Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Risk assessment of resistance to diflubenzuron in Musca domestica: Realized heritability and cross-resistance to fourteen insecticides from different classes

  • Abdulwahab M. Hafez

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    hafez@ksu.edu.sa

    Affiliation Department of Plant Protection, College of Food and Agriculture Sciences, Pesticides and Environmental Toxicology Laboratory, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

    ⨯

Abstract

The Musca domestica L. is a well-known vector for a number of livestock and human diseases. One major challenge for maintaining effective control of this pest is its propensity to develop resistance to insecticides. This study utilized laboratory selection and realized heritability methods to examine the risk of resistance development to diflubenzuron in Musca domestica L. Cross-resistance (CR) to fourteen other insecticides was measured in diflubenzuron-selected (Diflu-SEL) strain which was selected for 20 generations. The resistance ratio (RR) of Diflu-SEL larvae to diflubenzuron increased from 30.33 in generation five (G5) to 182.33 in G24 compared with the susceptible strain, while realized heritability (h2) was 0.08. The number of needed generations (G) for a tenfold increase in the median lethal concentration (LC50) for diflubenzuron ranged from 4 to 45 at h2 values of 0.08, 0.18, and 0.28, at a slope of 1.51. At h2 = 0.08 and slopes of 1.51, 2.51, and 3.51, the number of needed G for a tenfold increase in the LC50 ranged from 9 to 104. The level of CR shown by the Diflu-SEL strain to all other fourteen tested insecticides (insect growth regulators, organophosphates, and pyrethroids) was either absent or very low compared to the field population. The value of h2 and the absent or low CR indicate potential successful management of resistance to diflubenzuron and recommend the use of the tested insecticides in rotation with diflubenzuron to control M. domestica.

Citation: Hafez AM (2022) Risk assessment of resistance to diflubenzuron in Musca domestica: Realized heritability and cross-resistance to fourteen insecticides from different classes. PLoS ONE 17(5): e0268261. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268261

Editor: Justin Clements, University of Idaho, UNITED STATES

Received: January 15, 2022; Accepted: April 25, 2022; Published: May 13, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Abdulwahab M. Hafez. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: This project was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University, Saudi Arabia, through the project number RG-1441-480. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The author has declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The house fly, Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae), is a worldwide insect pest to livestock, and has the potential to act as a vector for a number of livestock and human diseases, including diarrheal diseases and avian influenza [1–3]. This pest breeds rapidly in and near homes in discarded waste and in animal manure from livestock facilities [4]. The removal of animal manure at livestock facilities accompanied by an integrated program of chemical insecticides are necessary for the satisfactory control of M. domestica [5].

Insecticides based on insect growth regulators (IGRs) include juvenile hormone mimics, ecdysone agonists, and chitin synthesis inhibitors. IGRs disrupt metamorphosis so that the insects do not develop into adults or developed adults have a significantly reduced reproductive rate [6,7]. These insecticides, considered environmentally friendly, are potent larvicides for controlling insect vectors, including M. domestica, worldwide [8–13]. Diflubenzuron, an IGR, is a chitin synthesis inhibitor that disrupts cuticle formation and is one of the most effective larvicides for controlling different insect pests, including M. domestica [12,14–16]. However, striking diflubenzuron resistance has now been documented in a number of insect pests, including M. domestica [9,17], Culex pipiens L. (Diptera: Culicidae) [18], Lucilia cuprina (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Calliphoridae) [19,20], and Bovicola ovis (Schrank) (Phthiraptera: Trichodectidae) [21].

Assessment of the risk of insecticide resistance provides valuable data for proactively devising or improving resistance management programs through which susceptibility can be maintained [22–24]. The risk of resistance development to insecticides can be assessed by laboratory selection and by measuring realized heritability values [25,26]. Previous studies have documented these parameters in M. domestica for many insecticides, including lambda-cyhalothrin [27], methoxyfenozide [28], pyriproxyfen [23], fipronil [3], emamectin benzoate [29], cyromazine [30], and flonicamid [24].

