Patent Grant
8507013
The present invention relates to compositions, methods, cell lines and reports related to controlling insects.
Animals have chemosensory and mechanosensory systems that recognize a large array of environmental stimuli, generating behavioral responses. Behavioral studies have been conducted to understand the genetics of these systems. The olfactory system plays a role in the survival and maintenance of species, including insects.
Drosophila is one of the models for studying the sensory system, as it is amenable to mutant analysis using molecular techniques, behavioral analysis, and electrophysiological analysis, and because its olfactory system is comparable to the mammalian counterpart.
Various chemicals and mixtures have been studied for pesticidal activity for many years with a goal of obtaining a product which is selective for invertebrates such as insects and has little or no toxicity to vertebrates such as mammals, fish, fowl and other species and does not otherwise persist in and damage the environment.
Most of the previously known and commercialized products having sufficient pesticidal activity to be useful also have toxic or deleterious effects on mammals, fish, fowl or other species which are not the target of the product. For example, organophosphorus compounds and carbamates inhibit the activity of acetylcholinesterase in insects as well as in all classes of animals. Chlordimeform and related formamidines are known to act on octopamine receptors of insects but have been removed from the market because of cardiotoxic potential in vertebrates and carcinogenicity in animals and a varied effect on different insects. Other compounds, which may be less toxic to mammals and other non-target species, are sometimes difficult to identify.
The present invention comprises compositions for controlling insects and methods for using these compositions. The present invention comprises compositions for controlling insects, which comprise one or more plant essential oils and methods for using these compositions. The plant essential oils, when combined, may have a synergistic effect. The compositions may include a fixed oil, which is a non-volatile non-scented plant oil. Additionally, it is contemplated that these compositions may be made up of generally regarded as safe (GRAS) compounds.
The present invention comprises compositions comprising one or more plant essential oils and an insect control agent, and methods for using these compositions. Examples of insect control agent include, DEET and D-allethrin. The plant essential oil and the insect control agent, when combined, may have a synergistic effect. For example, the insect control activity of 29% DEET may be achieved with 5% DEET when included in a combination of the present invention.
The present invention comprises a method for screening compositions for insect control activity. The present invention comprises cell lines stably transfected with tyramine receptor (TyrR), Or83b Olfactory Receptor (Or83b), or Or43a Olfactory Receptor, which may be used to screen compositions for insect control activity.
The present invention comprises a method for generating a report identifying one or more compositions having insect control activity. The term “report” refers to statements or descriptions contained in a printed document, a database, a computer system, or other medium.
For purposes of simplicity, the term “insect” shall be used through out this application; however, it should be understood that the term “insect” refers, not only to insects, but also to arachnids, larvae, and like invertebrates. Also for purposes of this application, the term “insect control” shall refer to having a repellant effect, a pesticidal effect, or both. “Repellant effect” is an effect, wherein more insects are repelled away from a host or area that has been treated with the composition than a control host or area that has not been treated with the composition. In some embodiments, repellant effect is an effect wherein at least about 75% of insects are repelled away from a host or area that has been treated with the composition. In some embodiments, repellant effect is an effect wherein at least about 90% of insects are repelled away from a host or area that has been treated with the composition. “Pesticidal effect” is an effect, wherein treatment with a composition causes at least about 1% of the insects to die. In this regard, an LC1 to LC100 (lethal concentration) or an LD1 to LD100 (lethal dose) of a composition will cause a pesticidal effect. In some embodiments, the pesticidal effect is an effect, wherein treatment with a composition causes at least about 5% of the exposed insects to die. In some embodiments, the pesticidal effect is an effect, wherein treatment with a composition causes at least about 10% of the exposed insects to die. In some embodiments, the pesticidal effect is an effect, wherein treatment with a composition causes at least about 25% of the insects to die. In some embodiments the pesticidal effect is an effect, wherein treatment with a composition causes at least about 50% of the exposed insects to die. In some embodiments the pesticidal effect is an effect, wherein treatment with a composition causes at least about 75% of the exposed insects to die. In some embodiments the pesticidal effect is an effect, wherein treatment with a composition causes at least about 90% of the exposed insects to die. In some embodiments of the invention, treatment with such concentrations or doses will result in a knockdown of the insects occurring within a few seconds to a few minutes.
The compositions of the present invention may be used to control insects by either treating a host directly, or treating an area in which the host will be located, for example, an indoor living space, outdoor patio or garden. For purposes of this application, host is defined as a plant, human or other animal.
The present invention relates to compositions, methods, cell lines and reports related to controlling insects. The insect control may be related to one or more of the receptors, comprising tyramine receptor (TyrR), Or83b Olfactory receptor (Or83b), and Or43a olfactory receptor (Or43a).
The present invention comprises a method for screening compositions for insect control activity. The present invention comprises Drosophila Schneider cell lines stably transfected with TyrR, Or43a, or Or83b, which may be used to screen compositions for insect control activity. The nucleic acid sequence and the peptide sequence of TyrR are set forth in SEQ ID NO:1 and SEQ ID NO:2, respectively. The nucleic acid sequence and the peptide sequence of Or43a are set forth in SEQ ID NO:3 and SEQ ID NO:4, respectively. The nucleic acid sequence and the peptide sequence of Or83b are set forth in SEQ ID NO:5 and SEQ ID NO:6, respectively.
The potential for insect control activity may be identified by measuring the affinity of the test compositions for the receptor in the cell lines expressing TyrR, Or83b, and/or Or43a. The potential for insect control activity may also be identified by measuring the change in intracellular cAMP and/or Ca2+ in the cell lines expressing TyrR, Or83b, and/or Or43a following treatment with the test compositions. The gene sequences of the TyrR receptor, the Or83b receptor and the Or43a receptor have substantial similarity between various insect species. As such, the Drosophila Schneider cell lines expressing these receptors may be used to screen for compositions having insect control activity in various insect species.
The present invention comprises compositions for controlling insects and methods for using these compositions. The present invention comprises compositions for controlling insects, which comprise one or more plant essential oils and methods for using these compositions. The plant essential oils, when combined, may have a synergistic effect. The compositions of the present invention may include any of the following oils, or mixtures thereof:
The compositions of the present invention may also include any of the following oils, or mixtures thereof:
In those compositions including more than one oil, each oil may make up between about 1% to about 99%, by weight, of the composition mixture. For example, one composition of the present invention comprise about 1% thymol and about 99% geraniol. Optionally, the compositions may additionally comprise a fixed oil, which is a non-volatile non-scented plant oil. For example, the composition could include one or more of the following fixed oils:
For example, one composition of the present invention includes about 1% thymol, about 50% geraniol and about 49% mineral oil. Additionally, it is contemplated that these compositions may be made up of generally regarded as safe (GRAS) compounds, for example: thyme oil, geraniol, lemon grass oil, lilac flower oil, black seed oil, lime oil, eugenol, castor oil, mineral oil, and safflower oil.
The present invention comprises compositions comprising one or more plant essential oils and an insect control agent, for example, DEET, and D-allethrin, and methods for using these compositions. The plant essential oil and the insect control agent, when combined, may have a synergistic effect. For example, the insect control activity of 29% DEET may be achieved with 5% DEET when included in a combination of the present invention.
The compositions of the present invention may comprise, in admixture with a suitable carrier and optionally with a suitable surface active agent, two or more plant essential oil compounds and/or derivatives thereof, natural and/or synthetic, including racemic mixtures, enantiomers, diastereomers, hydrates, salts, solvates and metabolites, etc.
A suitable carrier may include any carrier in the art known for plant essential oils so long as the carrier does not adversely effect the compositions of the present invention. The term “carrier” as used herein means an inert or fluid material, which may be inorganic or organic and of synthetic or natural origin, with which the active compound is mixed or formulated to facilitate its application to the container or carton or other object to be treated, or its storage, transport and/or handling. In general, any of the materials customarily employed in formulating repellents, pesticides, herbicides, or fungicides, are suitable. The compositions of the present invention may be employed alone or in the form of mixtures with such solid and/or liquid dispersible carrier vehicles and/or other known compatible active agents such as other repellants, pesticides, or acaricides, nematicides, fungicides, bactericides, rodenticides, herbicides, fertilizers, growth-regulating agents, etc., if desired, or in the form of particular dosage preparations for specific application made therefrom, such as solutions, emulsions, suspensions, powders, pastes, and granules which are thus ready for use. The compositions of the present invention can be formulated or mixed with, if desired, conventional inert pesticide diluents or extenders of the type usable in conventional insect control agents, e.g. conventional dispersible carrier vehicles such as gases, solutions, emulsions, suspensions, emulsifiable concentrates, spray powders, pastes, soluble powders, dusting agents, granules, foams, pastes, tablets, aerosols, natural and synthetic materials impregnated with active compounds, microcapsules, coating compositions for use on seeds, and formulations used with burning equipment, such as fumigating cartridges, fumigating cans and fumigating coils, as well as ULV cold mist and warm mist formulations, etc.
The compositions of the present invention may further comprise surface-active agents. Examples of surface-active agents, i.e., conventional carrier vehicle assistants, that may be employed with the present invention, comprise emulsifying agents, such as non-ionic and/or anionic emulsifying agents (e.g. polyethylene oxide esters of fatty acids, polyethylene oxide ethers of fatty alcohols, alkyl sulfates, alkyl sulfonates, aryl sulfonates, albumin hydrolyzates, etc. and especially alkyl arylpolyglycol ethers, magnesium stearate, sodium oleate, etc.); and/or dispersing agents such as lignin, sulfite waste liquors, methyl cellulose, etc.
The compositions of the present invention may be used to control insects by either treating a host directly, or treating an area in which the host will be located. For example, the host may be treated directly by using a cream or spray formulation, which may be applied externally or topically, e.g., to the skin of a human. A composition could be applied to the host, for example, in the case of a human, using formulations of a variety of personal products or cosmetics for use on the skin or hair. For example, any of the following could be used: fragrances, colorants, pigments, dyes, colognes, skin creams, skin lotions, deodorants, talcs, bath oils, soaps, shampoos, hair conditioners and styling agents.
In the case of an animal, human or non-human, the host may also be treated directly by using a formulation of a composition that is delivered orally. For example, a composition could be enclosed within a liquid capsule and ingested.
An area may be treated with a composition of the present invention, for example, by using a spray formulation, such as an aerosol or a pump spray, or a burning formulation, such as a candle or a piece of incense containing the composition. Of course, various treatment methods may be used without departing from the spirit and scope of the present invention. For example, compositions may be comprised in household products such as: air fresheners (including “heated” air fresheners in which insect repellent substances are released upon heating, e.g. electrically, or by burning); hard surface cleaners; or laundry products (e.g. laundry detergent-containing compositions, conditioners).
