Explanation of non-additive effects in mixtures of similar mode of action chemicals

Kamo, Masashi; Yokomizo, Hiroyuki

doi:10.1016/j.tox.2015.06.008

Cited by 20 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Again, as synergistic effects may be explained by the addition of energetic costs, differences in energy budgets when animals are exposed to different mixtures may be key to understand the presence of such synergisms. Nevertheless, our results march the emerging view that the most common interaction type in pesticide mixtures is an additive effect …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

“…Nevertheless, our results march the emerging view that the most common interaction type in pesticide mixtures is an additive effect. 3,[80][81][82] The interaction type between chlorpyrifos and Bti in their mixture did not differ between the non-resistant and the resistant strain. This contrasts with studies showing different interaction types in a binary pesticide mixture between strains resistant and non-resistant to one of the pesticides.…”

Section: Interaction Effects In the (Bio)pesticide Mixturementioning

confidence: 89%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of predator cues and pesticide resistance on the toxicity of a (bio)pesticide mixture

Delnat

Janssens

Stoks

2019

Pest Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Populations of target species are typically exposed to pesticide mixtures and natural stressors such as predator cues, and are increasingly developing resistance to single pesticides. Nevertheless, we have poor knowledge whether natural stressors and the presence of pesticide resistance shape mixture toxicity. We tested the single and combined effects of the pesticide chlorpyrifos and the biopesticide Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) on the survival of the Southern house mosquito (Culex quinquefasciatus, Say) and whether these effects were magnified by synthetic predator cues of Notonecta water bugs and differed between a chlorpyrifos‐resistant (Ace‐1R) and non‐resistant (S‐Lab) strain. RESULTS Single exposure to Bti caused mortality in both strains (S‐Lab ∼27%, Ace‐1R ∼41%) and single exposure to chlorpyrifos caused only mortality in the S‐Lab strain (∼33%), while predator cues did not induce mortality. The chlorpyrifos‐resistant strain was 1.5‐fold more sensitive to Bti, indicating a cost of resistance. The interaction types between chlorpyrifos and Bti (additive), between chlorpyrifos and predator cues (additive), and between Bti and predator cues (synergistic) were consistent in both strains. Despite predator cues making Bti approximately 8% more lethal, they did not change the additive interaction between Bti and chlorpyrifos in their mixture in either strain. CONCLUSION These results indicate that the resistance against chlorpyrifos was not partly lifted when chlorpyrifos exposure was combined with Bti and predator cues. Identifying the interaction type within pesticide mixtures and how this depends on natural stressors is important to select control strategies that give a disadvantage to resistant individuals compared to non‐resistant individuals. © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

Section: Interaction Effects In the (Bio)pesticide Mixturementioning

confidence: 89%

Effects of predator cues and pesticide resistance on the toxicity of a (bio)pesticide mixture

Delnat

Janssens

Stoks

2019

Pest Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This finding is in agreement with Cedergreen and coworkers’ [105] first recommendation listed above. Using mathematical models, Kamo and Yokomizo [108] investigated effects in chemical mixtures and found CA to be accurate only at low concentrations. At higher concentrations, mixture effects can be predicted by CA when MOAs are exactly the same, whereas mixtures characterized by similarities in the MOAs generally produce nonlinear effects.…”

Section: Results—ecological Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The role of CA and IA models in predicting combined effects from chemical mixtures is uncertain [106,110,130], although several articles agree that CA is best reserved for conservative effect estimation [6,107,109] or estimation at low concentrations [108]. Studies in both human health and ecological health tackled the alterations in chemical risks that could occur from global climate change [96,114,131].…”

Section: Discussion: Summary Of the State Of The Practice Of Cramentioning

confidence: 99%

An Overview of Literature Topics Related to Current Concepts, Methods, Tools, and Applications for Cumulative Risk Assessment (2007–2016)

Fox

Brewer

Martin

2017

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cumulative risk assessments (CRAs) address combined risks from exposures to multiple chemical and nonchemical stressors and may focus on vulnerable communities or populations. Significant contributions have been made to the development of concepts, methods, and applications for CRA over the past decade. Work in both human health and ecological cumulative risk has advanced in two different contexts. The first context is the effects of chemical mixtures that share common modes of action, or that cause common adverse outcomes. In this context two primary models are used for predicting mixture effects, dose addition or response addition. The second context is evaluating the combined effects of chemical and nonchemical (e.g., radiation, biological, nutritional, economic, psychological, habitat alteration, land-use change, global climate change, and natural disasters) stressors. CRA can be adapted to address risk in many contexts, and this adaptability is reflected in the range in disciplinary perspectives in the published literature. This article presents the results of a literature search and discusses a range of selected work with the intention to give a broad overview of relevant topics and provide a starting point for researchers interested in CRA applications.

show abstract

“…To understand mixture toxicity, concentration addition (also called simple similar joint action) and response addition (also called independent action) approaches are commonly applied. Briefly, concentration addition assumes that chemicals of concern have the same mode of action, whereas response addition assumes they have different modes of action and act independently .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Concentration addition and response addition to analyze mixture toxicity: Is it worth testing?

Iwasaki¹,

Gauthier

2016

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Explanation of non-additive effects in mixtures of similar mode of action chemicals

Cited by 20 publications

References 34 publications

Effects of predator cues and pesticide resistance on the toxicity of a (bio)pesticide mixture

Effects of predator cues and pesticide resistance on the toxicity of a (bio)pesticide mixture

An Overview of Literature Topics Related to Current Concepts, Methods, Tools, and Applications for Cumulative Risk Assessment (2007–2016)

Concentration addition and response addition to analyze mixture toxicity: Is it worth testing?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About