Analysis of the potential for cross-resistance (CR) to insecticides is important for defining their efficiency and for informing programs of rotational usage of potent insecticides to limit resistance problems in pest populations [1,31]. Patterns of CR to insecticides having similar or different modes of action have been documented in M. domestica strains [1,17,24,31–35]. However, CR potential in diflubenzuron-resistant M. domestica in Saudi Arabia is still unexplored. The aims of the current study were to explore the pattern of CR to fourteen insecticides in diflubenzuron-selected M. domestica, to measure the risk of resistance to diflubenzuron through laboratory selection, and to measure realized heritability values.

Materials and methods

Ethics approval

The M. domestica population was collected from the dairy farm based on a personal communication with the owner and no specific permit was required.

Insecticides

Fifteen formulated insecticides from three classes (IGR, organophosphate, and pyrethroid) were used in the bioassays (Table 1).

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. The list of tested insecticides.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268261.t001

Musca domestica strains

Between 150 and 200 M. domestica mixed sexes adults were captured in plastic jars (19 × 33 cm) from a dairy facility situated in Al-Washlah, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (24.39°N, 46.66°E). In the laboratory, the collected adults were transferred into a transparent cage (40 × 40 cm) and reared following the protocol of Abbas and Hafez [9]. Cotton wicks (3 cm) soaked in a 1:1 (by weight) solution of powdered milk and sugar in deionized water placed in plastic petri dishes (9 cm diameter) were provided for feeding of the adults, and these were refreshed every two days. The diet for the larvae consisted of wheat bran, yeast, dry milk powder, and sugar in the ratio 20:5:1.5:1.5 (g) made into a paste with 70 ml deionized water, provided in 500-ml plastic cups sited in the cages, for egg-laying and feeding. Each day, plastic cups in which eggs had been laid were removed from the cages and covered tightly with cloth to prevent hatched larvae from escaping. Larvae were transferred into glass beakers with fresh larval food after they had consumed the previous diet. Larvae were pupated in the glass beakers and the emerging adults were transferred into cages to form the next generation. Insects were maintained at 27°C ± 2°C, 65% ± 5% humidity, and under a 12h:12h (L/D) photoperiod in the laboratory.

The aforementioned field population of M. domestica (generation one; G1) was divided into two parts. One part, designated the susceptible strain, was cultured in the laboratory for 24 generations without exposure to any insecticide. The other part was selected by exposure to diflubenzuron for 20 generations to produce a diflubenzuron-resistant strain, designated Diflu-SEL. The Diflu-SEL generations G5 to G24 were screened with different concentrations of diflubenzuron (Table 2), the concentrations being chosen on the basis of larval survival, in order to obtain sufficient adults for the next generation. In 2000 ml glass beaker, two thousand 2nd instar larvae were screened with diflubenzuron by the diet incorporation method in each generation [9]. The surviving larvae were allowed to pupate in glass beakers (Table 2). After emergence, the flies were moved to clean cages for the next generation and were maintained in the laboratory under the aforementioned conditions.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. History of selection with diflubenzuron to develop Diflu-SEL strain of M. domestica.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268261.t002

Bioassays of M. domestica larvae

The toxicities of the IGRs against M. domestica larvae were assessed by diet incorporation bioassay as described by Abbas and Hafez [9]. Five serial concentrations (giving mortality range >0% to <100%) of each IGR were mixed into the larval food (formulated as described above), with three replicates for each bioassay. There were 10 2nd instar larvae per replicate, 30 at each concentration, and 150 per bioassay. For the controls, the larval medium was made with deionized water only (3 replicates of 10 2nd instar larvae each). All larval bioassays were performed under the abovementioned conditions. Mortality was noted at adult emergence; larvae failing to transform into adults were considered dead.