The present invention is further illustrated by the following specific but non-limiting examples. The following examples are prophetic, notwithstanding the numerical values, results and/or data referred to and contained in the examples. Examples 1 through 5 relate to the preparation of a cell line expressing the tyramine receptor (TyrR) and screening of compositions using this cell line. Examples 6 through 11 relate to the preparation of a cell line expressing the Or83b receptor, preparation of a cell line expressing the Or43a receptor, and screening of compositions using these cell lines. Examples 12 through 34 relate to the determination of the repellant effect and/or a pesticidal effect of compositions.
Tyramine receptor is amplified from Drosophila melanogaster head cDNA phage library GH that is obtained through the Berkeley Drosophila Genome Project (Baumann, A., 1999, Drosophila melanogaster mRNA for octopamine receptor, splice variant 1B NCBI direct submission, Accession AJ007617). The nucleic acid sequence and the peptide sequence of TyrR are set forth in SEQ ID NO:1 and SEQ ID NO:2, respectively. Phage DNA is purified from this library using a liquid culture lysate. (Baxter, et al., 1999, Insect Biochem Mol Biol 29, 461-467). Briefly, oligonucleotides that are used to amplify the open reading frame of the Drosophila tyramine receptor (TyrR) (Han, et al., 1998, J Neurosci 18, 3650-3658; von Nickisch-Rosenegk, et al., 1996. Insect Biochem Mol Biol 26, 817-827) consist of the 5′ oligonucleotide: 5′ gccgaattcgccaccATGCCATCGGCAGATCAGATCCTG 3′ (SEQ ID NO:7) and 3′ oligonucleotide: 5′ taatctagaTCAATTCAGGCCCAGAAGTCGCTTG 3′ (SEQ ID NO:8). Capitalized letters match the tyramine receptor sequence. An added Kozak sequence (Grosmaitre, X., Jacquin-Joly, E., 2001 Mamestra brassicae putative octopamine receptor (OAR) mRNA, complete cds. NCBI direct submission, Accession AF43878) is indicated by underlined nucleotides. The 5′ oligonucleotide also contains an EcoR I site and the 3′ oligonucleotide a Xba I site. The PCR is performed using Vent polymerase (New England Biolabs) with the following conditions: about 95° C., about 5 min for about 1 cycle; about 95° C., about 30 sec; and about 70° C., about 90 sec for about 40 cycles; and about 70° C., about 10 min for about 1 cycle.
The PCR product is digested with EcoR I and Xba I, subcloned into pCDNA 3 (Invitrogen) and sequenced on both strands by automated DNA sequencing (Vanderbilt Cancer Center). When this open reading frame is translated to protein, it is found to correctly match the published tyramine receptor sequence (Saudou, et al., The EMBO Journal vol 9 no 1, 6-617). For expression in Drosophila Schneider cells, the TyrR ORF is excised from pCDNA3 and inserted into pAC5.1/V5-His(B) [pAc5(B)] using the Eco RI and Xba I restriction sites.
For transfection, Drosophila Schneider cells are stably transfected with pAc5(B)-TyrR ORF using the calcium phosphate-DNA coprecipitation protocol as described by Invitrogen Drosophila Expression System (DES) manual. The precipitation protocol is the same for either transient or stable transfection except for the use of an antibiotic resistant plasmid for stable transfection. At least about ten clones of stably transfected cells are selected and separately propagated. Stable clones expressing the receptors are selected by whole cell binding/uptake using 3H-tyramine. For this assay, cells are washed and collected in insect saline (170 mM NaCl, 6 mM KCl, 2 mM NaHCO3, 17 mM glucose, 6 mM NaH2PO4, 2 mM CaCl2, and 4 mM MgCl2). About 3 million cells in about 1 mL insect saline are incubated with about 4 nM 3H-tyramine at about 23° C. for about 5 minutes. Cells are centrifuged for about 30 seconds and the binding solution is aspirated. The cell pellets are washed with about 500 μL insect saline and the cells are resuspended and transferred to scintillation fluid. Nonspecific binding is determined by including about 50 μM unlabeled-tyramine in the reaction. Binding is quantified counting radioactivity using a using a Liquid Scintillation β-counter (Beckman, Model LS1801).
Tyramine receptor binding/uptake is performed to determine which of the transfected clones have the highest levels of functionally active tyramine receptor protein. There are about 10 clonal lines for tyramine receptor and about 2 pAc(B) for control. 3H-tyramine (about 4 nM/reaction) is used as a tracer, with and without about 50 μM unlabeled tyramine as a specific competitor. For this assay, cells are grown in plates and are collected in about 3 ml of medium for cell counting and the number of cells is adjusted to about 3×106 cells/ml. About two pAcB clones are used in parallel as controls. About 1 ml cell suspension is used per reaction. Based on specific binding, about 3 clones express a high level of active tyramine receptor protein. The clone having the highest specific tyramine receptor binding (about 90%), is selected for further studies. The selected clone is propagated and stored in liquid nitrogen. Aliquot of the selected clone are grown for whole cell binding and for plasma membrane preparation for kinetic and screening studies. The control pAcB does not demonstrate any specific binding for the tyramine receptor.
Cells transfected with the tyramine receptor (about 1×106 cells/ml) are cultured in each well of a multi-well plate. About 24 hours after plating the cells, the medium is withdrawn and replaced with about 1 ml insect saline (about 23° C.). Different concentrations of 3H-tyramine (about 0.1-10 nM) are added with and without about 10 μM unlabeled tyramine and incubated at room temperature (RT). After about a 20 minute incubation, the reaction is stopped by rapid aspiration of the saline and at least one wash with about 2 ml insect saline (about 23° C.). Cells are solubilized in about 300 μl 0.3M NaOH for about 20 min at RT. Solubilized cells are transferred into about 4 ml Liquid Scintillation Solution (LSS) and vigorously vortexed for about 30 sec before counting the radioactivity using a Liquid Scintillation β-counter (Beckman, Model LS1801) (LSC).
With reference to
To study the kinetics of the tyramine receptor in stably transfected cells with pAcB-TyrR, crude membrane fractions are prepared from the transfected cells and used to calculate the equilibrium dissociation constant (Kd), Maximum Binding Capacity (Bmax), equilibrium inhibitor dissociation constant (Ki) and EC50 (effective concentration at which binding is inhibited by 50%). A preliminary study to determine the optimum concentration of membrane protein for receptor binding activity is performed. In this study, different concentrations of protein (about 10-50 μg/reaction) are incubated in about 1 ml binding buffer (50 mM Tris, pH 7.4, 5 mM MgCl2 and 2 mM ascorbic acid). The reaction is initiated by the addition of about 5 nM 3H-tyramine with and without about 10 μM unlabeled tyramine. After about 1 hr incubation at room temperature, reactions are terminated by filtration through GF/C filters (VWR), which have been previously soaked in about 0.3% polyethyleneimine (PEI). The filters are washed one time with about 4 ml ice cold Tris buffer and air dried before the retained radioactivity is measured using LSC. Binding data is analyzed by curve fitting (GraphPad software, Prism). The data demonstrates no differences between about 10, 20, 30 and 50 μg protein/reaction in tyramine receptor specific binding. Therefore, about 10 μg protein/reaction is used.
To determine Bmax and Kd values for tyramine receptor (TyrR) in membranes expressing TyrR, saturation binding experiments are performed. Briefly, about 10 μg protein is incubated with 3H-tyramine at a range of concentrations (about 0.2-20 nM). Binding data is analyzed by curve fitting (GraphPad software, Prism) and the Kd for tyramine binding to its receptor is determined.
To determine the affinities of several ligands for TyrR, increasing concentration of several compounds are tested for their ability to inhibit binding of about 2 nM 3H-tyramine. For both saturation and inhibition assays total and non-specific binding is determined in the absence and presence of about 10 μM unlabeled-tyramine, respectively. Receptor binding reactions are incubated for about 1 hr at room temperature (RT) in restricted light. Reactions are terminated by filtration through GF/C filters (VWR), which have been previously soaked in about 0.3% polyethyleneimine (PEI). The filters are washed one time with about 4 ml ice cold Tris buffer and air dried before retained radioactivity is measured using LSC. Binding data is analyzed by curve fitting (GraphPad software, Prism).
With reference to
With reference to
In order to determine the pharmacological profile of tyramine receptor (TyrR), the ability of a number of putative Drosophila neurotransmitters to displace 3H-tyramine (3H-TA) binding from membranes expressing tyramine receptor is tested. With reference to
With reference to Table A, setting forth the Ki and EC50 of the ligands, the rank order of potency is as follows: tyramine>octopamine>dopamine>serotonin, showing the likelihood that the stably transfected Schneider cells are expressing a functionally active tyramine receptor.
As such, Schneider cells expressing tyramine receptor are effective as a model for studies and screening for compositions that interact with the tyramine receptor.
Cells are grown on dishes and the media changed the day before the treatment. When cells are approximately 95% confluent, media is aspirated and the cells are washed one time with about 5 mL of about 27° C. insect saline (170 mM NaCl, 6.0 mM KCl, 2.0 mM NaHCO3, 17.0 mM glucose, 6.0 mM NaH2PO4, 2.0 mM CaCl2, 4.0 mM MgCl2; pH 7.0). About 20 mL of insect saline is added, and cells are harvested by gentle scraping. An aliquot of the cells is counted by hemocytometer, and the cells are then centrifuged for about 5 minutes at about 1000 RPM. Cells are resuspended to give about 3×106 cells per mL. IBMX is added to about 200 μM. Then about 1 mL of cell suspension is aliquoted for treatment. Forskolin (cAMP inducing agent), tyramine or different composition candidates are added, and the cells are incubated at about 27° C. for about 10 minutes.
Treated cells are centrifuged at about 13000 g for about 10 seconds. The solution is aspirated and about 1 mL of about −20° C. 70% ethanol is added. The cell pellet is disrupted by vortexing and the samples placed at about −20° C. overnight. Following the ethanol extraction, cellular debris is pelleted by centrifugation at about 13000 g for about 5 minutes. The supernatant is transferred to a tube and lyophilized to dryness in a rotary speed-vac. The resulting extract is resuspended in about 100 μL TE and used for the cAMP assay.
