Mosquitoes Beginning To Ignore DEET Repellent 232
Copper Nikus writes "An article at the BBC makes a shocking claim about mosquitoes. It appears some individual insects in the wild have developed the ability to ignore the very popular DEET repellent after a first exposure. From the article: 'To investigate why this might be happening, the researchers attached electrodes to the insects' antenna.
Dr Logan explained: "We were able to record the response of the receptors on the antenna to Deet, and what we found was the mosquitoes were no longer as sensitive to the chemical, so they weren't picking it up as well.
"There is something about being exposed to the chemical that first time that changes their olfactory system - changes their sense of smell - and their ability to smell Deet, which makes it less effective."'"
Umm, yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, it's called evolution.
Re:Umm, yeah (Score:5, Funny)
you shut your devil whore mouth
Re:Umm, yeah (Score:5, Funny)
I must be evolving too, because I can't smell my aftershave as much when I've got used to it.
Re:Umm, yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a difference.
This is more like a human losing sensitivity to skunk or ammonia smells for the rest of their life... after smelling them once.
It is really more akin to some humans who have unhealthy very bad digestive systems until they get a stomach parasite infection.. once.
Then they are fine the rest of their lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Funnily enough, The doctor mentioned in the article deliberately infected himself with a stomach parasite for Channel 4's "Embarrassing Bodies" TV show last year.
http://healthland.time.com/2012/04/18/doctor-infects-himself-with-parasites-for-health-experiment/ [time.com]
Cleared up his allergies no end
Re: (Score:2)
Cleared up his allergies no end
actually it cleared his allergies _for the duration if infection_
Re: (Score:2)
ambarrassment
Hahahaha classic. And the GP only mis-stroked a key a second time, you hit a key 2 keys from the target.
Re:Umm, yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
You're assigning way too much intelligence to evolutionary processes. Evolution is more of a by-product than a directed process in the way that you are thinking.
Any one mosquito may have had a random mutation that makes them more or less tolerant of DEET. The mosquitoes the ones who are more repelled by DEET are more likely to die from lack of food, so each generation the mosquitos who are most tolerant - through whatever means - are the ones that reproduce. The cycle repeats for their kids. Overall the trend will be towards greater resistance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well that's not exactly true either, since viruses [panspermia.org] can affect your genes.. and there are probably other things too that I'm not aware of. Food [discovermagazine.com] can change how your genes "express" themselves for example. I'm not a biologist either..
Breeding cycles (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to look up "epigenetics"...who says the DNA has to change?
Re: (Score:2)
No, you are paritally correct, evolution doesn't happen within a generation. They aren't evolving at the moment they aquire imunity to DEET though. If this is evolution it happens before that. What is happening is the mosquitos are being conceived with a mechanism that allows them to develop an insensitivity to DEET with one exposure. That mechanism already exists within the mosquito before it is exposed and could very well be a product of evolution.
Re: (Score:2)
How is this insightful? (Score:2)
The original article was insightful, it enlightened us to a new evolution taking place. This is just a snarky restatement without any added, and in fact far less, information.
The article straight off says mosquitoes are evolving, and talks about the research as to in the mechanism that is changing.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
And by ignoring the smell of DEET, the mosquito is more likely to get herself a blood meal, and is thus more likely to reproduce. Whar evolution?
Re: (Score:3)
I stand by my position that evidence for evolution-driven tolerance to DEET is very weak based on available evidence at this point. The experiment was carried out without any mention of a control group for comparison that would have not been subjected to any evolution driven selective pressure. There was *one* mention in the article of genetic changes influencing immunity to DEET under controlled laboratory conditions: ".......although it was not clear if there were any mosquitoes like this in the wild."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. Somebody hasn't been laid in way too long have they.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. He was probably married...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they always had that ability then you are correct. However if that was the case then DEET would have never worked so well. They seemed to have evolved the ability to down-regulate their response to the chemical.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except this article was about individual insects becoming tolerant of DEET after initial exposure, not about evolution of traits making the species resistant to DEET (which TFA mentions is also happening).
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. But why?
Are humans an important enough part of the average mosauito's diet to drive evolution? It isn't like all the wild animals out there are using mosquito spray. If mosquitos are evolving in response to our DEET usage then what does this tell us?
Re:Umm, yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
He probably is. Cynicism gets you modded up on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3)
That is how you know if your an expert on something, you need to have something negative to say about it.
If you have something nice to say about something you are obviously been brainwashed to like it.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you always so fallacious in your reasoning?
Re:Umm, yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that doesn't seem to be the mechanism here
Really?
Dr Logan said it was vital to understand both these permanent genetic and temporary olfactory changes that were taking place.
He said: "Mosquitoes are very good at evolving very very quickly."