Adult bioassays

The toxicities of the organophosphates and pyrethroids to adults flies of mixed sexes was evaluated by feeding as described by Abbas et al. [36]. Five concentrations (giving mortality range >0% to <100%) of each insecticide were made in twenty percent sucrose solution through serial dilution, with three replicates of each concentration for each bioassay. There were 10 adult flies in each replicate, 30 at each concentration, and 150 per bioassay. In the control, 30 adult flies were used (10 flies per replicate). The adult flies were transferred into plastic jars (11 × 15 cm) having perforations for aeration and with a cloth cover tied on to avoid escape of flies. Prior to treatment the flies were starved for 2 h. A cotton wick (~3 cm) was saturated with the treatment solution, placed in a 9-cm diameter petri dish, and the dish placed into the plastic jar to allow the flies to feed on the treatment solution. Cotton wicks saturated with twenty percent sugar solution only were provided to adult flies for control. All bioassays were performed under the abovementioned conditions. Mortality was noted after 48 h of exposure, after which LC50 values for the insecticides were calculated [36].

Realized heritability (h2) values for diflubenzuron resistance

The h2 value for diflubenzuron resistance was calculated as described by Tabashnik [25] and Abbas et al. [24]: where, R = selection response against diflubenzuron, and S = selection differential against diflubenzuron.

R was calculated using following formula: where n is the number of generations (G5–G24) screened with diflubenzuron.

S was determined as: where i = selection mortality, calculated according to the method of Tabashnik and McGaughey [37]: where p = survival percentage of Diflu-SEL (G5–G24) screened with diflubenzuron.

The term σp was calculated as: The number of generations (G) needed to produce a tenfold increase in LC50 was determined as previously described [24], using the equation:

The influence of the variables (slope and h2) on the projected rate of diflubenzuron resistance between G and selection mortality was assessed at calculated and assumed values of slope and h2.

Bioassay data analyses

Bioassay data were analyzed by probit analyses using POLO Plus Software [38] to calculate the median lethal concentration (LC50), their fiducial limits (FLs), chi-squared (χ2), and slopes with their standard errors (±SEs). LC50 values with non-overlapped 95% FLs were considered significantly different [39]. Resistance levels (RR) were calculated as:

Cross-resistance (CR) and RR values for fourteen insecticides and diflubenzuron resistance were classified as follows: >100 = very high; 51–100 = high; 21–50 = moderate; 11–20 = low; 2–10 = very low; and ≤1 = no [24,36].

Results

Diflubenzuron resistance selection

The mean survival of M. domestica larvae at different concentrations of diflubenzuron was 49% in the G5–G24 generations (Table 2). Following laboratory selection, RR for diflubenzuron increased to 30.33 by G5 rising to 182.33 by G24 compared to the susceptible strain (Table 3). The LC50 for diflubenzuron increased from 0.91 ppm (95% FL 0.70–1.17) for Diflu-SEL G5 to 5.47 ppm (95% FL 3.26–18.51) for Diflu-SEL G24 (Table 3).

thumbnail
Download:
Table 3. Development of resistance to diflubenzuron in M. domestica.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268261.t003

Realized heritability (h2)

The estimated h2 value for diflubenzuron resistance was 0.08 for Diflu-SEL G24 (Table 4).

thumbnail
Download:
Table 4. Realized heritability (h2) for diflubenzuron resistance in the Diflu-SEL strain of M. domestica.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268261.t004

Projected rate of development of diflubenzuron resistance

Over a selection intensity range of 25% to 95%, the G values required for a tenfold increase in LC50 for diflubenzuron were 9–45, 4–20, and 2–13 at h2 values of 0.08, 0.18, and 0.28, respectively, with a constant slope of 1.51 (Fig 1). At a constant h2 value of 0.08 and with slopes of 1.51, 2.51, and 3.51, G values of 9–45, 14–74, and 20–104, respectively, equated to a tenfold increase in LC50 value in the Diflu-SEL M. domestica strain (Fig 2). These results indicate that changes in any of these variables can alter the rate of development of diflubenzuron resistance.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. Effect of heritability on the number of generations of M. domestica needed for a 10-fold increase in LC50 for diflubenzuron at different selection intensities and constant slope (1.51).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268261.g001

