Abstract
Since the introduction of DDT in the 1940s, arthropod pest control has relied heavily upon chemical insecticides. However, the development of insect resistance, an increased awareness of the real and perceived environmental and health impacts of these chemicals, and the need for systems with a smaller environmental footprint has stimulated the search for new insecticidal compounds, novel molecular targets, and alternative control methods. In recent decades a variety of biocontrol methods employing peptidic or proteinaceous insect-specific toxins derived from microbes, plants and animals have been examined in the laboratory and field with varying results. Among the many interdependent factors involved with the production of a cost-effective pesticide-production expense, kill efficiency, environmental persistence, pest-specificity, pest resistance-development, public perception and ease of delivery-sprayable biopesticides have not yet found equal competitive footing with chemical counterparts. However, while protein/peptide-based biopesticides continue to have limitations, advances in the technology, particularly of genetically modified organisms as biopesticidal delivery systems, has continually progressed. This review highlights the varieties of delivery methods currently practiced, examining the strengths and weaknesses of each method.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 576-596 |
| Number of pages | 21 |
| Journal | Toxicon |
| Volume | 49 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Mar 15 2007 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Arthropod
- Delivery
- Peptide
- Pesticide
- Toxin
- Venom
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Toxicology
Cite this
Delivery methods for peptide and protein toxins in insect control. / Whetstone, Paul A.; Hammock, Bruce D.
In: Toxicon, Vol. 49, No. 4, 15.03.2007, p. 576-596.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Delivery methods for peptide and protein toxins in insect control
AU - Whetstone, Paul A.
AU - Hammock, Bruce D.
PY - 2007/3/15
Y1 - 2007/3/15
N2 - Since the introduction of DDT in the 1940s, arthropod pest control has relied heavily upon chemical insecticides. However, the development of insect resistance, an increased awareness of the real and perceived environmental and health impacts of these chemicals, and the need for systems with a smaller environmental footprint has stimulated the search for new insecticidal compounds, novel molecular targets, and alternative control methods. In recent decades a variety of biocontrol methods employing peptidic or proteinaceous insect-specific toxins derived from microbes, plants and animals have been examined in the laboratory and field with varying results. Among the many interdependent factors involved with the production of a cost-effective pesticide-production expense, kill efficiency, environmental persistence, pest-specificity, pest resistance-development, public perception and ease of delivery-sprayable biopesticides have not yet found equal competitive footing with chemical counterparts. However, while protein/peptide-based biopesticides continue to have limitations, advances in the technology, particularly of genetically modified organisms as biopesticidal delivery systems, has continually progressed. This review highlights the varieties of delivery methods currently practiced, examining the strengths and weaknesses of each method.
AB - Since the introduction of DDT in the 1940s, arthropod pest control has relied heavily upon chemical insecticides. However, the development of insect resistance, an increased awareness of the real and perceived environmental and health impacts of these chemicals, and the need for systems with a smaller environmental footprint has stimulated the search for new insecticidal compounds, novel molecular targets, and alternative control methods. In recent decades a variety of biocontrol methods employing peptidic or proteinaceous insect-specific toxins derived from microbes, plants and animals have been examined in the laboratory and field with varying results. Among the many interdependent factors involved with the production of a cost-effective pesticide-production expense, kill efficiency, environmental persistence, pest-specificity, pest resistance-development, public perception and ease of delivery-sprayable biopesticides have not yet found equal competitive footing with chemical counterparts. However, while protein/peptide-based biopesticides continue to have limitations, advances in the technology, particularly of genetically modified organisms as biopesticidal delivery systems, has continually progressed. This review highlights the varieties of delivery methods currently practiced, examining the strengths and weaknesses of each method.
KW - Arthropod
KW - Delivery
KW - Peptide
KW - Pesticide
KW - Toxin
KW - Venom
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33847614299&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33847614299&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.toxicon.2006.11.009
DO - 10.1016/j.toxicon.2006.11.009
M3 - Article
C2 - 17196630
AN - SCOPUS:33847614299
VL - 49
SP - 576
EP - 596
JO - Toxicon
JF - Toxicon
SN - 0041-0101
IS - 4
ER -