The cAMP assay is based on competition binding between endogenous cAMP and 3H-cAMP to a cAMP binding protein. The 3H-cAMP Biotrak system (Amersham Biosciences) is used for this assay as per the manufacturer's instructions. Briefly, about 50 μL of the cellular extract is incubated with about 50 μL 3H-cAMP and about 100 μL cAMP binding protein in an ice bath for about 2-4 hours. Charcoal (about 100 μL) is then added and the solution centrifuged for about 3 minutes at about 4° C. About 200 μL of the reaction mixture is removed and levels of 3H-cAMP are determined by scintillation counting. Levels of endogenous cAMP from the cells are calculated using a standard curve with cold cAMP ranging from about 0 to 16 Pmol per reaction.
Intracellular calcium ion concentrations ([Ca2+]i) are measured by using the acetoxymethyl (AM) ester of the fluorescent indicator fura-2 (Enan, et al., Biochem. Pharmacol vol 51, 447-454). In this study, cells expressing tyramine receptor are grown under standard conditions. A cell suspension is prepared in assay buffer (140 mM NaCL, 10 mM HEPES, 10 mM glucose, 5 mM KCl, 1 mM CaCl2, 1 mM MgCl2) and cell number adjusted to about 2×106 cells per ml. Briefly, about 1.0 ml cell suspension (about 2×106 cells) is incubated with about 5 μM Fura 2/AM for about 30 min at about 28° C. After incubation, the cells are pelleted at about 3700 rpm for about 10 sec at room temperature and then resuspended in about 1.5 ml assay buffer. [Ca2+]i changes are analyzed in spectrofluorometer in the presence and absence of test chemicals. Excitation wave lengths are about 340 nm (generated by Ca2+-bound fura-2) and about 380 nm (corresponding to Ca2+-free fura-2). The fluorescence intensity is monitored at an emission wave length of about 510 nm. No absorbance of fluorescence artifacts are observed with any of the compounds used. The ratio of about 340/380 nm is calculated and plotted as a function of time.
To determine whether specific oils, namely, Lilac Flower Oil (LFO) and Black seed Oil (BSO), interact and regulate the functional expression of tyramine receptor, membranes from stably transfected and untransfected Schneider cells are analyzed for 3H-Tyramine binding.
For the interaction with 3H-Tyramine at the receptor sites, the same binding protocol as described above is used. A dose-response of LFO and BSO (about 1-100 μg/ml) is performed to determine their effect on the inhibition binding of 3H-Tyramine to membranes prepared from Schneider cells expressing the tyramine receptor. With reference to
Turning now to
As such, it appears that LFO and BSO interact with the tyramine receptor differently. Not wishing to be bound by theory or mechanism, it is likely that LFO and tyramine compete at the same binding sites, while BSO acts at different sites of the receptor than the endogenous ligand (tyramine). Certain other oils, including those expressly set forth in this application, also interact with the tyramine receptor.
To examine test chemical-dependent coupling of the tyramine receptor, pAcB-TyrR is stably expressed in Schneider cells. Transfected and untransfected cells are treated with tyramine (about 10 μM), LFO (about 25 μg/ml) and BSO (about 25 μg/ml) in the presence and absence of forskolin (FK) (about 10 μM). cAMP production is measured using the 3H-cAMP assay kit (Amersham) as described above.
To ensure that the cAMP cascade in this cell model is functionally active, forskolin, a cAMP inducer, is used as standard agent. As shown in
Tyramine, on the other hand, induces a slight decrease (about 10%) in cAMP production. Tyramine, however, significantly antagonizes forskolin-stimulated cAMP levels in cells expressing tyramine receptor, suggesting that tyramine receptor couples to Gαi/o in the presence of tyramine, as shown in
Treatment with certain other plant essential oils, including those expressly set forth in the application, also result in changes in intracellular cAMP levels in cells expressing tyramine receptor.
Total RNA is prepared from the head and antenna of wild type Drosophila melanogaster using Trizol Reagent (Invitrogen). They are homogenized in the Trizol using a motor driven teflon pestle and glass homogenizer. RNA is then prepared as per the manufacturer's instructions and includes removal of proteoglycans and polysaccharides by precipitation. The total RNA is reverse transcribed using oligo-dT as a primer and MuLV reverse transcriptase (Applied Biosystems). To PCR amplify the open reading frames, the following oligonucleotides are used (SEQ ID NO:9): Or83b Sense 5′ taagcggccgcATGACAACCTCGATGCAGCCGAG 3′; Or83b Antisense 5′ ataccgcggCTTGAGCTGCACCAGCACCATAAAG 3′ (SEQ ID NO:10); Or43a Sense 5′ taagcggccgcATGACAATCGAGGATATCGGCCTGG 3′ (SEQ ID NO:11); and Or43a Antisense 5′ ataccgcggTTTGCCGGTGACGCCACGCAGCATGG 3′ (SEQ ID NO:12). Capitalized letters match the Or83b and Or43a receptors sequence. The Sense oligonucleotides contain Not I sites and the antisense oligonucleotides contain Sac II sites. Both restriction sites are indicated by underlined nucleotide. The antisense oligonucleotides do not contain stop codons so the V5 epitope from the pAC 5.1 plasmid will be in frame with the translated proteins. For PCR amplification of Or83b, Vent polymerase (New England Biolabs) is used with the following conditions: about 95° C., about 5 min for about 1 cycle; about 95° C., about 30 sec; and about 70° C., about 90 sec for about 40 cycles; and about 70° C., about 10 min for about 1 cycle. For PCR amplification of Or43a, the Failsafe PCR premix selection kit (Epicentre Technologies) is used with the following conditions: about 95° C., about 5 min for about 1 cycle; about 95° C., about 30 sec; about 60° C., about 30 sec and about 70° C., about 90 sec for about 50 cycles; and about 70° C., about 10 min for about 1 cycle. The Failsafe premix buffer F yields the correctly sized product. The PCR products are digested with Sac II and Not I, gel purified and ligated into pAC 5.1/V5 His B (Invitrogen). Inserts are sequenced on both strands by automated flourescent sequencing (Vanderbilt Cancer Center). Both the Or83b open reading frame and Or43a open reading frame code for identical proteins as compared to sequence information on PubMed and found in the genomic sequence on the Web site. The nucleic acid sequence and the peptide sequence of Or43a are set forth in SEQ ID NO:3 and SEQ ID NO:4. The nucleic acid sequence and the peptide sequence of Or83b are set forth in SEQ ID NO:5 and SEQ ID NO:6.
For transfection, Drosophila Schneider cells are stably transfected with pAc5(B)-Or83b ORF or pAc5(B)-Or43a ORF using the calcium phosphate-DNA coprecipitation protocol as described by Invitrogen Drosophila Expression System (DES) manual as described above. At least about ten clones of stably transfected cells with either Or83b or Or43a are selected and separately propagated. Stable clones are analyzed to test whether they express corresponding mRNA using RT-PCR method. RNA is prepared from cells using Trizol as per the manufacturer's instructions. Total RNA is reverse transcribed with MuLV Reverse Transcriptase. PCR is performed using Vent polymerase and the following primers: Or83b sense and Or83b antisense; Or43a sense and Or43a antisense. PCR products are analyzed by agarose gel electrophoresis and compared to control Schneider cell RNA used for RT-PCR. A clone that highly expresses Or83b-mRNA or Or43a-mRNA is used in further studies to address protein expression (Western blot), and signaling (cAMP production and [Ca2+]) in response to treatment with tyramine and certain plant essential oils.
RT-PCR is used to determine which clones expressed the Or83b and Or43a genes. Agarose gel analysis indicates that for Or83b, about 4 clones out of about 10 clones yield the correct size product of about 1.46 kb. Likewise, for Or43a, about 2 clones yield the correct size product of about 1.1 kb. Neither of these products is obtained when PCR is performed on the control Schneider cells. Clones expressing the mRNA are chosen for additional studies with the receptor.
To address whether Or83b receptor and Or43a receptor contain a specific binding site for tyramine, membranes expressing Or83b receptor or Or43a receptor are prepared from cells expressing either receptor, as described above, and used for competitive binding with 3H-tyramine. The binding assay protocol is exactly as described for cells expressing TyrR, as described above. As shown in
To ensure that the cAMP cascade in this cell model is functionally active, forskolin, a cAMP inducer, is used as standard agent. Cyclic-AMP levels are measured using the cAMP assay described above in Example 2. As shown in
Intracellular Ca2+ levels are measured using the method described above in Example 3. Calcium mobilization occurs in cells expressing either Or83b or Or43a receptor in response to treatment with ionomycin (a Ca2+ inducing agent) and tyramine. Specifically, with reference to
Approximately 3.8-fold and 7-fold increases in calcium are found in cells expressing Or83b and Or43a, respectively, in response to treatment with ionomycin. With reference to
Collectively, the pharmacological analysis data confirm that these cell models that were transfected with either Or83b receptor gene or Or43a receptor gene are expressing functioning protein receptors.
The cells expressing one of the olfactory receptors are used to investigate the interaction of plant essential oils with these receptors and the signaling cascade downstream of each receptor.
For the binding activity, membranes are prepared from each cell model and used to investigate the interaction of plant essential oil with the receptor binding site. With reference to
Likewise, with reference to
Similarly, with reference to
Certain other oils, including those expressly set forth in this application, also interact with the olfactory receptors.
To determine the effect of various plant essential oils on intracellular calcium mobilization, intact cells from each cell model are used in the assay as described above. Changes in intracellular Ca2+ levels are calculated based on the difference between the 340/380 fluorescence ratios before and after approximately 150 seconds of the treatment. As shown in
With reference to
Treatment with certain other plant essential oils, including those expressly set forth in the application, also cause changes in intracellular Ca2+ levels in cells expressing the Or43a receptor.
Additionally, treatment with certain other plant essential oils, including those expressly set forth in the application, cause changes in intracellular Ca2+ levels in cells expressing the Or83b receptor.
To determine the effect of various plant essential oils on intracellular cAMP production and the tyramine-dependent changes of cAMP in cells expressing one of the olfactory receptors, cells from each cell model are treated with LFO (about 50 μg/ml) and BSO (about 50 μg/ml) in the presence and absence of tyramine (about 20 μM) and forskolin (about 10 μM) and intracellular cAMP is thereafter quantified using the cAMP assay described above in Example 2.
As shown in
Still referring to
In the presence of forskolin (about 10 μM), approximately a 3000-fold increase in the production of cAMP is found. When forskolin-pretreated cells administered with either tyramine or LFO, only approximately a 10-13% increase of cAMP production is found beyond the effect of forskolin by itself. The addition of BSO to forskolin-pretreated cells induces about 22% more increase in the cAMP levels beyond the forskolin-induced cAMP production in these cells.