So there are genetic chsnges being attributed to this along with the scientist saying mosquitos are good at evolving quickly. Yeah, clearly it's not evolution. *rolls eyes*
But, you know, don't let that stop this thread turning into another Evil Religion Suppresses Science flame-fest.
Funny, no one was doing that. Defensive much?
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure whether there is a mechanism or not. It's not so clear.
For evolutionary pressure to be present, there should be an advantage (may be rather minor) to mosquitoes that can bite people wearing DEET repellent over other mosquitoes.
Humans are not their only prey - if we were, all mosquitoes would be resistant to DEET by now.
Mosquitoes draw blood from many other warm-blooded animals, they live in many places where humans never set foot. I have no idea what ratio humans have in that diet, however I think
Next step? (Score:3, Funny)
Oh great, the next step is anyone with DEET gets swarmed by these little bastards. Think about it, once they learn it's not that bad, where else do they smell DEET but fresh blood sources?
evolution (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Because we have a warning label on every item that could possibly cause injury no matter how obvious. We have tech that will insure the genetically weak will continue to breed. We have governments that cradle and encourage the simple minded to be more so.
Without genetic engineering we are doomed at our current rate of evolution.
Re:evolution (Score:4, Insightful)
What makes you think that our rightful genetic destiny must be toward smarter and smarter human beings? We may have reached a point where evolutionarily, we're already as smart as we're likely ever to get due to pressures that you nor I can completely comprehend. What we're starting to understand is that evolution proceeds in fits and starts and many dead ends toward a somewhat unpredictable concept of 'fittest'.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe making stupid people more stupid is a good thing. Seemed to work for the Morlocks and Eloi.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, humans are continuing to evolve. Only the selective pressures are different.
The traits that are now selected for are those that are suited for our human-altered world in which dangerous things have warning labels, not those traits that used to be wonderful 20,000 years ago on the savannah, but that's the whole point.
Similarly, those who you call "genetically weak" aren't. They might have been were genetically weak on the savannah when your support group consisted of 20 uneducated protohumans, but in a world filled with medicine and technology, they are perfectly fine, and better adapted than some schmuck who puts all his energy into making powerful immune systems to destroy smallpox viruses and guinea worms that no longer exist.
*We're* genetically weak (Score:2)
The parts of the world with accurate warning labels don't have growing populations.
We're aggressively selecting for traits which resist birth control.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll bite. Because we can adapt our environment to us instead of the other way around. Because we can protect and allow the"weaker"* members of our species to propagate. These two factors mitigate against "survival of the fittest".
* There is no judgement implied by in the term weaker.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's worse than that. Our reproductive fitness is dropping rapidly.
We increasingly need a lot of assistance in order to procreate.
Every time someone uses fertility procedures to make a baby, that baby is very likely to have fertility problems.
Male sperm counts have dropped by 95% since 1900. However some of this is probably due to false estrogens from oil based pesticides so it might clear up whenever we stop using them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/dec/05/sperm-count-fall-is-it-real [guardian.co.uk]
Sharpe said that whether or not the French study settled the debate over falling sperm counts, it was *unquestionable* that across northern Europe, *one in five, and perhaps more*, young men has a sperm count low enough to impair their fertility. That matters more today than 30 years ago, when women were having children at a younger age.
http://www.malehealthcenter.com/c_fertility.html [malehealthcenter.com]
Over the past 30 years, fertility among married
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
but you have to consider, is genetic engineering the next step in the evolution... of evolution?
It's like tools. Tools are an upgrade to evolution - you can improve your fitness without waiting for a generation and random chance. AND you can pass those beneficial 'traits" on to others to benefit from immediately.
Genetic engineering has the same potential as tools, for rapid adaptation and improvement. It's faster and far less random than natural evolution.
Re: (Score:2)
The immensely salty, sugary, and fatty diet of Americans is going a long way towards your goal. What evolution would do over centuries, Kraft, General Foods, Purina, Pillsbury, Mars, Coca Cola, et al are doing in mere decades. Maybe they'll come up with a mosquito repellent version of Velveeta or Cocoa Puffs.
Re:evolution (Score:5, Interesting)
There was a sci-fi short story in Analog years ago that involved human evolution an junk food. The plot involved people getting mysteriously ill, even dying. Epidemiologists linked it to eating healthy. They discovered that humans had evolved to use caramel coloring as an essential vitamin. Eliminating it from your diet was as dangerous as eliminating vitamin C.
I think about that story every time I see caramel coloring listed as an ingredient in food.
Re:evolution (Score:4, Informative)
Interestingly, not so long ago I read about evolution in humans, and how that is actually speeding up currently.
And that makes total sense to me, considering the huge changes we made to our environment over the past couple hundred years. Urbanisation, industrialisation - it requires different skills than farming.
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly, not so long ago I read about evolution in humans, and how that is actually speeding up currently.
