Background The worldwide threat of arthropod-transmitted diseases, with their associated morbidity and mortality, underscores the need for effective insect repellents. Multiple chemical, botanical, and "alternative" repellent products are marketed to consumers. We sought to determine which products available in the United States provide reliable and prolonged complete protection from mosquito bites. Methods We conducted studies involving 15 volunteers to test the relative efficacy of seven botanical insect repellents; four products containing N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide, now called N,N-diethyl-3-methylbenzamide (DEET); a repellent containing IR3535 (ethyl butylacetylaminopropionate); three repellent-impregnated wristbands; and a moisturizer that is commonly claimed to have repellent effects. These products were tested in a controlled laboratory environment in which the species of the mosquitoes, their age, their degree of hunger, the humidity, the temperature, and the light-dark cycle were all kept constant. Results DEET-based products provided complete protection for the longest duration. Higher concentrations of DEET provided longer-lasting protection. A formulation containing 23.8 percent DEET had a mean complete-protection time of 301.5 minutes. A soybean-oil-based repellent protected against mosquito bites for an average of 94.6 minutes. The IR3535-based repellent protected for an average of 22.9 minutes. All other botanical repellents we tested provided protection for a mean duration of less than 20 minutes. Repellent-impregnated wristbands offered no protection. Conclusions Currently available non-DEET repellents do not provide protection for durations similar to those of DEET-based repellents and cannot be relied on to provide prolonged protection in environments where mosquito-borne diseases are a substantial threat.

Comparative Efficacy of Insect Repellents against Mosquito Bites

Nonindigenous vectors that arrive, establish, and spread in new areas have fomented throughout recorded history epidemics of human diseases such as malaria, yellow fever, typhus, and plague. Although some vagile vectors, such as adults of black flies, biting midges, and tsetse flies, have dispersed into new habitats by flight or wind, human-aided transport is responsible for the arrival and spread of most invasive vectors, such as anthropophilic fleas, lice, kissing bugs, and mosquitoes. From the fifteenth century to the present, successive waves of invasion of the vector mosquitoes Aedes aegypti, the Culex pipiens Complex, and, most recently, Aedes albopictus have been facilitated by worldwide ship transport. Aircraft have been comparatively unimportant for the transport of mosquito invaders. Mosquito species that occupy transportable container habitats, such as water-holding automobile tires, have been especially successful as recent invaders. Propagule pressure, previous success, and adaptations to human habits appear to favor successful invasions by vectors.

Invasions by insect vectors of human disease

To identify the mosquito species competent for West Nile virus (WNV) transmission, we evaluated 10 California species that are known vectors of other arboviruses or major pests: Culex tarsalis, Cx. pipiens pipiens, Cx. p. quinquefasciatus, Cx. stigmatosoma, Cx. erythrothorax, Ochlerotatus dorsalis, Oc. melanimon, Oc. sierrensis, Aedes vexans, and Culiseta inornata. All 10 became infected and were able to transmit WNV at some level. Ochlerotatus, Culiseta, and Aedes were low to moderately efficient vectors. They feed primarily on mammals and could play a secondary role in transmission. Oc. sierrensis, a major pest species, and Cx. p. quinquefasciatus from southern California were the least efficient laboratory vectors. Cx. tarsalis, Cx. stigmatosoma, Cx. erythrothorax, and other populations of Cx. pipiens complex were the most efficient laboratory vectors. Culex species are likely to play the primary role in the enzootic maintenance and transmission of WNV in California.

/pdf/vector-competence-of-california-mosquitoes-for-west-nile-3wblpdlxq5.pdf

Vector competence of California mosquitoes for West Nile virus

Ehrlichia chaffeensis is an obligately intracellular, tick-transmitted bacterium that is maintained in nature in a cycle involving at least one and perhaps several vertebrate reservoir hosts. The moderate to severe disease caused by E. chaffeensis in humans, first identified in 1986 and reported for more than 1,000 patients through 2000, represents a prototypical “emerging infection.” Knowledge of the biology and natural history of E. chaffeensis, and of the epidemiology, clinical features, and laboratory diagnosis of the zoonotic disease it causes (commonly referred to as human monocytic ehrlichiosis [HME]) has expanded considerably in the period since its discovery. In this review, we summarize briefly the current understanding of the microbiology, pathogenesis, and clinical manifestations associated with this pathogen but focus primarily on discussing various ecological factors responsible for the recent recognition of this important and potentially life-threatening tick-borne disease. Perhaps the most pivotal element in the emergence of HME has been the staggering increases in white-tailed deer populations in the eastern United States during the 20th century. This animal serves as a keystone host for all life stages of the principal tick vector (Amblyomma americanum) and is perhaps the most important vertebrate reservoir host for E. chaffeensis. The contributions of other components, including expansion of susceptible human populations, growth and broadening geographical distributions of other potential reservoir species and A. americanum, and improvements in confirmatory diagnostic methods, are also explored.

/pdf/ehrlichia-chaffeensis-a-prototypical-emerging-pathogen-4kvi85nzwc.pdf

Ehrlichia chaffeensis: a Prototypical Emerging Pathogen

A one-step, single tube, real-time accelerated reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) assay was developed for detecting the envelope gene of West Nile (WN) virus. The RT-LAMP assay is a novel method of gene amplification that amplifies nucleic acid with high specificity, efficiency, and rapidity under isothermal conditions with a set of six specially designed primers that recognize eight distinct sequences of the target. The whole procedure is very simple and rapid, and amplification can be obtained in less than 1 h by incubating all of the reagents in a single tube with reverse transcriptase and Bst DNA polymerase at 63°C. Detection of gene amplification could be accomplished by agarose gel electrophoresis, as well as by real-time monitoring in an inexpensive turbidimeter. When the sensitivity of the RT-LAMP assay was compared to that of conventional RT-PCR, it was found that the RT-LAMP assay demonstrated 10-fold higher sensitivity compared to RT-PCR, with a detection limit of 0.1 PFU of virus. By using real-time monitoring, 104 PFU of virus could be detected in as little as 17 min. The specificity of the RT-LAMP assay was validated by the absence of any cross-reaction with other, closely related, members of the Flavivirus group, followed by restriction digestion and nucleotide sequencing of the amplified product. These results indicate that the RT-LAMP assay is extremely rapid, cost-effective, highly sensitive, and specific and has potential usefulness for rapid, comprehensive WN virus surveillance along with virus isolation and/or serology.

Real-Time Reverse Transcription Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification for Rapid Detection of West Nile Virus

Update: West Nile Virus activity - northeastern United States, 2000.

Statewide surveillance for ehrlichiosis - connecticut and new york, 1994-1997

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

We encountered an error while loading the panel. Please try refreshing the page.

Something went wrong

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

Anyone with the link can view this chat. You can switch it back to private anytime.

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

D. Mayo

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Update: West Nile Virus activity - northeastern United States, 2000.

Statewide surveillance for ehrlichiosis - connecticut and new york, 1994-1997