Additionally, treatment with certain other plant essential oils, including those expressly set forth in this application, result in changes in the intracellular cAMP levels in cells expressing either the Or43a or the Or83b receptor.
Two acetonic solutions (about 1% and 10%) from a test composition are prepared. Test concentration in acetone are then added to the inside of glass vials (about 5 mL) that are marked to about 3 cm above the bottom. The vials are rotated such that the inner surfaces of the vials, except the area between the marks to the neck, are left with a film of test composition. All vials are aerated for about 10 sec to ensure complete evaporation of acetone before introducing the flies to the treated vials. After complete evaporation of acetone, about 10 adult sex mixed flies are added to each vial and the vials are stoppered with cotton plugs. Mortality is observed about 24 hr after exposure.
Wild-type Drosophila Melanogaster (fruit fly) and tyramine-receptor mutant fruit fly are used as a model to determine the toxicity of LFO and BSO. The toxicity of these oils is studied using the method described above in Example 12. With reference to Tables C and D below, both chemicals are toxic to wild type fruit flies. LFO is about 300-fold more toxic to the fruit flies than BSO. The LC50 for LFO is in the neighborhood of about 25-30 ng/mm2 and the corresponding value for BSO is about 94 μg/cm2. On the other hand, LFO is at least about 1000-fold less toxic against the tyramine receptor mutant fly than BSO. The toxicity of both chemicals against the fruit fly is mediated through the tyramine receptor. While the mutation of tyramine receptor significantly reduces LFO toxicity against the fruit fly, the same mutation develops a more susceptible strain of fruit fly to BSO.
Adult insect are randomly selected for testing the repellent effect of compositions and are not individually marked. About 5 insects per replicate are used. About 3 replicates are used for each treatment. Untreated control tests are included with only solvent (acetone) application to an equal sized population/replications, held under identical conditions. A filter paper (about 80 cm2) is treated with the composition (about 100 mg in 300 ml acetone). After about 3 min of air drying, the filter paper is placed in a dish and repellency against insects is performed. Insects are released to the dish, one insect at a time at the far end of the dish. Using one or more stopwatches, the time spent on either the filter paper or the untreated surface of the dish is recorded up to about 300 seconds. Repellency ratio (RR) is calculated as follows: RR=[(time on control surface−time on treated surface)/total time of test]. If RR>0 then the composition is considered to have a repellant effect, that is to say, an effect, wherein more insects are repelled away from treated surface than the control surface; if RR<0 then the composition is considered not to have a repellant effect.
The repellent effect of LFO (about 1.4 mg/cm2) and BSO (about 1.4 mg/cm2) against farm ants is studied using the method described above in Example 14. As shown in Tables E and F, BSO demonstrates more repellency against farm ants than LFO. Approximately 90% and 100% repellency against farm ants is provided by LFO and BSO, respectively. Additionally, LFO and BSO also induce 100% mortality against farm ants within 24 hr of exposure.
A dish treated with BSO is also used to address the residual effect of BSO on repellency against ants. Five ants are used per day according to the repellency protocol described above. In parallel, time-course toxicity for BSO is determined. In the toxicity experiment, an ant is exposed to the same treated surface for about 10 sec, and then transferred to a fresh container. Mortality data is recorded about 24 hr after exposure. Five ants are used per day. As shown in Table G, BSO provides repellency against farm ants up to about 4 days.
The repellent effect of various plant essential oils is tested by treating a filter paper with the test oils. After about five minutes at room temperature, the paper is placed in a dish and ants are introduced one at a time. The repellency is determined as described above, in Example 14. Oils are tested alone. Additionally, oils are mixed to form compositions, which are then tested.
With reference to Table H, d-limonene, α-pinene, and p-cymene each demonstrate repellency alone. However, when the oils are mixed to form Composition A, a composition including about one third each of d-limonene, α-pinene and p-cymene, there is a synergistic effect and the percent repellency is greatly increased.
Likewise, and with reference to Table I, d-limonene and α-pinene each demonstrate repellency alone. However, when the oils are mixed to form Composition B, a composition including about half each d-limonene and α-pinene, there is a synergistic effect and the percent repellency is greatly increased.
The repellent effect of various plant essential oils is tested by treating a filter paper with the test oils. After about five minutes at room temperature, the paper is placed in a dish and ants are introduced one at a time. The repellency is determined as described above, in Example 14. Oils are tested alone. Additionally, oils are mixed to form compositions, which are then tested.
As shown in Table J, although d-limonene, α-pinene, p-cymene and thyme oil each display repellency, Composition C, a composition including about 25% of each of the oils, demonstrates repellency which exceed that of any of its component oils being used alone.
Likewise, as shown in Table K, although linalool, α-pinene, p-cymene and thyme oil each display repellency, Composition D, a composition including about 25% of each of the oils, demonstrates repellency which exceed that of any of its component oils being used alone.
Similarly, as shown in Table L, although linalool, α-pinene, and p-cymene each display repellency, Composition E, a composition including about one third of each of the oils, demonstrates repellency which exceed that of any of its component oils being used alone.
The repellent effect of various plant essential oils is tested by treating a filter paper with the test oils. After about five minutes at room temperature, the paper is placed in a dish and ants are introduced one at a time. The repellency is determined as described above, in Example 14. Oils are tested alone. Additionally, oils are mixed to form compositions, which are then tested.
Although α-pinene, thyme oil, α-thujone, and sabinene each display repellency, as shown in Table M, Composition F, a composition including about 25% of each of the oils, demonstrates enhanced repellency.
The repellent effect of various plant essential oils is tested by treating a filter paper with the test oils. After about five minutes at room temperature, the paper is placed in a dish and ants are introduced one at a time. The repellency is determined as described above, in Example 14. Oils are tested alone. Additionally, oils are mixed to form compositions, which are then tested.
As shown in Table N, although d-limonene, p-cymene, thymol and carvacrol each display repellency, Composition G, a composition including about 25% of each of the oils, demonstrates repellency which exceed that of any of its component oils being used alone.
Likewise, as shown in Table O, although d-limonene, p-cymene, and thymol each display repellency, Composition H, a composition including about one third of each of the oils, demonstrates repellency which exceed that of any of its component oils being used alone.
Similarly, as shown in Table P, although d-limonene, p-cymene, thymol, and geraniol each display repellency, Composition I, a composition including about 25% of each of the oils, demonstrates repellency which exceed that of any of its component oils being used alone.
The repellent effect of various plant essential oils is tested by treating a filter paper with the test oils. After about five minutes at room temperature, the paper is placed in a dish and ants are introduced one at a time. The repellency is determined as described above, in Example 14. Oils are tested alone. Additionally, oils are mixed to form compositions, which are then tested.
As shown in Table Q, although geraniol, d-limonene, p-cymene and linalyl anthranilate each display repellency, Composition J, a composition including about 40% geraniol, about 30% d-limonene, about 10% p-cymene, about 10% α-pinene and about 10% linalyl anthranilate, demonstrates repellency which exceed that of any of its component oils being used alone.
The repellent effect of various plant essential oils is tested by treating a filter paper with the test oils. After about five minutes at room temperature, the paper is placed in a dish and ants are introduced one at a time. The repellency is determined as described above, in Example 14. Oils are tested alone. Additionally, oils are mixed to form compositions, which are then tested.
As shown in Table R, although d-limonene, thymol, α-terpineol, piperonyl acetate, piperonyl amine and piperonal each display repellency, Composition K, a composition including about 20% d-limonene, about 30% thymol, about 20% α-terpineol, about 10% piperonyl acetate, about 10% piperonyl amine and about 10% piperonal, demonstrates repellency which exceed that of any of its component oils being used alone.
The repellent effect of various plant essential oils is tested by treating a filter paper with the test oils. After about five minutes at room temperature, the paper is placed in a dish and ants are introduced one at a time. The repellency is determined as described above, in Example 14. Oils are tested alone. Additionally, oils are mixed to form compositions, which are then tested.
As shown in Table S, although geraniol, d-limonene, eugenol, lindenol, and phenylacetaldehyde each display repellency, Composition L, a composition including about 50% geraniol, about 20% d-limonene, about 10% eugenol, about 10% lindenol, and about 10% phenylacetaldehyde, demonstrates repellency which exceed that of any of its component oils being used alone.
The repellent effect of various plant essential oils is tested by treating a filter paper with the test oils. After about five minutes at room temperature, the paper is placed in a dish and ants are introduced one at a time. The repellency is determined as described above, in Example 14. Oils are tested alone. Additionally, oils are mixed to form compositions, which are then tested.
As shown in Table T, although geraniol, lemon grass oil and eugenol, each display repellency, Composition M, a composition including about 50% geraniol, about 40% lemon grass oil, and about 10% eugenol, demonstrates repellency which exceed that of any of its component oils being used alone. Geraniol, lemon grass oil and eugenol are all generally regarded as safe (GRAS compounds) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and, as such, are exempt from EPA pesticide registration requirements.
Likewise, as shown in Table U, although geraniol and lemon grass oil each display repellency, Composition N, a composition including about 70% geraniol and about 30% lemon grass oil, demonstrates repellency which exceed that of any of its component oils being used alone.
Additionally, as shown in Table V, the addition of mineral oil, to form Composition O, a composition including about 60% geraniol, about 30% lemon grass oil, and about 10% mineral oil, does not effect the synergism of geraniol and lemongrass oil. Mineral oil alone does not demonstrate repellency, but serves to stabilize the composition, limiting the evaporation of the active components. Mineral oil, like geraniol and lemongrass oil, is a GRAS compound.
The repellent effect of various plant essential oils is tested by treating a filter paper with the test oils. After about five minutes at room temperature, the paper is placed in a dish and ants are introduced one at a time. The repellency is determined as described above, in Example 14. Oils are tested alone. Additionally, oils are mixed to form compositions, which are then tested.
As shown in Table W, although geraniol, thymol and lemon grass oil, each display repellency, Composition P, a composition including about 50% geraniol, about 20% thymol, about 20% lemon grass oil, and about 10% mineral oil, demonstrates repellency which exceed that of any of its component oils being used alone. Geraniol, thymol, lemon grass oil, eugenol and mineral oil are all generally regarded as safe (GRAS compounds) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and, as such, are exempt from EPA pesticide registration requirements.
The repellent effect of various plant essential oils is tested by treating a filter paper with the test oils. After about five minutes at room temperature, the paper is placed in a dish and ants are introduced one at a time. The repellency is determined as described above, in Example 14. Oils are tested alone. Additionally, oils are mixed to form compositions, which are then tested.
