\u3ci\u3eHuman Emanations and Related Natural Compounds That Inhibit Mosquito Host-Finding Abilities\u3c/i\u3e

One mechanism by which the action of semiochemicals can be classified is based on the behavioral impact within or external to the species of interest. As such, one can classify a chemical as one of the following2,3: 1. Pheromone, if it results in response between insects of the same species 2. Kairomone, if it results in response in another species that benefits the species receiving the chemical cue 3. Allomone, if it results in response in another species that benefits the species releasing the chemical cue However, the distinctions can be more specific by classification of chemical cues through the imparted behavioral effect: attractant; repellent; arrestant; locomotory stimulant; feeding, mating, or oviposition stimulant; and feeding, mating, or oviposition deterrent.2,4 Karlson and Lu¨ scher first proposed the term “pheromone” to describe chemicals with instraspecific species activity.5,6 Chemicals with interspecific species activity are allelochemicals.3 Allelochemicals can be separated further into kairomones, of which attractants are a category of, and allomones, which are the primary focus of both this book and chapter, and the class that repellents are a part of. Furthermore, attraction-inhibitors, are classified by us as a category of repellents. Ironically, many of the attraction-inhibitors have been discovered in a search for kairomones used by mosquitoes to locate human hosts. Attraction-inhibitors may not repel by the traditional mechanisms, but they do interfere, or act as an antagonist to the normal attraction response of an insect to attractive odor(s). The proper name for the behavioral actions that are described in this chapter can be debated extensively and additional discussion of terminology is found in Chapter 2 by White. In this short prequel to the main body of our contribution on human and other compounds that interfere with mosquito host-finding, we put forth our rationale supporting the terms used to describe behaviors reported in this chapter

Olfactometric Evaluation of Spatial Repellents for \u3ci\u3eAedes aegypti\u3c/i\u3e

The spatial repellency responses of Aedes aegypti (L.) to deet, dehydrolinalool and linalool were evaluated using a dual port olfactometer. In the absence of human attractant mixture, each of the three chemicals resulted in activation and/or orientation of mosquitoes to the chemical source. Linalool was the most attractive compound. In the presence of human attractant mixture, activation and/or orientation of mosquitoes to each of the three chemicals was reduced. We compared reductions in mosquito responses to each of the three chemicals, in the presence of human attractant mixture, to estimate spatial repellency. As expected, lowest spatial repellency (7.3%) was observed using human attractant alone. Highest spatial repellency (33.6%) was observed using a combination of linalool and dehydrolinalool. Deet did not manifest spatial repellency, whereas linalool and dehydrolinalool alone, and in combination, exhibited spatial repellency

Repellency of IR3535, KBR3023, \u3ci\u3epara\u3c/i\u3e-menthane-3,8-diol, and Deet to Black Salt Marsh Mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) in the Everglades National Park

IR3535, KBR3023, para-menthane-3,8-diol (PMD), and deet were evaluated in controlled studies with human subjects (n = 5) for repellency to black salt marsh mosquitoes (Ochlerotatus taeniorhynchus Wiedemann), in the Everglades National Park, FL. In tests of 6-h duration, with an average mosquito biting pressure on exposed forearm skin of 19.5 (±13.7) bites per minute, the mean percent repellencies (SE) for IR3535, KBR3023, PMD, and deet was 88.6 (3.2), 97.5 (1.7), 89.2 (2.9), and 94.8 (2.5), respectively. Mean complete protection times (SE) for IR3535, KBR3023, PMD, and deet were 3.0 (1.0), 5.4 (0.6), 3.8 (1.4), and 5.6 (0.5) h, respectively. Untreated (ethanol) controls provided 0% repellency. When mosquito biting rates on the untreated forearm skin of repellent treated subjects were compared with biting rates on the forearm skin of control subjects, the former were 23%-40% lower early in tests and as much as 22% higher late in tests. These differences cast doubt on the technical merit of test designs comprising evaluation of more than one repellent at a time on the same human subject while underscoring the importance of untreated subjects as negative controls in field repellent bioassays

Chemical Composition That Attract Arthropods- Patent 2004

Compositions and methods employing the compositions for attracting arthropods. The compositions comprise at least one compound of formula I and at least one compound from group II

Chemical Compounds that Attract Arthropods- Patent 2001

Compositions and methods employing the compositions for attracting arthropods. The compositions comprise at least one compound of formula I and at least one compound from group II

Synergistic Attraction of \u3ci\u3eAedes aegypti\u3c/i\u3e (L.) to Binary Blends of L-Lactic Acid and Acetone, Dichloromethane, or Dimethyl Disulfide

Kairomones produced by humans provide female anthropophilic mosquitoes with vital cues used in host-seeking for a blood meal. These chemicals are emanated primarily by the skin and provide the mosquitoes a means to orient themselves to humans at a relatively close range. Chemical studies of these emanations have provided new ideas for the formulation of attractant blends. We report mosquito attraction responses for three binary blends and their separate components. The blends are comprised of L-lactic acid plus either acetone, dichloromethane, or dimethyl disulfide. At the emission rates used in our bioassays, these blends synergistically attract laboratory-reared female Aedes aegypti. Carbon dioxide is not a necessary component to yield high levels of attraction with these blends. It is postulated that at least one of these synergistic blends (L-lactic acid and acetone) produces mosquito attraction behavior similar to L-lactic acid and CO2

Gastric cancer, version 2.2013: featured updates to the NCCN Guidelines

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Gastric Cancer provide evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for a multidisciplinary approach for the management of patients with gastric cancer. For patients with resectable locoregional cancer, the guidelines recommend gastrectomy with a D1+ or a modified D2 lymph node dissection (performed by experienced surgeons in high-volume centers). Postoperative chemoradiation is the preferred option after complete gastric resection for patients with T3-T4 tumors and node-positive T1-T2 tumors. Postoperative chemotherapy is included as an option after a modified D2 lymph node dissection for this group of patients. Trastuzumab with chemotherapy is recommended as first-line therapy for patients with HER2-positive advanced or metastatic cancer, confirmed by immunohistochemistry and, if needed, by fluorescence in situ hybridization for IHC 2+