Fig. 1: Pyrethrum elicits spatial repellency in Ae. aegypti mosquitoes.
From: A dual-target molecular mechanism of pyrethrum repellency against mosquitoes
a A schematic depiction of the setup for the hand-in-cage assay as previously described27. b Dose-dependent pyrethrum repellency in Rockefeller (wild-type) mosquitoes (n = 7 cages for control; n = 9 cages for 10−3 (v v−1); n = 8 cages for 10−2 (v v−1) from 3 batches of mosquitoes; t = 2.68, df = 14, P = 0.0181 for control vs. pyrethrum at 10−3 and t = 9.58, df = 13, P < 0.0001 for control vs. pyrethrum at 10−2). c Representative EAG response traces of Orlando (wild-type) mosquitoes to pyrethrum (10−2 v v−1). d Repellency of pyrethrum (10−2 v v−1) against Orlando or orco−/− mutant mosquitoes (n = 6 cages for each of the controls; n = 8 cages for pyrethrum in Orlando, n = 7 cages for pyrethrum in orco−/−, from 3 batches of mosquitoes; t = 11.74, df = 12, P < 0.0001 for control vs. pyrethrum in Orlando, U = 3, P = 0.008 for control vs. pyrethrum in orco−/−, and t = 6.53, df = 13, P < 0.0001, for Orlando vs. orco−/− for pyrethrum). e Representative EAG response traces of orco−/− mosquitoes to pyrethrum (10−2 v v−1). f Comparison of EAG responses in Orlando and orco−/−; t = 4.61, df = 14, P = 0.0004, n = 5 antennae for orco−/−, and n = 11 antennae for Orlando. Two-tailed unpaired student’s t-test or two-tailed Mann-Whitney Rank Sum test was used to compare each of two sets of data. Data are plotted as mean ± s.e.m. and dots denote the value of each repeat.