As shown in Table X, geraniol, thymol and thyme oil, each display repellency. As shown in Table Y, Compositions Q through V, containing various combinations of a BSO, LFO, geraniol, thymol, thyme oil, mineral oil, safflower oil and castor oil, demonstrate enhanced repellency.
For purposes of comparison to the repellent effect of various compositions made of various plant essential oils, the repellency of an insect control agent, the commercial repellent 29% DEET, which may be purchased under the name, REPEL® (Wisconsin Pharmacal Company, Inc, Jackson, Wyo.), is measured against Carpenter ants by treating a filter paper with the 29% DEET. After about five minutes at room temperature, the paper is placed in a dish and ants are introduced one at a time. The repellency is determined as described above, in Example 14. As shown in Table Z, 29% DEET has a percent repellency at day 0 of about 98.4 percent. The percent repellency of LFO, BSO, and the compositions of the present invention are comparable, and in some cases higher, than the percent repellency of 29% DEET.
The repellent effect of commercial repellent DEET and various plant essential oils is tested by treating a filter paper with the test oils. After about five minutes at room temperature, the paper is placed in a dish and ants are introduced one at a time. The repellency is determined as described above, in Example 14. Oils are tested alone. Additionally, oils are mixed to form compositions, which are then tested.
As shown in Tables AA and BB, treatment with DEET in concentrations of about 5 to 10% displays no signs of repellency. However, as shown in Table AA, when combined with Composition W, a composition comprising about 25% geraniol, 10% thymol, 10% lemon grass oil and mineral oil (from 45 to 55% depending on the final concentration of DEET), percent repellency approaches 100. Likewise, as shown in Table BB, when combined with Composition X, a composition comprising about 25% geraniol, 10% d-limonene, 5% eugenol, 5% lindenol, 5% phenylacetaldehyde and mineral oil (from 40 to 50% depending on the final concentration of DEET), percent repellency is approximately 97 to 98 percent. Also, as shown in Tables AA and BB, enhanced repellency is shown when the various oils are combined with DEET.
Live adult head lice Pediculus humanus capitus are collected from female and male children between the age of about 4 and 11 living in the Karmos area, Alexandria, Egypt. The insects are collected using fine-toothed louse detector comb and pooled together. The collected lice are kept in dishes and used in the studies within about 30 minutes of their collection.
Various concentrations of the compositions being tested are prepared in water To allow the pesticidal effect of these compositions to be compared to that of a commercially available lice-killing agent, ivermectin, is dissolved in water. About 1 ml of each concentration of the compositions are applied to a dish, about 1 ml of the ivermectin solution is applied to a dish, and about 1 ml of water is applied to a control dish. About 10 adult head lice are introduced to each dish.
Treated and control dishes are kept under continuous observation and LT100 is observed. LT refers to the time required to kill a given percentage of insects; thus, LT100 refers to the time required to kill 100% of the lice. Head lice is considered dead if no response to a hard object is found.
The pesticidal effect of Composition Y, a composition including about 20% p-cymene, about 40% Lilac Flower Oil (LFO), about 30% benzyl alcohol, and about 10% mineral oil are studied using the method described above in Example 28. The LT100 of this composition is compared to that of a commercially available lice-killing agent, ivermectin. As shown in Table CC, the lice treated with Composition Y are all killed more quickly than the lice treated with ivermectin.
A. Oral Delivery
Hairless or shaved mice and guinea pigs are used to test the repellent effect of compositions delivered orally. The test oil (e.g., lilac flower oil (LFO) or black seed oil (BSO)) or test composition (e.g., a composition containing geraniol, d-linonene, eugenol, and lindenol) is administered orally to about 10 rodents. A control substance, such as mineral oil, is administered orally to about 10 rodents. After approximately 30 minutes, each rodent is placed in an enclosed container. About 20 mosquitoes are introduced to each container. Each container is observed for approximately 1 hour. The time that each insect spends on the rodent is recorded and number of lesions caused by the insect on the skin of the rodent is recorded. The insects spend less time on rodents receiving the test compositions than on the rodents receiving the control substance. The rodents receiving the test compositions receive fewer lesions than the rodents receiving the control substances.
B. Topical Delivery
Hairless or shaved mice and guinea pigs are used to test the repellent effect of compositions delivered topically. The test oil (e.g., lilac flower oil (LFO) or black seed oil (BSO)) or test composition (e.g., a composition containing geraniol, d-linonene, eugenol, and lindenol) is administered topically to the skin of about 10 rodents. A control substance, such as mineral oil, is administered topically to the skin of about 10 rodents. After approximately 30 minutes, each rodent is placed in an enclosed container. About 20 mosquitoes are introduced to each container. Each container is observed for approximately 1 hour. The time that each insect spends on the rodent is recorded and number of lesions caused by the insect on the skin of the rodent is recorded. The insects spend less time on rodents receiving the test compositions than on the rodents receiving the control substance. The rodents receiving the test compositions receive fewer lesions than the rodents receiving the control substances.
About three cages are each stocked with about 100, southern house mosquitoes (culex quinquefasciatus), which are about 7 to 10 days-old. The mosquitoes are starved for about 12 hours. Each cage is supplied with four containers, each filled with cotton that has been soaked with sugar water.
Three of the four containers are treated randomly with about 1000 ppm (about 1 mg/l) of the composition being tested, while the remaining container serves as an untreated control. The containers are positioned in the four opposing corners of each cage and landing counts are conducted at about 0, 1, 2, 4, and 6 hour intervals following addition of the compositions being tested to the respective containers. The containers are removed from the cage between exposure intervals. Each exposure interval lasts for about 5 minutes.
The repellent effect of the compositions described in Table DD are tested using this method.
LFO, cumin oil, geraniol, thyme oil, and lemon grass oil are regarded as safe (GRAS compounds) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and, as such, are exempt from EPA pesticide registration requirements.
The landing counts are conducted at about 0, 1, 2, 4, and 6 hour intervals following addition of the compositions, set forth in Table DD, to the respective containers. The landing counts are set forth in Table EE. Percent repellency is calculated using this data and is expressed in Table FF. At each exposure interval, the Compositions EE, AA and BB display almost 100% repellency. Even after 6 hours, the Compositions display 100% repellency against mosquitoes.
Pesticidal effect of various compositions containing plant essential oils on red ants is tested in the following manner. A paper disk is treated with about 20 μl of each of the composition being tested and the treated disks are each placed in a vial. An untreated paper disk is placed in a control vial. Also, a paper disk is treated with about 20 μl 100% DEET and placed in a vial to compare the pesticidal effect of the compositions to that of DEET, a known commercial insect control agent. About three red ants are introduced into each vial and the opening to the vials are closed with cotton to prevent the insects from escaping. The insect is exposed to the compositions for about one hour or less and mortality is recorded.
Repellent effect of various compositions containing plant essential oils on red ants is tested in the following manner. A paper disk is treated with about 200 μl of each composition and placed in a dish. An untreated paper disk is placed in a control dish. Also, a paper disk is treated with about 200 μl 100% DEET and placed in a dish to compare the repellant effect of the compositions to that of DEET. Red ants are introduced into each dish. Insect behavior and number of visits to the treated paper disk are monitored for about 5 minutes. The number of visits by a red ant to the paper disk is recorded.
Residuality, with regard to pesticidal effect and repellent effect, is tested by treating a paper disk with the composition being tested, keeping the treated paper disk under laboratory conditions for a predetermined period of time (e.g., 0 min, 6 hours, 1 day, 3 days, 5 days, 7 days), and exposing red ants to the treated paper disk in the above described manners.
The pesticidal effect and repellent effect of the compositions described in Table GG are tested using the methods described in Example 32. The untreated disks are neither toxic to nor do they repel red ants.
Each of the compositions results in 100% mortality, equivalent to that of DEET, when exposed to the paper disks about 0 min, 6 hours, 1 day, 3 days, 5 days, or 7 days after the paper disks are treated with the composition.
As shown in Table HH, red ants are repelled by the compositions used to treat the paper disks. Additionally, with regard to residuality, the compositions outperform DEET by retaining their potency for at least a week after being applied to the paper disks, while DEET begins to loose potency after 1 day. Table HH shows the number of trips by the red ants to the treated paper disks. The time periods set forth in the chart, 0 min, 6 hours, 1 day, 3 days, 5 days, or 7 days, refer to the approximate time elapsed between treatment of the paper disk with the composition and exposure of the red ants to the treated paper disk
The pesticidal effect and repellent effect of the compositions described in Table JJ were tested using the methods described in Example 32. Treatment with each of the compositions caused a repellent effect and a pesticidal effect.
It will be apparent to those skilled in the art that various modifications and variations can be made in the present invention without departing from the scope or spirit of the invention. It is intended that the Specification and Example be considered as exemplary only, and not intended to limit the scope and spirit of the invention. The references and publications cited herein are incorporated herein by this reference.
Unless otherwise indicated, all numbers expressing quantities of ingredients, properties such as reaction conditions, and so forth used in the Specification, Examples, and Claims are to be understood as being modified in all instances by the term “about.” Accordingly, unless indicated to the contrary, the numerical parameters set forth in the Specification, Example, and Claims are approximations that may vary depending upon the desired properties sought to be determined by the present invention.
