Neonicotinoid insecticide toxicology: mechanisms of selective action.

By M. Tomizawa, John E. Casida. Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology, 2005

1,645 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Insect Science, Molecular Biology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/88aefd8877b77ada59a67f24a24f7c8857daaf46

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

1. Dave Goulson
2. Josef Settele
3. D. Gibbons
4. E. Mitchell
5. P. Mineau
6. C. Morrissey
7. H. Van Dyck

In Insect Science

1. Dave Goulson
2. C. Morrissey
3. P. Mineau
4. D. Gibbons
5. E. Rotheray
6. E. Nicholls
7. Kathleen A. Durkin
8. C. Botías

In Molecular Biology

1. Kathleen A. Durkin
2. Dave Goulson
3. John E. Casida
4. E. Mitchell
5. H. Van Dyck

Citations in the corpus

• Systemic insecticides (neonicotinoids and fipronil): trends, uses, mode of action and metabolites (2014, background): “…and structure of the subunits between insects and mammalian nAChRs explain in part the high selectivity of neonicotinoids to arthropods and the supposed relatively low toxicity to vertebrates (Nauen et al. 1999; Lansdell and Millar 2000; Matsuda et al. 2001; Tomizawa and Casida 2003, 2005).”
• Neonicotinoids, bee disorders and the sustainability of pollinator services (2013, neutral): “The nAChR binding sites in the vertebrate nervous system are different from those in insects, and in general they have lower numbers of nicotinic receptors with high affinity to neonicotinoids, which are the reasons that neonicotinoids show selective toxicity for insects over vertebrates [9,13].”
• Management Recommendations for Soybean Aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae) in the United States (2012, background): “Neonicotinoids are systemic and are absorbed through the roots and translocated through the xylem (apoplastic movement), which make them highly effective against piercing-sucking insects (Tomizawa and Casida 2005, O’Neal and Johnson 2010).”
• A review of the direct and indirect effects of neonicotinoids and fipronil on vertebrate wildlife (2014, background): “Neonicotinoids have greater affinity for, and thus bind more strongly to, insect than mammalian or other vertebrate receptors, so their toxicity to mammals is lower than it is to insects and the reversibility of intoxication higher (Tomizawa and Casida 2005; Jeschke et al. 2011).”
• REVIEW: An overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid insecticides (2013, background): “Neonicotinoids bind more strongly to insect nAChRs than to those of vertebrates, so they are selectively more toxic to insects (Tomizawa & Casida 2005).”
• Environmental fate and exposure; neonicotinoids and fipronil (2014, background): “Therefore, these compounds are able to act specifically on insect pests while reducing impacts on some nontarget organisms (Tomizawa and Casida 2003, 2005; Tingle et al. 2003).”
• Neuroactive insecticides: targets, selectivity, resistance, and secondary effects. (2013, background): “Selectivity and Resistance Electrophysiological experiments and radioligand binding studies with [3H]nicotine, [3H]epibatidine, and [3H]IMI (83, 84) establish remarkable similarities within insect nAChRs and selectivity between insect and mammalian receptors (133, 134, 135).”
• Bee declines driven by combined stress from parasites, pesticides, and lack of flowers (2015, background): “They are neurotoxins that target the insect central nervous system, binding to postsynaptic nicotinic acetylcholine receptors and causing overstimulation, paralysis, and death (67).”