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2. Effect of slope on the number of generations of M. domestica needed for a 10-fold increase in LC50 for diflubenzuron at different selection intensities and constant value of h2 (0.08).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268261.g002

Cross-resistance patterns

When compared to the field population, the Diflu-SEL M. domestica strain (G24) showed no CR between diflubenzuron and any of pyriproxyfen, methoxyfenozide, malathion, alpha-cypermethrin, bifenthrin, deltamethrin, cyfluthrin, or cypermethrin. Very low CR was exhibited between diflubenzuron and triflumuron, cyromazine, fenitrothion, and chlorpyrifos (Table 5).

thumbnail
Download:
Table 5. Cross-resistance to fourteen other insecticides in the diflubenzuron-selected strain of M. domestica.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268261.t005

When compared with the susceptible strain, the Diflu-SEL M. domestica strain (G24) showed no CR between diflubenzuron and any of methoxyfenozide, diazinon, pirimiphos-methyl, alpha-cypermethrin, bifenthrin, deltamethrin, cyfluthrin, or cypermethrin. Very low CR was exhibited between diflubenzuron and triflumuron, pyriproxyfen, cyromazine, fenitrothion, malathion, or chlorpyrifos (Table 5).

Discussion

Diflubenzuron, a chitin synthesis inhibitor, is commonly used alone or in combination with other insecticides to control various insect pests of medical importance, including M. domestica. Previously we have reported low to moderate resistance (RR = 9.33 to 28.67) to diflubenzuron in different populations of M. domestica [9]. In this study, selection of M. domestica with diflubenzuron over twenty generations increased resistance dramatically (RR = 182.33) in comparison to the susceptible strain. This suggests that M. domestica can rapidly developed a high level of diflubenzuron resistance under laboratory conditions. In agreement with our findings, M. domestica has been shown to rapidly develop high resistance to many insecticides under laboratory conditions, for example to imidacloprid (RR = 106) [40], spirotetramat (RR = 109) [41], pyriproxyfen (RR = 206) [33], cyromazine (RR = 211) [30], fipronil (RR = 430) [3], lambda-cyhalothrin (RR = 445) [27], chlorantraniliprole (RR = 750) [42], clothianidin (RR = 3827) [43], and methoxyfenozide (RR = 5254) [44]. This study conclusively shows that diflubenzuron resistance can likewise increase in M. domestica. The likely reason may be the existence of resistance allele(s) in the M. domestica population collected in the field [9]. However, further biochemical and molecular studies are required to explore the correlated phenomena.

Realized heritability (h2) values provide evidence of the risk of development of insecticide resistance in laboratory-selected strains of any pest [25,45]. In this study, the low estimated h2 value of 0.08 indicates low genetic variation and high phenotypic variation with lower tendency of M. domestica to develop diflubenzuron resistance genetically. This result is in agreement with those of other studies showing low values of h2 for insecticide resistance in M. domestica: 0.05 for fipronil [3], 0.06 for lambda-cyhalothrin [27], 0.17 for methoxyfenozide [28], 0.03 for pyriproxyfen [23], and 0.02 for flonicamid [24]. However, in contrast to our results, high values of h2 have been reported in insecticide-resistant M. domestica: 0.59 for spiromesifen [41], 0.32 for chlorantraniliprole [42], and 0.38 for clothianidin [43]. While field environmental conditions are varied compared to laboratory-controlled conditions [37,46], calculated values of h2 for diflubenzuron resistance by experimental selection in the laboratory have practical application for the control of M. domestica.