This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/870,385 filed on Oct. 10,2007, now abandoned, which is a divisional application of U.S. application Ser. No. 10/832,022 filed Apr. 26, 2004, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,541,155, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/465,320 filed Apr. 24, 2003 and U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/532,503 filed Dec. 24, 2003, each of which is incorporated herein in its entirety.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3943063 | Morishita et al. | Mar 1976 | A |
| 3971852 | Brenner et al. | Jul 1976 | A |
| 4211668 | Tate | Jul 1980 | A |
| 4278658 | Hooper et al. | Jul 1981 | A |
| 4320113 | Kydonieus | Mar 1982 | A |
| 4434181 | Marks et al. | Feb 1984 | A |
| 4551480 | Stiefel et al. | Nov 1985 | A |
| 4678775 | Nathanson | Jul 1987 | A |
| 4693890 | Wilson et al. | Sep 1987 | A |
| 4696676 | Wilson et al. | Sep 1987 | A |
| 4748860 | Butler et al. | Jun 1988 | A |
| 4759228 | Butler et al. | Jul 1988 | A |
| 4762718 | Marks, Sr. | Aug 1988 | A |
| 4764367 | Wilson et al. | Aug 1988 | A |
| 4783457 | Nathanson | Nov 1988 | A |
| 4801446 | Wilson et al. | Jan 1989 | A |
| 4801448 | Wilson et al. | Jan 1989 | A |
| 4808403 | Wilson et al. | Feb 1989 | A |
| 4816248 | Wilson et al. | Mar 1989 | A |
| 4818526 | Wilson et al. | Apr 1989 | A |
| 4859463 | Wilson et al. | Aug 1989 | A |
| 4876087 | Wilson et al. | Oct 1989 | A |
| 4880625 | Wilson et al. | Nov 1989 | A |
| 4885855 | Marks et al. | Dec 1989 | A |
| 4886662 | Wilson et al. | Dec 1989 | A |
| 4892871 | Nathanson | Jan 1990 | A |
| 4902504 | Wilson et al. | Feb 1990 | A |
| 4902690 | Nathanson | Feb 1990 | A |
| 4911906 | Wilson et al. | Mar 1990 | A |
| 4943435 | Baker et al. | Jul 1990 | A |
| 4959209 | Wilson et al. | Sep 1990 | A |
| 4970068 | Wilson et al. | Nov 1990 | A |
| 4988507 | Wilson et al. | Jan 1991 | A |
| 4988508 | Wilson et al. | Jan 1991 | A |
| 4988509 | Wilson et al. | Jan 1991 | A |
| 4990684 | Hoelderich et al. | Feb 1991 | A |
| 4992270 | Wilson et al. | Feb 1991 | A |
| 5091423 | Wilson et al. | Feb 1992 | A |
| 5110594 | Morita | May 1992 | A |
| 5118711 | Wilson et al. | Jun 1992 | A |
| 5126369 | Wilson et al. | Jun 1992 | A |
| 5134892 | Wilson et al. | Aug 1992 | A |
| 5165926 | Wilson et al. | Nov 1992 | A |
| 5175175 | Wilson et al. | Dec 1992 | A |
| 5190745 | Dohara et al. | Mar 1993 | A |
| 5196200 | Wilson et al. | Mar 1993 | A |
| 5204372 | Wilson et al. | Apr 1993 | A |
| 5205065 | Wilson et al. | Apr 1993 | A |
| 5228233 | Butler et al. | Jul 1993 | A |
| 5250575 | Wilson et al. | Oct 1993 | A |
| 5272179 | Butler et al. | Dec 1993 | A |
| 5281621 | Wilson et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
| 5321048 | Wilson et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
| 5327675 | Butler et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
| 5344776 | Venter et al. | Sep 1994 | A |
| 5344847 | Wilson et al. | Sep 1994 | A |
| 5354783 | Marin et al. | Oct 1994 | A |
| 5366975 | Nathanson | Nov 1994 | A |
| 5387418 | Marin et al. | Feb 1995 | A |
| 5401500 | Warren et al. | Mar 1995 | A |
| 5407609 | Tice et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
| 5409958 | Butler et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
| 5417009 | Butler et al. | May 1995 | A |
| 5418010 | Janda et al. | May 1995 | A |
| 5439690 | Knight et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
| 5439941 | Butler et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
| 5441988 | Butler et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
| 5447714 | Marin et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
| 5449695 | Marin et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
| 5458882 | Marin et al. | Oct 1995 | A |
| 5464626 | Warren et al. | Nov 1995 | A |
| 5472701 | Warren et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
| 5474898 | Venter et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
| 5521165 | Warren et al. | May 1996 | A |
| 5576010 | Warren et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
| 5576011 | Butler et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
| 5593600 | Solomon | Jan 1997 | A |
| 5633236 | Warren et al. | May 1997 | A |
| 5635173 | Warren et al. | Jun 1997 | A |
| 5635174 | Warren et al. | Jun 1997 | A |
| 5665781 | Warren et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
| 5683687 | Marin et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
| 5693344 | Knight et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5703104 | Peck et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5753686 | Marin et al. | May 1998 | A |
| 5772983 | O'Connell et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5785982 | Warren et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
| 5814325 | Rod | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5827484 | Akao et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5840669 | Neelakantan | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5849317 | Shorey et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
| 5855903 | Warren et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
| 5942214 | Lucas et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5956865 | Durance et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5980931 | Fowler et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5990178 | Ninkov | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5998484 | Zobitne et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6001874 | Veierov | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6004569 | Bessette et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6006470 | Geoghegan et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6024874 | Lott | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6114384 | Bessette et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6130253 | Franklin et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6143288 | Warren et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
| 6183767 | Bessette et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6238682 | Klofta et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6255356 | Butler | Jul 2001 | B1 |
| 6272790 | Paganessi et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
| 6322825 | Ninkov | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6329433 | Bessette et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6331572 | Bessette et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6333302 | Beer et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6333360 | Bessette et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6340710 | Bessette et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
| 6342535 | Bessette et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
| 6342536 | Bessette et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
| 6360477 | Flashinski et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
| 6368508 | Gatz et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6372801 | Bessette et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6372803 | Bessette et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6376556 | Bessette et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6395789 | Bessette et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6414036 | Ninkov | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6451844 | Watkins et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6506707 | Bessette | Jan 2003 | B1 |
| 6531163 | Bessette et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
| 6534099 | Bessette et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
| 6548085 | Zobitne et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
| 6555121 | Bessette et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
| 6610254 | Furner et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
| 6649660 | Ninkov | Nov 2003 | B2 |
| 6660288 | Behan et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
| 6670311 | Aldcroft et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
| 6689395 | Bessette | Feb 2004 | B2 |
| 6713518 | Bessette et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
| 6812258 | Bessette et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
| 6841577 | Bessette et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
| 6844369 | Ninkov | Jan 2005 | B2 |
| 6849614 | Bessette et al. | Feb 2005 | B1 |
| 6858653 | Bessette | Feb 2005 | B1 |
| 6887899 | Bessette | May 2005 | B1 |
| 6921539 | Ninkov | Jul 2005 | B2 |
| 6949587 | Bessette | Sep 2005 | B1 |
| 6969522 | Bessette | Nov 2005 | B2 |
| 6974584 | Bessette | Dec 2005 | B2 |
| 6986898 | Bessette | Jan 2006 | B1 |
| 7008649 | Bessette et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
| 7109240 | Bessette et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
| 7157411 | Rohde et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 7201926 | Fried et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
| 7208519 | Ninkov | Apr 2007 | B2 |
| 7238726 | Bessette | Jul 2007 | B2 |
| 7238798 | Lee et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
| 7241806 | Bessette | Jul 2007 | B2 |
| 7250175 | Bessette et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
| 7291650 | Bessette et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
| 7320966 | Bessette et al. | Jan 2008 | B2 |
| 7351420 | Bessette et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
| 7357939 | Bessette | Apr 2008 | B2 |
| 7361366 | Bessette et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
| 7381431 | Baker et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
| 7541155 | Enan | Jun 2009 | B2 |
| 7622269 | Enan | Nov 2009 | B2 |
| 20020028256 | Bessette | Mar 2002 | A1 |
| 20020034556 | Khazan | Mar 2002 | A1 |
| 20020073928 | Ingman et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020076360 | Ingman et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020081230 | Ingman et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020096121 | Ingman et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020107287 | Bessette et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20030026823 | Fried et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030036530 | Bessette | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030039674 | Bessette | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030091531 | Kensek | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030091657 | Chiasson | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030091661 | Bessette | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030108622 | Bessette et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20030108623 | Bessette et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20030175369 | Khazan-Enache | Sep 2003 | A1 |
| 20030194454 | Bessette et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20040146595 | Bessette et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040156922 | Bessette et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040185080 | Hojo et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040192551 | Bessette | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040213822 | Birch et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040248791 | Spana et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20050004233 | Bessette et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050008714 | Enan | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050013885 | Chiasson | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050019269 | Marks et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050070576 | Spooner-Hart et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050136089 | Bessette et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050143260 | Bessette et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050147636 | Bessette et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050163869 | Bessette et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050170024 | Bessette et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
