Resistance mechanisms to mitochondrial electron transport inhibitors in a field-collected strain of<i>Tetranychus urticae</i>Koch (Acari: Tetranychidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Belgian field strain (MR-VP) of Tetranychus urticae (Koch) (Acari: Tetranychidae) exhibits different levels of resistance to four frequently used METI (mitochondrial electron transport inhibitor)-acaricides, i.e. tebufenpyrad, fenpyroximate, pyridaben and fenazaquin. Resistance factors for these compounds were 184, 1547, 5971 and 35, respectively. A 23.5-fold increase in 7-ethoxy-4-trifluoromethylcoumarin O-deethylation activity suggested that metabolic resistance through elevated levels of cytochrome P450 dependent monooxygenase-activity is a possible resistance mechanism.However, synergism studies with different metabolic inhibitors revealed some contrasting resistance mechanisms between the METI-acaricides. Tebufenpyrad resistance could only be synergized after pre-treatment with the monooxygenase inhibitor piperonyl butoxide (PBO), whereas pyridaben resistance was strongly synergized both by PBO and the esterase inhibitor S,S,S-tributylphosphorotrithioate (DEF). Resistance levels to fenpyroximate could neither be suppressed by PBO nor by DEF. Although METI-acaricides are structurally related, these findings probably reflect a different role of esterases and mono-oxygenases in metabolic detoxification between these compounds. The overall lack of synergism by diethylmaleate (DEM) suggests that glutathione-S-transferases are not an important factor in resistance to METIs.Reciprocal crosses between susceptible females and resistant males showed no maternal effect, and resistance to METI-acaricides was inherited generally as a dominant trait. Backcrosses with F1 females revealed striking differences in the mode of inheritance. Although resistance to fenpyroximate and pyridaben was under monogenic control, resistance to tebufenpyrad was under control of more than one gene.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".