Assessment of insecticide resistance risk is an important step toward establishing rational and scientific resistance management strategies [3,24]. Estimation of the development of resistance (through G = 1/h2S) provides valuable insights into the risk of increased insecticide resistance in insect pests and for developing strategies to delay the problem [25,27,47,48]. The risk of development of resistance to fipronil, pyriproxyfen, spiromesifen, lambda-cyhalothrin, chlorantraniliprole, methoxyfenozide, clothianidin, and flonicamid have been reported previously in insecticide-induced resistant M. domestica [3,23,27,28,41–43]. Our results indicate that G values of 9–45, 4–20, and 2–13 would be needed to produce tenfold increases in LC50 for diflubenzuron at h2 values of 0.08, 0.18, and 0.28, respectively, with 25% to 95% selection mortality and a constant slope value of 1.51. G values of 9–45, 14–74, and 20–104 equate to slopes of 1.51, 2.51, and 3.51, respectively, at a constant h2 value of 0.08. These results show that with an increase in h2 for diflubenzuron resistance, the risk of developing resistance increases. Therefore, prudence is required when considering the risk of development of resistance to diflubenzuron when taking measures to control M. domestica.

The existence of CR in an insect pest affects the efficacy of insecticides that have never been used against that pest [24,46]. Therefore, knowledge of CR is useful when choosing effective insecticides for rotational use in a managed program [1,32,46,47,49]. In the present study, the Diflu-SEL strain of M. domestica showed no or very low CR between diflubenzuron and any of the tested insecticides in comparison with the susceptible or field strains. Some CR to triflumuron was expected because of its similar mode to diflubenzuron, but CR to the other tested insecticides was not expected as their modes of action differed [50]. However, a diflubenzuron-resistant strain of M. domestica from Denmark was shown to exhibit a very high CR to triflumuron (RR = 1000) [17]. A cyromazine-selected strain of M. domestica showed no CR to diflubenzuron, pyriproxyfen, or methoxyfenozide [30]. Similarly, spinosad- and s-methoprene-resistant strains of Culex quinquefasciatus Say were shown to exhibit no CR with diflubenzuron and pyriproxyfen [51,52]. A diflubenzuron-resistant strain of Spodoptera littoralis (Boisd.) showed no CR to two juvenoids (methoprene and triprene), but differing yet significant levels of CR to organochlorine, organophosphate, carbamate, and pyrethroid insecticides [53]. In Saudi Arabia, then, the absence of or very low CR between diflubenzuron and triflumuron (or the other tested insecticides) offers the option of alternation with diflubenzuron for the elimination of M. domestica.

It would be advisable for resistance management programs to be established for diflubenzuron to lengthen its potency against M. domestica in Saudi Arabia. Resistance should be monitored regularly to monitor its effectiveness for controlling M. domestica. Moreover, biological and cultural control measures should be adopted as elements of integrated pest management to reduce the usage of this insecticide. The low h2 value seen in this study provides encouragement for the management of diflubenzuron resistance. The absence of or very low CR between diflubenzuron and triflumuron, cyromazine, pyriproxyfen, methoxyfenozide, fenitrothion, chlorpyrifos, malathion, alpha-cypermethrin, bifenthrin, deltamethrin, cyfluthrin, or cypermethrin provides the opportunity for rotational usage of these insecticides to limit potential resistance in M. domestica, reducing insecticide-induced environmental damage.

Supporting information

S1 File. Bioassay data of different insecticides for susceptible strain of M. domestica.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268261.s001

(PDF)

S2 File. Bioassay data of different insecticides for field population of M. domestica.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268261.s002

(PDF)

S3 File. Bioassay data of different insecticides for diflubenzuron selected strain of M. domestica.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268261.s003

(PDF)

S4 File. Projected rate of resistance.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268261.s004

(PDF)

S5 File. Realized heritability.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268261.s005

(PDF)

