Characterization of the structure‐activity relationship of <i>kdr</i> and two variants of <i>super‐kdr</i> to pyrethroids in the housefly (<i>Musca domestica</i> L.)

Abstract

Abstract Structure‐activity relationships (SARs) for 10 pyrethroids against susceptible, kdr and super‐kdr strains of houseflies (Musca domestica L.) were investigated by Principal Components Analysis. In the three strains with kdr Latina ' all only slightly to moderately (2.6 to 26‐fold) resistant to pyrethroids, no correlation between the structure and Levels of resistance could be discerned. In flies with super‐kdr , SARs were influenced by the nature of the alcoholic portion of the ester. Resistance was strongest to esters of a‐cyano‐3‐phenoxybenzyl alcohol (74 to 430‐fold) and to permethrin (48 to 55‐fold). It was weak (6.2 to 11‐fold) to cyclopentenone derivatives, being barely stronger than for flies with kdr (2‐6 to 6.3‐fold). Two variants of super‐kdr (3D and A2) were distinguished on the basis of their differential response to esters of 5‐benzyl‐3‐furylmethanol. It is presumed that kdr Latina , super‐kdr A2 and super‐kdr 3D form an allelic series in which kdr Latina represents ground level insensitivity, and the two super‐kdrs the progressive extension of strong resistance to more types of ester. The strong differences in resistance to different pyrethroid esters by super‐kdr flies provides scope for improving management of resistance to pyrethroid insecticides and for modifying the SAR of pyrethroids to favour weak resistance.