Gene/Protein Disease Symptom Drug Enzyme Compound
Pivot Concepts:   Target Concepts:
Query: UMLS:C0024530 (malaria)
 44,886 document(s) hit in 31,850,051 MEDLINE articles (0.00 seconds)

Laboratory and field tests of the repellents diethyl methylbenzamide (deet), 1-(3-Cyclohexen-1-yl-carbonyl)-2-methylpiperidine (AI3-37220), and (2-hydroxymethylcyclohexyl) acetic acid lactone (CIC-4) were conducted against Anopheles dirus Peyton & Harrison, the principal malaria vector in Thailand. In the laboratory, An. dirus was more sensitive to CIC-4 than either AI3-37220 or deet. The duration of protection provided by each repellent in laboratory tests increased with higher concentrations of repellents and when exposed in cages containing fewer mosquitoes. A field study in Chanthaburi Province, southeastern Thailand, during November 1993 tested 25% (wt:wt) ethanol solutions of each repellent against An. dirus. In contrast to the laboratory experiments, protection provided by AI3-37220 was significantly better than either deet or CIC-4 and there was no significant difference between deet and CIC-4. Protection provided by deet and CIC-4 fell to below 95% 2 h after repellent application, whereas AI3-37220 provided > 95% protection for 4 h. The protection provided by all repellents fell to < or = 65% 7 h after repellent application.
 ...
PMID:Laboratory and field evaluation of deet, CIC-4, and AI3-37220 against Anopheles dirus (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand. 869 42

Laboratory and field tests of the repellents diethyl methylbenzamide (deet), 1-(3-cyclohexen-1-yl-carbonyl)-2-methylpiperidine (AI3-37220), and (2-hydroxymethylcyclohexyl) acetic acid lactone (CIC-4) were conducted against Anopheles farauti s.s. Laveran, an important malaria vector in the southwest Pacific region. In the laboratory, An. farauti was tolerant of all 3 repellents, but deet and CIC-4 provided significantly better protection than AI3-37220. The field study was conducted in rain forest located near Innisfail, northern Queensland, and tested 25% (vol:vol) ethanol solutions of each repellent against An. farauti. All 3 repellents provided > 95% protection against An. farauti for 5 h after application. In contrast to the laboratory tests, protection provided by AI3-37220 was significantly better than that by either deet or CIC-4, and there was no difference between protection by deet and CIC-4. The protection by deet and CIC-4 declined 8 h after application and provided < or = 50% protection at 9 h. In contrast, AI3-37220 provided > or = 94% protection for 9 h.
 ...
PMID:Laboratory and field evaluation of the repellents deet, CIC-4, and AI3-37220 against Anopheles farauti (Diptera: Culicidae) in Australia. 977 94