References

  1. 1. Abbas N, Khan HAA, Shad SA. Cross-resistance, genetics, and realized heritability of resistance to fipronil in the house fly, Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae): a potential vector for disease transmission. Parasitol Res. 2014;113(4):1343–52. pmid:24481906
  2. 2. Nielsen AA, Skovgard H, Stockmarr A, Handberg KJ, Jorgensen PH. Persistence of low-pathogenic avian influenza H5N7 and H7N1 subtypes in house flies (Diptera: Muscidae). J Med Entomol. 2011;48(3):608–14. pmid:21661322
  3. 3. Abbas N, Ijaz M, Shad SA, Binyameen M. Assessment of resistance risk to fipronil and cross resistance to other insecticides in the Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae). Vet Parasitol. 2016;223:71–6. pmid:27198780
  4. 4. Khan HAA, Shad SA, Akram W. Effect of livestock manures on the fitness of house fly, Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae). Parasitol Res. 2012;111(3):1165–71. pmid:22576856
  5. 5. King BH, Taylor EE, Edwin R Burgess IV. Feeding response to select monosaccharides, sugar alcohols, and artificial sweeteners relative to sucrose in adult house flies, Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae). J Med Entomol. 2020;57(2):511–8. pmid:31743395
  6. 6. Tunaz H, Uygun N. Insect growth regulators for insect pest control. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry. 2004;28(6):377–87.
  7. 7. Khan HAA. Posttreatment temperature influences toxicity of insect growth regulators in Musca domestica. Parasitol Res. 2021;120(2):435–41. pmid:33415395
  8. 8. Cetin H, Erler F, Yanikoglu A. Larvicidal activity of novaluron, a chitin synthesis inhibitor, against the housefly, Musca domestica. J Insect Sci. 2006;6:50.
  9. 9. Abbas N, Hafez AM. Resistance to insect growth regulators and age-stage, two-sex life table in Musca domestica from different dairy facilities. PloS One. 2021;16(4):e0248693. pmid:33831013
  10. 10. Donahue WA Jr, Showler AT, Donahue MW, Vinson BE, Osbrink WLA. Lethal effects of the insect growth regulator cyromazine against three species of filth flies, Musca domestica, Stomoxys calcitrans, and Fannia canicularis (Diptera: Muscidae) in cattle, swine, and chicken manure. J Econ Entomol. 2017;110(2):776–82. pmid:28122880
  11. 11. Lau KW, Chen CD, Lee HL, Norma-Rashid Y, Sofian-Azirun M. Evaluation of insect growth regulators against field-collected Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) from Malaysia. J Med Entomol. 2015;52(2):199–206. pmid:26336304
  12. 12. Bellinato DF, Viana-Medeiros PF, Araújo SC, Martins AJ, Lima JBP, Valle D. Resistance status to the insecticides temephos, deltamethrin, and diflubenzuron in Brazilian Aedes aegypti populations. BioMed Research International. 2016;2016:8603263. pmid:27419140
  13. 13. Abbas N, Shad SA, Shah RM. Resistance status of Musca domestica L. populations to neonicotinoids and insect growth regulators in Pakistan poultry facilities. Pak J Zool. 2015;47(6):1663–71.
  14. 14. Kočišová A, Petrovský M, Toporčák J, Novák P. The potential of some insect growth regulators in housefly (Musca domestica) control. Biologia (Bratisl). 2004;59(5):661–8.
  15. 15. Hafez AM, Abbas N. Insecticide resistance to insect growth regulators, avermectins, spinosyns and diamides in Culex quinquefasciatus in Saudi Arabia. Parasit Vectors. 2021;14(1):1–9. pmid:33388087
  16. 16. Garcia GdA, David MR, Martins AdJ, Maciel-de-Freitas R, Linss JGB, Araújo SC, et al. The impact of insecticide applications on the dynamics of resistance: The case of four Aedes aegypti populations from different Brazilian regions. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12(2):e0006227. pmid:29432488
  17. 17. Kristensen M, Jespersen JB. Larvicide resistance in Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) populations in Denmark and establishment of resistant laboratory strains. J Econ Entomol. 2003;96(4):1300–6. pmid:14503604
  18. 18. Grigoraki L, Puggioli A, Mavridis K, Douris V, Montanari M, Bellini R, et al. Striking diflubenzuron resistance in Culex pipiens, the prime vector of West Nile Virus. Scientific Reports. 2017;7(1):1–8. pmid:28127051