And that makes total sense to me, considering the huge changes we made to our environment over the past couple hundred years. Urbanisation, industrialisation - it requires different skills than farming.
I've heard the opposite argued. We evolved to adapt to our environment, but now we mostly modify our environment to suit us. Therefore, we have slowed down evolution.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans have been doing just that for thousands of years. Basically since we moved from hunter/gatherers to farmers. Now that change also did not go easy, fossil records show that humans actually got shorter (the explanation is that the diet became less varied and often less food overall even though supply was more reliable) before adapting and growing again. Farming of course included quite a learning curve.
After that it went faster, and more radical. By now we have adapted our environment so much, that it
Re: (Score:2)
Oh gosh I guess all science and progress must come to a halt since our species is no longer improving. What did you think people were, a breed of dog or something? The accumulation of knowledge over the millennia is evolution, and a more potent form than genetic. It has allowed us to put men on the moon and peer deep into the basic structure of the universe. One simple mass produced hand held tool allows us to defeat any animal on earth, no matter how fast or strong.
This "breed of human" genetic stupidity i
Re: (Score:2)
No, we are always evolving. But now we are evolving towards disease resistance and sluttiness.
It's the will of God! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
This only proves that the ways and will of God is ineffable. To even suggest it's evolution in action is blasphemy.
Hold on now, I have uncontestable proof that God has eff'ed me over many times.
Or is that claim considered blasphemy as well?
Re:It's the will of God! (Score:5, Funny)
Hold on now, I have uncontestable proof that God has eff'ed me over many times.
Mary, don't exaggerate; it was just the one time.
Re: (Score:2)
Any documented instance... (Score:2)
Any documented instance of mosquitoes ignoring DDT?
Re:Any documented instance... (Score:5, Informative)
sure, tons of evidence. dead mosquitoes ignore everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Mass outdoor spraying of DDT was abandoned in poor countries subject to malaria, such as Sri Lanka, in the 1970s and 1980s, not because of government prohibitions, but because the DDT had lost its ability to kill the mosquitoes.[79]
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Carson#Criticisms_of_environmentalism_and_DDT_restrictions)
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't "ignore" a bit casual a term to use here,too? It's not like random mosquitoes are going "Hey! This nasty stuff - I'm going to ignore it! See that cabbage leaf? Nom Nom Nom muthafucka!"
Re: (Score:3)
Actualy, because we stopped using it indiscriminately on crops, road ditches, and everydamn thing you could hit with a nozzle, it has become more effective today. But if we go back to using it indiscriminately the problem will resurface more quickly than if we just use it to spray mosquito nets. If DEET is losing its effectiveness, it just proves the point that shit evolves.
Its just like using Ampicillin for every biotic infection. You have to pick your battle.
What we really need to do is figure out what ma
Bow down (Score:2)
I will be the first one to bow down to our mosquito overlords.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bow down (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it will take longer for them to become resistant to the lasers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito_laser [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Though... I heard that the russians astronauts just used a pencil (even if a legend [physics.org], it is a reminder that low tech solutions may also work).
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I thought you meant just whacking mosquitos that land on you with a pencil. A use, while not as cool as using it in space, is effective none the less.
;) Yeap... even more effective for astronauts in space... I'm yet to see an astronaut in space armed with a pencil and still be bitten by a malaria carrying mosquito
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was all fired up about this until I read how it works. Gone are my dreams of Stallone or Schwarzenegger blasting mosquitoes while saying things like "Suck on this!" or "Sucks to be you"
Patent "Natural Selection" (Score:5, Funny)
Then charge the mosquitoes a license fee to evolve.
That should stop them.
Re: (Score:2)
Good plan, show those mosquitoes how real blood suckers operate.
Mosquitoes: Ignore DEET, Just Say Phuket (Score:2)
You know how it is... something becomes trendy or goes viral and then the hipsters are all like "that is so yesterday". Mosquitoes from Thailand started the "Ignore DEET, Just Say Phuket" meme after the press got all up in arms about how popular DEET has become with human partiers:
http://www.ttrweekly.com/site/2012/09/phi-phi-home-to-deadly-cocktails/ [ttrweekly.com]
http://phuketwan.com/tourism/phi-phis-killer-cocktail-buckets-time-health-officials-explain-death-riddle-16598/ [phuketwan.com]
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2012/08/31/m [www.cbc.ca]
Shocked! (Score:3)
I am truly "shock[ed]", no one could of ever predicted this completely unique adaptation.
Use the mosquito's natural drives against it (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a device I've used with some success that works ONLY against bloodsuckers. It's called a "Mosquito Magnet" [mosquitomagnet.com].
