were derived from I. scapularis collected in the US states of Connecticut and Rhode Island (northern origin) and Oklahoma (southern origin), expecting that ticks of different origin would display differences in host-seeking behavior.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The results between bioassay methods did not differ significantly, even when comparing those that provide the stimulus of human skin with those that do not. We also found that tick colony source can impact the outcome of repellency bioassays due to differences in movement speed; behavioral differences were incorporated into the assay screening. DEET effectively repelled nymphs for the full 6-h duration of the study. Peppermint oil showed a similar repellent efficacy to DEET during the first hour, but it decreased sharply afterwards. Rosemary oil did not effectively repel nymphs across any of the time points.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The repellency results did not differ significantly between the four bioassay methods tested. The results also highlight the need to consider the geographic origin of ticks used in repellency bioassays in addition to species and life stage. Finally, our results indicate a limited repellent efficacy of the two essential oils tested, which highlights the need for further studies on the duration of repellency for similar botanically derived active ingredients and for evaluation of formulated products.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37430360
doi: 10.1186/s13071-023-05845-7
pii: 10.1186/s13071-023-05845-7
pmc: PMC10334584
doi:
Substances chimiques
DEET
134-62-3
Ethanol
3K9958V90M
Insect Repellents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
228Informations de copyright
© 2023. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.
Références
Parasitology. 2020 Nov;147(13):1569-1576
pubmed: 32772958
Exp Appl Acarol. 2009 Jul;48(3):239-50
pubmed: 19140016
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2012 Feb;86(2):320-7
pubmed: 22302869
Parasitol Res. 2015 Aug;114(8):3041-5
pubmed: 25952705
Exp Appl Acarol. 2019 Oct;79(2):195-207
pubmed: 31564009
Trends Parasitol. 2018 Apr;34(4):295-309
pubmed: 29336985
Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2017 Aug;8(5):780-786
pubmed: 28645519
Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2015 Jun;6(4):483-8
pubmed: 25887156
Vet Parasitol. 2018 Apr 30;254:160-171
pubmed: 29657003
Sci Rep. 2023 Jan 30;13(1):1705
pubmed: 36717735
J Med Entomol. 2006 Sep;43(5):957-61
pubmed: 17017233
J Med Entomol. 2021 Jul 16;58(4):1588-1600
pubmed: 32372075
Phytomedicine. 2006 Jan;13(1-2):132-4
pubmed: 16360943
Pest Manag Sci. 2021 Mar;77(3):1348-1354
pubmed: 33089620
Parasitol Res. 2011 Apr;108(4):899-904
pubmed: 21085991
Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2022 May;13(3):101925
pubmed: 35255349
Am J Epidemiol. 1996 Dec 1;144(11):1066-9
pubmed: 8942438
Med Vet Entomol. 2005 Dec;19(4):345-52
pubmed: 16336298
Exp Appl Acarol. 2016 Feb;68(2):241-9
pubmed: 26590930
PLoS One. 2015 May 21;10(5):e0127450
pubmed: 25996603
Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2008 Dec;8(6):769-76
pubmed: 18637724
J Med Entomol. 2012 Jan;49(1):101-6
pubmed: 22308777
Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2019 Oct;10(6):101264
pubmed: 31431351
J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 1995 Mar;11(1):136-40
pubmed: 7616181
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2012 Jun;86(6):1062-71
pubmed: 22665620
J Med Entomol. 2020 May 4;57(3):807-814
pubmed: 31794013