  19. 19. Levot GW, Sales N. New high level resistance to diflubenzuron detected in the Australian sheep blowfly, Lucilia cuprina (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Calliphorddae). General and Applied Entomology: The Journal of the Entomological Society of New South Wales. 2002;31:43–5.
  20. 20. Levot G, Sales N. Insect growth regulator cross-resistance studies in field- and laboratory-selected strains of the Australian sheep blowfly, Lucilia cuprina (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Calliphoridae). Aust J Entomol. 2004;43(4):374–7.
  21. 21. James PJ, Cramp AP, Hook SE. Resistance to insect growth regulator insecticides in populations of sheep lice as assessed by a moulting disruption assay. Med Vet Entomol. 2008;22(4):326–30. pmid:19120959
  22. 22. Lai T, Su J. Assessment of resistance risk in Spodoptera exigua (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to chlorantraniliprole. Pest Manag Sci. 2011;67(11):1468–72. pmid:21594963
  23. 23. Shah RM, Abbas N, Shad SA, Sial AA. Selection, resistance risk assessment, and reversion toward susceptibility of pyriproxyfen in Musca domestica L. Parasitol Res. 2015;114(2):487–94. pmid:25363707
  24. 24. Abbas N, Abubakar M, Hassan MW, Shad SA, Hafez AM. Risk assessment of flonicamid resistance in Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae): resistance monitoring, inheritance, and cross-resistance potential. J Med Entomol. 2021;58(4):1779–87. Epub 2021/03/25. pmid:33758935.
  25. 25. Tabashnik BE. Resistance risk assessment: realized heritability of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis in diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae), tobacco budworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), and Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). J Econ Entomol. 1992;85(5):1551–9.
  26. 26. Firkoi MJ, Hayes JL. Quantitative genetic tools for insecticide resistance risk assessment: estimating the heritability of resistance. J Econ Entomol. 1990;83(3):647–54. pmid:2198304
  27. 27. Abbas N, Shad SA. Assessment of resistance risk to lambda-cyhalothrin and cross-resistance to four other insecticides in the house fly, Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae). Parasitol Res. 2015;114(7):2629–37. Epub 2015/04/24. pmid:25903007.
  28. 28. Shah RM, Abbas N, Shad SA. Assessment of resistance risk in Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae) to methoxyfenozide. Acta Trop. 2015;149:32–7. pmid:25985910
  29. 29. Khan HAA, Akram W, Khan T, Haider MS, Iqbal N, Zubair M. Risk assessment, cross-resistance potential, and biochemical mechanism of resistance to emamectin benzoate in a field strain of house fly (Musca domestica Linnaeus). Chemosphere. 2016;151:133–7. pmid:26933904
  30. 30. Khan HAA, Akram W. Cyromazine resistance in a field strain of house flies, Musca domestica L.: Resistance risk assessment and bio-chemical mechanism. Chemosphere. 2017;167:308–13. pmid:27728890
  31. 31. Abbas N, Khan HAA, Shad SA. Resistance of the house fly Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) to lambda-cyhalothrin: mode of inheritance, realized heritability, and cross-resistance to other insecticides. Ecotoxicology. 2014;23(5):791–801. pmid:24609299
  32. 32. Abbas N, Khan H, Shad SA. Cross-resistance, stability, and fitness cost of resistance to imidacloprid in Musca domestica L., (Diptera: Muscidae). Parasitol Res. 2015;114(1):247–55. Epub 2014/10/25. pmid:25342464.
  33. 33. Shah RM, Abbas N, Shad SA, Varloud M. Inheritance mode, cross-resistance and realized heritability of pyriproxyfen resistance in a field strain of Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae). Acta Trop. 2015;142:149–55. pmid:25479440
  34. 34. Shah RM, Shad SA, Abbas N. Methoxyfenozide resistance of the housefly, Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae): cross-resistance patterns, stability and associated fitness costs. Pest Manag Sci. 2017;73(1):254–61. pmid:27098995
