↓ Skip to main content

A new class of insecticide for malaria vector control: evaluation of mosquito nets treated singly with indoxacarb (oxadiazine) or with a pyrethroid mixture against Anopheles gambiae and Culex…

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A new class of insecticide for malaria vector control: evaluation of mosquito nets treated singly with indoxacarb (oxadiazine) or with a pyrethroid mixture against Anopheles gambiae and Culex quinquefasciatus
Published in
Malaria Journal, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12936-015-0890-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Richard M. Oxborough, Raphael N’Guessan, Jovin Kitau, Patrick K. Tungu, David Malone, Franklin W. Mosha, Mark W. Rowland

Abstract

Universal coverage with long-lasting insecticidal mosquito nets (LLIN) or indoor residual spraying (IRS) of houses remain the primary strategies for the control of mosquito vectors of malaria. Pyrethroid resistant malaria vectors are widespread throughout sub-Saharan Africa and new insecticides with different modes of action are urgently needed if malaria vector control is to remain effective. Indoxacarb is an oxadiazine insecticide that is effective as an oral and contact insecticide against a broad spectrum of agricultural pests and, due to its unique site of action, no cross-resistance has been detected through mechanisms associated with resistance to insecticides currently used in public health. WHO tunnel tests of host seeking mosquitoes were carried out as a forerunner to experimental hut trials, to provide information on dosage-dependent mortality, repellency, and blood-feeding inhibition. A dosage range of indoxacarb treated netting (100-1000 mg/m(2)) was tested against a pyrethroid susceptible strain of Anopheles gambiae. In addition, efficacy of indoxacarb 500 mg/m(2) was compared with a standard pyrethroid formulation against pyrethroid susceptible and resistant Culex quinquefasciatus. Dosages between 25 and 300 mg/m(2) indoxacarb were tested in tunnel tests and in ball-frame bioassays as mixtures with alphacypermethrin 25 mg/m(2) and were compared with singly applied treatments against an insectary reared pyrethroid resistant strain of Cx. quinquefasciatus originally collected in Cotonou, Benin. There was a dosage-dependent response in terms of indoxacarb induced mortality, with dosages >100 mg/m(2) producing the best mortality response. In tunnel tests indoxacarb 500 mg/m(2) exceeded WHOPES thresholds with >80 % mortality of adult An. gambiae and blood-feeding inhibition of 75 %. No cross-resistance to indoxacarb was detected through mechanisms associated with resistance to pyrethroid insecticides and was equally effective against susceptible and resistant strains of Cx. quinquefasciatus. Indoxacarb 500 mg/m(2) killed 75 % of pyrethroid resistant Cx. quinquefasciatus compared with only 21 % mortality with alphacypermethrin 40 mg/m(2). Mixtures of indoxacarb with pyrethroid produced an additive response for both mortality and blood-feeding inhibition. The best performing mixture (indoxacarb 200 mg/m(2) + alphacypermethrin 25 mg/m(2)) killed 83 % of pyrethroid resistant Cx. quinquefasciatus and reduced blood-feeding by 88 %, while alphacypermethrin only killed 36 % and inhibited blood-feeding by 50 %. New insecticides with different modes of action to those currently used in mosquito vector control are urgently needed. Indoxacarb shows great promise as a mixture with a pyrethroid and should be evaluated in experimental hut trials to determine performance against wild free-flying, pyrethroid resistant An. gambiae and wash-resistant formulations developed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Sudan 1 <1%
Unknown 104 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 20%
Student > Master 19 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 3%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 27 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 26 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Chemistry 3 3%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 33 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 September 2015.
All research outputs
#13,372,978
of 22,828,180 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#3,457
of 5,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,356
of 272,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#74
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,828,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,569 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 272,396 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.