| 20050170025 | Bessette et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
| 20050170026 | Bessette et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
| 20050214267 | Enan | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050260241 | Bessette et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20050260242 | Bessette et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20050288227 | Marks et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20060083763 | Neale et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060088564 | Bessette | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060115507 | Bessette | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060115508 | Bessette | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060115509 | Bessette | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060115510 | Bessette | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060121074 | Bessette | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060263403 | Enan | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20070009616 | Marks | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070098750 | Bessette | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070178128 | Bessette | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070190094 | Bessette | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070207221 | Bessette et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070298131 | Bessette et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20070299037 | Bessette et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20070299038 | Bessette et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20080003315 | Bessette et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080003316 | Bessette et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080003317 | Bessette et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080004240 | Bessette et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080015167 | Bessette et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080015249 | Bessette et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080020381 | Henrich et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080032387 | Bailey et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080038383 | Bessette et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080075796 | Enan | Mar 2008 | A1 |
| 20080131533 | Kvitnitsky et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080153904 | Bessette et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20090232918 | Enan | Sep 2009 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 1122703 | May 1996 | CN |
| H1-301607 | Dec 1989 | JP |
| H2-207004 | Aug 1990 | JP |
| H3-7210 | Jan 1991 | JP |
| H3-285993 | Dec 1991 | JP |
| H5-208902 | Aug 1993 | JP |
| H6-345613 | Dec 1994 | JP |
| H9-500367 | Jan 1997 | JP |
| H9-227305 | Sep 1997 | JP |
| H10-152407 | Jun 1998 | JP |
| H11-171703 | Jun 1999 | JP |
| H11-279583 | Oct 1999 | JP |
| 2000-166399 | Jun 2000 | JP |
| 2000-513027 | Oct 2000 | JP |
| 2001-294505 | Oct 2001 | JP |
| 2001-519367 | Oct 2001 | JP |
| 2002-501007 | Jan 2002 | JP |
| 2002-173407 | Jun 2002 | JP |
| 2002-521406 | Jul 2002 | JP |
| 2003-505483 | Feb 2003 | JP |
| 2003-201203 | Jul 2003 | JP |
| WO 9427434 | Dec 1994 | WO |
| WO 9600739 | Jan 1996 | WO |
| WO 9854971 | Dec 1998 | WO |
| WO 9918802 | Apr 1999 | WO |
| WO 9921891 | May 1999 | WO |
| WO 9933973 | Jul 1999 | WO |
| WO 9933973 | Jul 1999 | WO |
| WO 0005964 | Feb 2000 | WO |
| WO 0021364 | Apr 2000 | WO |
| WO 0021364 | Apr 2000 | WO |
| WO 0050566 | Aug 2000 | WO |
| WO 0051436 | Sep 2000 | WO |
| WO 0053020 | Sep 2000 | WO |
| WO 0075322 | Dec 2000 | WO |
| WO 0100020 | Jan 2001 | WO |
| WO 0100026 | Jan 2001 | WO |
| WO 0100032 | Jan 2001 | WO |
| WO 0100033 | Jan 2001 | WO |
| WO 0100034 | Jan 2001 | WO |
| WO 0100049 | Jan 2001 | WO |
| WO 0108496 | Feb 2001 | WO |
| WO 0110214 | Feb 2001 | WO |
| WO 0110214 | Feb 2001 | WO |
| WO 0118201 | Mar 2001 | WO |
| WO 0160163 | Aug 2001 | WO |
| WO 0160163 | Aug 2001 | WO |
| WO 0191554 | Dec 2001 | WO |
| WO 0191556 | Dec 2001 | WO |
| WO 0191556 | Dec 2001 | WO |
| WO 0191560 | Dec 2001 | WO |
| WO 0191560 | Dec 2001 | WO |
| WO 03016477 | Feb 2003 | WO |
| WO 03020913 | Mar 2003 | WO |
| WO 2004006968 | Jan 2004 | WO |
| WO 2004100971 | Nov 2004 | WO |
| WO 2005092016 | Oct 2005 | WO |
| WO 2005092016 | Oct 2005 | WO |
| WO 2008011054 | Jan 2008 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| Abou El Ele, et al., Bulletin of High Institute of Public Health, University of Alexandria, Alexandria, Egypt. 31(1):15-30, 2001. “Insecticidal activity of some essential oils: cAMP mediates effect.” |
| Alvarez-Sanchez, et al., Microb Pathog. 28(4):193-202, Apr. 2000. “A novel cysteine proteinase (CP65) of Trichomonas vaginalis involved in cytotoxicity.” |
| Aoyama, et al., Arch Insect Biochem Physiol., 47(1):1-7, May 2001. “Substituent-dependent, positive and negative modulation of Bombyx mori adenylate cyclase by synthetic octopamine/tyramine analogues.” |
| Arakawa, et al., Neuron. 4(3):343-354, Mar. 1990. “Cloning, localization, and permanent expression of a Drosophila octopamine receptor.” |
| Baxter, et al., Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 29(5):461-467, May 1999. “Isolation of a cDNA for an octopamine-like, G-protein coupled receptor from the cattle tick, Boophilus microplus.” |
| Bekele, et al., “Blend effects in the toxicity of the essential oil constituents of Ocimum kilimandscharicum and Ocimum kenyense (Labiatae) on two post-harvest insect pests.” Medicinal & Aromatic Plants Abstracts, Resources, New Delhi, India—New Delhi, vol. 23, No. 6; Dec. 1, 2001. |
| Berntzen, et al., J Parasitol. 51(2):235-242, Apr. 1965. “In vitro hatching of oncosphere of Hymenolepidid cestodes.” |
| Bischof, et al., Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 34(6):511-521, Jun. 2004. “Cloning, expression and functional anlaysis of an octopamine receptor from Periplaneta americana.” |
| Blenau, et al., J Neurochem. 74(3):900-908, Mar. 2000. “Amtyrl: characterization of a gene from honeybee (Apis mellifera) brain encoding a functional tyramine receptor.” |
| Blenau, et al., Archives of Insect Biochemistry and Physiology. 48(1): 13-38, Sep. 2001. “Molecular and Pharmacological Properties of Insect Biogenic Amine Receptors: Lessons From Drosophilla melanogastor and Apis mellifera.” |
| Borowsky, et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 98(16):8966-8971, Jul. 31, 2001. “Trace amines: Identification of a family of mammalian G protein-coupled receptors.” |
| Broeck et al., “Characterization of a Cloned Locust Tyramine Receptor cDNA by Functional Expression in Permanently Transformed Drosophila S2 Cells,” Journal of Neurochemistry, Raven Press, Ltd., New York, vol. 64, No. 6, 1995, pp. 2387-2395. |
| Bunzow, et al., Mol Pharmacol 60(6):1181-1188, Dec. 2001. “Amphetamine, 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, Lysergic Acid Diethylamide, and Metabolites of the Catecholamine Neurotransmitters Are Agonists of a Rat Trace Amine Receptor.” |
| Chirgwin, et al., Biochemistry 18(24):5294-5299, Nov. 27, 1979. “Isolation of biologically active ribonucleic acid from sources enriched in ribonuclease.” |
| Coats, Environ Health Prespect, 87:255-262, 1990. “Mechanisms of toxic action and structure-activity relationships for organochlorine and synthetic pyrethroid insecticides.” |
| Coats, et al., Naturally occurring pest bioregulators (Hedin PA, ed), Amer. Chem. Soc., Washington, DC. Chapter 20, pp. 305-316, 1991. “Toxicity and neurotoxic effects of monoterpenoids in insects and earthworms.” |
| Colby, Weeds. 15(1):20-22, 1967. “Calculating synergistic and antagonistic responses of herbicide combinations.” |
| Cooley L, et al., Science. 239(4844):1121-1128, Mar. 4, 1988. “Insertional mutagenesis of the Drosophila genome with single P elements.” |
| Davids, “Drug treatment of intestinal helminthiasis.” World Health Organization, Geneva, 1973. |
| Donini, et al., J Insect Physiol. 50(4):351-361, Apr. 2004. “Evidence for a possible neurotransmitter/neuromodulator role of tyramine on the locust oviducts.” |
| Downer, et al., Neurochem Res. 18(12):1245-1248, Dec. 1993. “Characterization of the tyraminergic system in the central nervous system of the locust, Locusta migratoria migratoides.” |
| Downer, et al., Insect Neurochemistry and Neurophysiology 1993 (Borkovec AB and Loeb MJ, eds), CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. pp. 23-38, 1994. “Biogenic amines in insects.” |
| Dudai, et al., J Neurochem, 38(6):1551-1558, Jun. 1982. “Aminergic receptors in Drosophila melanogaster: properties of [3H]dihydroergocryptine binding sites.” |
| Dyer, et al. J Agric Food Chem. 53(23):9281-9287, 2005. “Fusarium graminearum TRI14 is required for high virulence and DON production on wheat but not for DON synthesis in vitro.” |
| Enan, et al., Biochem Pharmacol. 51(4):447-454, Feb. 23, 1996. “Deltamethrin induced thymus atrophy in male Balb/c mice.” |
| Enan, et al., “Insectidical action of terpenes and phenols to cockroaches: effect on octopamine recetors.” International Symposium on Crop Protection, Ghent, Belgium; May 1998. |
| Enan, “Insecticidal activity of essential oils: octopaminergic sites of action.” Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part C: Toxicol. & Pharm., Elsevier: 130(1):325-337, Nov. 2001. |
| Enan, Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 35(4):309-321, 2005. “Molecular response of Drosophila melanogaster tyramine receptor cascade to plant essential oils.” |
| EPA “R.E.D. Facts”, Flowers and Vegetable Oils, EPA-738-F-93-027 (Dec. 1993). |
| European Patent Office, “EPO Communication,” in corresponding EP Application No. 04 750 739.7, mailed on Jul. 27, 2010, 9 pages. |
| Evans, et al., Nature. 287(5777):60-62, Sep. 4, 1980. “Action of formamidine pesticides on octopamine receptors.” |
| Evans, J Physiol. 318:99-122, Sep. 1981. “Multiple receptor types for octopamine in the locust.” |
| Evans, et al., Prog Brain Res. 106:259-268, 1999. “Agonist-specific coupling of G-protein-coupled receptors to second-messenger systems.” |
| Finney, Probit Analysis, 3rd Ed., Cambridge University Press, London, p. 333, 1971. |
| Gerhardt, et al., Mol Pharmacol. 51(2):293-300, Feb. 1997. “Molecular cloning and pharmacological characterization of a molluscan octopamine receptor.” |
| Griffin, et al., Eur. J. Pharmacol. 377:117-125, 1999. |
| Grodnitsky, et al., J Agric Food Chem. 50(16):4576-4580, Jul. 31, 2002. “QSAR evaluation of monoterpenoids' insecticidal activity.” |
| Grundy, et al., Pestic Biochem Physiol. 23(3):383-388, 1985. “Inhibition of acetylcholinesterases by pulegone-1,2-epoxide.” |
| Gudermann, et al., Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 36:429-459, Apr. 1996. “Diversity and selectivity of receptor-G protein interaction.” |
| Gudermann, et al., Annu Rev Neurosci. 20:399-427, Mar. 1997. “Functional and structural complexity of signal transduction via G-protein-coupled receptors.” |