  35. 35. Khan HAA. Characterization of permethrin resistance in a Musca domestica strain: resistance development, cross-resistance potential and realized heritability. Pest Manag Sci. 2019;75(11):2969–74. Epub 2019/03/16. pmid:30873734.
  36. 36. Abbas N, Shad SA, Ismail M. Resistance to conventional and new insecticides in house flies (Diptera: Muscidae) from poultry facilities in Punjab, Pakistan. J Econ Entomol. 2015;108(2):826–33. pmid:26470195
  37. 37. Tabashnik BE, McGaughey WH. Resistance risk assessment for single and multiple insecticides: responses of Indianmeal moth (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) to Bacillus thuringiensis. J Econ Entomol. 1994;87(4):834–41.
  38. 38. LeOra S. Poloplus, a user’s guide to probit or logit analysis. LeOra Software, Berkeley, CA. 2003.
    • 39. Litchfield JT, Wilcoxon F. A simplified method of evaluating dose-effect experiments. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1949;96(2):99–113. pmid:18152921
    • 40. Khan H, Abbas N, Shad SA, Afzal MBS. Genetics and realized heritability of resistance to imidacloprid in a poultry population of house fly, Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae) from Pakistan. Pestic Biochem Physiol. 2014;114:38–43. pmid:25175648
    • 41. Alam M, Shah RM, Shad SA, Binyameen M. Fitness cost, realized heritability and stability of resistance to spiromesifen in house fly, Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae). Pestic Biochem Physiol. 2020;168:104648. pmid:32711758
    • 42. Shah RM, Shad SA. House fly resistance to chlorantraniliprole: cross resistance patterns, stability and associated fitness costs. Pest Manag Sci. 2020;76(5):1866–73. pmid:31840405
    • 43. Shah RM, Shad SA. Inheritance, stability, cross-resistance, and life history parameters of a clothianidin-selected strain of house fly, Musca domestica Linnaeus. Environ Pollut. 2021;278:116880. pmid:33743269
    • 44. Shah RM, Abbas N, Shad SA, Binyameen M. Determination of the genetic and synergistic suppression of a methoxyfenozide-resistant strain of the house fly Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae). Neotrop Entomol. 2018;47(5):709–15. pmid:29654414
    • 45. Abbas N, Shad SA, Razaq M. Fitness cost, cross resistance and realized heritability of resistance to imidacloprid in Spodoptera litura (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Pestic Biochem Physiol. 2012;103(3):181–8.
    • 46. Saeed R, Abbas N. Realized heritability, inheritance and cross-resistance patterns in imidacloprid-resistant strain of Dysdercus koenigii (Fabricius) (Hemiptera: Pyrrhocoridae). Pest Manag Sci. 2020;76(8):2645–52. Epub 2020/03/01. pmid:32112465.
    • 47. Saeed R, Abbas N, Mehmood Z. Emamectin benzoate resistance risk assessment in Dysdercus koenigii: Cross-resistance and inheritance patterns. Crop Prot. 2020;130:105069.
    • 48. Banazeer A, Afzal MBS, Ijaz M, Shad SA. Spinosad resistance selected in the laboratory strain of Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae): studies on risk assessment and cross-resistance patterns. Phytoparasitica. 2019;47(4):531–42.
    • 49. Afzal MBS, Shad SA, Ejaz M, Serrao JE. Laboratory selection, cross-resistance, and estimations of realized heritability of indoxacarb resistance in Phenacoccus solenopsis (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Pest Manag Sci. 2020;76(1):161–8. Epub 2019/05/17. pmid:31095862.
    • 50. IRAC. IRAC: Mode of action classification scheme, Version 9.4,. www.irac-online.org › documents › moa-classification. 2020:pp, 1–26.
      • 51. Su T, Cheng M-L. Cross resistances in spinosad-resistant Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol. 2014;51(2):428–35. pmid:24724293
      • 52. Su T, Thieme J, Cummings R, Cheng M-L, Brown MQ. Cross resistance in s-methoprene-resistant Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol. 2021;58(1):398–402. pmid:32914856
      • 53. El-Guindy MA, Abdel-Sattar MM, El-Refai ARM. The pattern of cross-resistance to insecticides and juvenile hormone analogues in a diflubenzuron-resistant strain of the cotton leaf worm Spodoptera littoralis boisd. Pestic Sci. 1983;14(3):235–45.