Mosquitoes are attracted to things with blood. They apparently track their food by warmth, exhaled carbon dioxide, and a few other chemicals. This devices emits warmth, carbon dioxide and a few other chemicals in an attractant. The device is quite sensitive though. I've placed a battery driven model outside, under a small wooden table, to protect it from the elements. It definitely captures mosquitoes but sometimes it makes a difference, sometimes it doesn't. Mine is 5 years old. Last year it was... eh. Not as dramatic as year 1. I need to get it serviced this year I suppose.
Anyhoo, focusing on something like the mosquito's natural drives to attract them to a trap might be the Next Big Thing. Note that bug zappers don't attract mosquitos.
Pest management basics (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't use the same chemicals too often as small insects adapt to it quite fast. Just ask weed growers how well their toxic miticides don't work on spider mites anymore. I bet the weed you're smoking has Avid, Floramite, Monitor, Forbid or othe rnasties on it as some are resorting to using them at WAY more potent mixes and past the residual time of the chemical.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just weed. Way too many people think that if a certain dosage is called for, then it is better to double or quadruple it. When it comes to pesticides it is quite important to follow the directions including stopping well before harvest.
Solution to the mosquito problem (Score:2)
When i walked home from work the other day, I didn't notice a single mosquito.
My conclusion is that they don't like certain environmental factors.
The temperature was about 242 Kelvin
So if we can keep the place cool, we won't have to worry.
Live near a mangrove... (Score:2)
As someone with the pleasure of living near mangroves (Brisbane Australia) I can attest to the relatively ineffective deterrence offered by common DEET-based repellents (
Re: (Score:3)
I feel your pain - try some ti-tree and lavender/rosemary-based repellants. Thursday Plantation offer some decent products.
Where are you, BTW? Bayside Redlands, or Nudgee? I live in Maleny.
Goes to show ... (Score:2)
Nature is more intelligent than US Republicans, it doesn't ignore Darwin's findings ;)
Some first hand experience (Score:2)
In the meantime (Score:2)
While mosquitoes are evolving to be smarter, humans keep spreading carcinogens on them to avoid a little itch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:More blood on Rachel Carson's hards (Score:5, Informative)
John Quiggin and Tim Lambert have written that "the most striking feature of the claim against Carson is the ease with which it can be refuted." DDT was never banned for anti-malarial use,[85] (its ban for agricultural use in the United States in 1972 did not apply outside the US or to anti-malaria spraying;[86] the international treaty that banned most uses of DDT and other organochlorine pesticides — the 2001 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants — included an exemption for DDT for the use of malaria control until affordable substitutes could be found.[79]) Mass outdoor spraying of DDT was abandoned in poor countries subject to malaria, such as Sri Lanka, in the 1970s and 1980s, not because of government prohibitions, but because the DDT had lost its ability to kill the mosquitoes.[79] (Because of insects very short breeding cycle and large number of offspring, the most resistant insects that survive and pass on their genetic traits to their offspring replace the pesticide-slain insects relatively rapidly. Agricultural spraying of pesticides produces resistance to the pesticide in seven to ten years.[87])
Re: (Score:2)
DDT is still used regularly in the 2nd and 3rd world.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Their larvae are a food source to many aquatic animals.
Re: (Score:3)
The mosquito would not be missed. http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/12525/mosquito-creature-won%E2%80%99t-be-missed [theweek.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
Their larvae are a food source to many aquatic animals.
Nature (the journal) had an article about mosquitoes being a species that are not indispensible - i.e. if all mosquitoes were exterminated, things would continue more or less unchanged.
Problem is, we will never get rid of them. Ever.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe but maybe not. And if those creatures die off too it will continue to ripple. This is why your idea is majorly naive and short-sighted.
Re: (Score:2)
In parts of Africa where famine/starvation are endemic, population growth continues to consume all advances in GDP and prevent escape from poverty.
How, in light of these two well-known facts, can anyone still believe Malthus' "any improvement in living standards will just result in more poors consuming it all" bullshit?
Re: (Score:2)
Just so we're clear here, you're saying that people dying horrible deaths is a good thing? This is beyond misanthropic and all the way into psychotic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nature will ALWAYS evolve it's way around obstacles!
Except when it doesn't and the death of the entire species is the result.
Remember kids, above all, Nature doesn't make decisions or judgments. It just simply is.
If your species is under pressure and specific members randomly mutate in beneficial ways in time, your species might survive.
(Un)Fortunately for us (generally disadvantaged) humans; the traits we do have help substantially in this: language, knowledge, technology, and the ability to harvest energy for purposes other than simply feeding our bodies (
Re: (Score:2)
The People for the Eating of Tastey Animals oppose DEET because it makes mosquitos taste funny when fried in lard.
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of things eat mosquito, especially their larvae. The mails live on nectar so they may also be pollinators.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that is the human way, destroy a species because of some minor inconvenience.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the original comment is a joke, but if you figure out how to selectively breed infertile mosquitoes for several generations let me know.
Re: (Score:2)