| Guillen, et al., Life Sci. 45(7):655-662, 1989. “A possible new class of octopamine receptors coupled to adenylate cyclase in the brain of the dipterous Ceratitis capitata. Pharmacological characterization and regulation of 3H-octopamine binding.” |
| Han, et al., Journal of Neuroscience, 18(10): 3650-3658, May 15, 1998. “A Novel Octopamine Receptor with Preferential Expression in Drosophilla Mushroom Bodies.” |
| Hernandez-Sanchez et al., “Attractiveness for Ceratitis capita (Wiedemann) (Dipt., Tephritidae) of mango (Mangifera indica, cv. Tommy Atkins) airborne terpenes,” Journal of Applied Entomology, vol. 125, No. 4, May 2001, pp. 189-192. |
| Hiripi, et al., Brain Res. 633(1-2):119-126, 1994. “Characterization of tyramine and octopamine receptors in the insect (Locusta migratoria migratorioides) brain.” |
| Hori, Appl Entomol Zool. 34(3):351-358, 1999. “The effects of rosemary and ginger oils on the alighting behavior of Myzus persicae (Sulzer) (Homoptera: Aphididae) and on the incidence of yellow spotted streak.” |
| Hummelbrunner et al., “Acute, sublethal, antifeedant, and synergistic effects of monoterpenoid essential oil compounds on the tobacco cutworm, Spodoptera lutira (Lep., Noctuidea),” Medicinal & Aromatic Plants Abstracts, Resources, New Delhi, India——Ne Delhi, vol. 23, No. 4, Aug. 1, 2001. |
| Hyashi et al., “The Scent Substances of Pierid Butterflies (Hebomoia-glaucippe Linnaeus) and the Volatile Components of Their Food Plants (Crataeva religiosa Forst),” Zeitschrift Fur Naturforschung, Section C, Journal of Biosciences, vol. 40., No. 1-2, 1985, pp. 47-50. |
| International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority for International Application No. PCT/US2004/012947, dated Nov. 5, 2004, 6 pages. |
| Ito, Parasitology. 71(3):465-473, Dec. 1975. “In vitro oncospheral agglutination given by immune sera from mice infected and rabbits injected with eggs of Hymenolepis nana.” |
| James, et al., J Chem Ecol. 30(8):1613-1628, 2004. “Field-testing of methyl salicylate for recruitment and retention of beneficial insects in grapes and hops.” |
| Janmaat et al., “Enhanced fumigant toxicity of—cymene against Frankliniella occidentalis by simultaneous application of elevated levels of carbon dioxide,” Pest Management Science, Wiley & Sons, Bognor Regis, GB. vol. 58, Jan. 1, 2001, pp. 167-173. |
| Jurgens et al., “Floral scent compounds of Amazonian annonaceae species pollinated by small beetles and thrips,” Photochemistry, Pergamon Press, GB. vol. 55, No. 6, Nov. 1, 2000, pp. 551-558. |
| Karr, et al., J Econ Entomol. 85(2),424-429, 1992. “Effects of four monoterpenoids on growth and reproduction of the German cockroach (Blattodea: Blattellidae).” |
| Khan, et al., Arch Insect Biochem Physiol. 52(1):7-16, 2003. “Positive and negative modulation of Bombyx mori adenylate cyclase by 5-phenyloxazoles: identification of octopamine and tyramine receptor agonists.” |
| Kostyukovsky, et al., Pest Manag Sci. 58(11):1101-1106, Nov. 2002. “Activation of octopaminergic receptors by essential oil constituents isolated from aromatic plants: Possible mode of action against insect pests.” |
| Kravitz, et al., Neurosci Symp. 1:67-81, 1976. “Octopamine neurons in lobsters.” |
| Krymskaya VP, et al., Am. J. Resp. Cell and Mol. Biol. 23:4, 536-554, 2000. |
| Kutsikake, et al., “A tyramine receptor gene mutation causes a defective olfactory behavior in Drosophila.” Gene 245:31-42, Mar. 7, 2000. |
| Kyte, et al., J Mol Biol. 157(1):105-132, 1982. “A simple method for displaying the hydropathic character of a protein.” |
| Landolt, et al., Environ Entomol. 28(6):954-960, Dec. 1999. “Plant Essential Oils as Arrestants and Repellents for Neonate Larvae of the Codling Moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae).” |
| Lech, Current Protocols in Molecular Biology, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 1, 2001. |
| Lee, et al., J Econ Entomol. 90(4):883-892, Aug. 1997. “Insecticidal activity of monoterpenoids to western corn rootworm (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), twospotted spider mite (Acari: Tetranychidae), and house fly (Diptera: Muscidae).”. |
| Lee et al., “Fumigant Toxicity of Essential Oils and Nonoterpenes Against the Red Flour Beetle, Tribolium castaneum Herbst,” Journal of Asia Pacific Entomolgy, Korean Society of Applied Entomology, Suwon, KR. vol. 5, No. 2, Nov. 1, 2002, pp. 237-240. |
| Lomasney, et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 87(13):5094-5098, Jul. 1990. “Expansion of the alpha 2-adrenergic receptor family: cloning and characterization of a human alpha 2-adrenergic receptor subtype, the gene for which is located on chromosome 2.” |
| Lynn,et al., Cytotechnology. 20(2):3-11, Apr. 11, 1996. “Development and characterization of insect cell lines.” |
| Lynn,et al., J Insect Sci. 2:9, May 20, 2002. “Methods for Maintaining Insect Cell Cultures.” |
| Macchiohi F., et al., J. Agric. Food Chem. 50:4586-4588, 2002. |
| McCafferty, et al., IRAC Symposium on Insecticide Sustainability: Neonicotinoids ESA Annual Meeting, Dec. 2005. “Effective resistance management for the neonicotinoids: Industry's approach to ensure the continued efficacy of a key insecticide class.” |
| Menevse, et al., Biochem Biophys Res Com. 77(2):671-677, 1977. “Evidence for the specific involvement of cyclic AMP in the olfactory transduction mechanism.” |
| Michon, et al., Mol Biol Evol. 19(7):1128-1142, Jul. 2002. “Evolutionary relationships of conserved cysteine-rich motifs in adhesive molecules of malaria parasites.” |
| Miyazawa, et al., J Agric Food Chem. 45(3):677-679, Mar. 1997. “Inhibition of Acetylcholinesterase Activity by Monoterpenoids with a p-Menthane Skeleton.” |
| Morty, et al., J Biol Chem. 274(37):26149-26156, Sep. 10, 1999. “Oligopeptidase B from Trypanosoma brucei, a new member of an emerging subgroup of serine oligopeptidases.” |
| Muller-Riebau, et al., J Agric Food Chem. 43:2262-2266, 1995. “Chemical Composition and Fungitoxic Properties to Phytopathogenic Fungei of Essential Oils of Selected Aromatic Plant Growing Wild in Turkey.” |
| Mundodi, et al., Mol Microbiol. 53(4):1099-1108, 2004. “Silencing the ap65 gene reduces adherence to vaginal epithelial cells by Trichomonas vaginalis.” |
| Ngoh, et al., Pestic Sci. 54(3):261-268, 1998. “Insecticidal and repellant properties of nine volatile constituents of essential oils against the American cockroach, Periplaneta americana (L.).” |
| Nok, et al., Parasitol Res. 9(4):302-307, Mar. 2003. “Characterization of sialidase from Entamoaeba hystolitica and possible pathogenic role in amebiasis.” |
| Ntiamoah et al., “Identity and bioactivity of oviposition deterrents in pine oil for the onion maggot, Delia antiqua.” Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, vol. 79, No. 2, 1996, pp. 219-226. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/832,022, filed Apr. 26, 2004, dated May 17, 2007, 7 pages. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/832,022, filed Apr. 26, 2004, dated Jan. 25, 2008, 6 pages. |
| Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/832,022, filed Apr. 26, 2004, dated Oct. 10, 2008, 5 pages. |
| Ohta, et al., Insect Mol Biol. 12(3):217-223, Jun. 2003. “B96Bom encodes a Bombyx mori tyramine receptor negatively coupled to adenylate cyclase.” |
| Orchard, Can J Zool. 60:659-669, 1982. “Octopamine in insects: neurotransmitter, neurohormone, and neuromodulator.” |
| Pearson, et al., Ann Intern Med. 99(2):195-198, Aug. 1983. “Praziquantel: a major advance in anthelminthic therapy.” |
| Reale, et al., Brain Res. 769(2):309-320, 1997. “The expression of a cloned Drosophila octopamine/tyramine receptor in Xenopus oocytes.” |
| Rex, et al., J Neurochem. 82(6):1352-1359, Sep. 2002. “Characterization of a tyramine receptor from Caenorhabditis elegans.” |
| Rice, et al. (1993); Chapter 8: Structural requirements for Monoterpenoid Activity Against Insects, pp. 92-108; American Chemical Society (ACS) Symposium Series developed from a symposium sponsored by the Division of Agrochemicals at the 205th National Meeting of the American chemical society in Denver Colorado, P.A. Hedin (ed.), Mar. 28-Apr. 2, 1993. |
| Rice, et al., J Econ Entomol. 87(5):1172-1179, 1994. “Insecticidal properties of monoterpenoid derivatives to the house flv (diptera: muscidae) and red flour beetle (coleoptera: tenebrionidae).” |
| Robb, et al., “Agonist-specific coupling of a cloned Drosophila octapamine/tyramine receptor to multiple second messenger systems.” EMBO J., Mar. 15, 1994; 13:6; 1325-1330. |
| Robertson, et al., Int Rev Neurobiol. 19:173-224, 1976. “Octopamine and some related noncatecholic amines in invertebrate nervous systems.” |
| Roeder, Life Sci. 50(1):21-28, 1992. “A new octopamine receptor class in locust nervous tissue, the octopamine 3 (OA3) receptor.” |
| Roeder, Comp Biochem Physiol. Part C, 107(1):1-12, 1994. Biogenic amines and their receptors in insects. |
| Roeder, Prog Neurobiol. 59(5):533-561, Dec. 1999. “Octopamine in invertebrates.” |
| Ryan, et al., J Chem Eco. 14(10):1965-1975, Oct. 1988. “Plant-insect coevolution and inhibition of acetylcholinesterase.” |
| Saudou, et al., “Cloning and characterization of a Drosophila tyramine receptor.” EMBO J., Nov. 1990; 9:11; 361-3617. |
| Sangwan, et al., Pestic Sci. 28(3):331-335, 1990. “Nematicidal activity of some essential plant oils.” |
| Sawamura, et al., J Agric Food Chem. 47(12):4868-4872, Nov. 9, 1999. “Inhibitory Effects of Citrus Essential Oils and Their Components on the Formation of N-Nitrosodimethylamine.” |
| Shulaev, et al., Nature, 385(6618):718-721, Feb. 20, 1997. “Airborne signalling by methyl salicylate in plant pathogen resistance.” |
| Tsao, et al., “Monoterpenoids and their synthetic deravatives as leads for new insect-control agents.” American Chemical Society; Chapter 28; 1995. |
| Urban, et al., EMBO J. 18(3):512-521, Feb. 1, 1999. “An ATP-driven efflux pump is a novel pathogenicity factor in rice blast disease.” |
| Van Poyer, et al., Insec Biochem Mol Biol. 31(4-5):333-338, Mar. 15, 2001. “Phenolamine-dependent adenylyl cyclase activation in Drosophila Schneider 2 cells.” |
| Vanden Broeck, et al., J Neurochem. 64(6):2387-2395, Jun. 1995. “Characterization of a cloned locust tyramine receptor cDNA by functional expression permanently transformed Drosophila S2 cells.” |
| Vernier, et al., Trends Pharmacol Sci. 16(11):375-385, Nov. 1995. “An evolutionary view of drug-receptor interaction: the bioamine receptor family.” |
| Voigt, et al., Plant J. 42(3):364-375, 2005. “A secreted lipase of Fusarium graminearum is a virulence factor required for infection of cereals.” |
| Von Nickisch-Rosenegk, et al., Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 26(8-9):817-827, Sep.-Oct. 1996. “Cloning of biogenic amine receptors from moths (Bombyx mori and Heliothis virescens).” |
| Wetzel et al., PHAS 98(16):9377-9380, Jul. 31, 2001. |
| Yu, Parasitol Res. 88(5):412-420, Feb. 6, 2002. “A common oocyst surface antigen of Cryptosporidium recognized by monoclonal antibodies.” |
| Search Report, in corresponding European Application No. 12179436, dated Nov. 8, 2012, 6 pages. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20110217397 A1 | Sep 2011 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 60465320 | Apr 2003 | US | |
| 60532503 | Dec 2003 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 10832022 | Apr 2004 | US |
| Child | 11870385 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 11870385 | Oct 2007 | US |
| Child | 13020794 | US |
