J Arthropod-Borne Dis, December 2020, 14(4): 344–352 E Ahmadi and J Khajehali: Dichlorvos Resistance in … 344 http://jad.tums.ac.ir Published Online: December 31, 2020 Original Article Dichlorvos Resistance in the House Fly Populations, Musca domestica, of Iranian Cattle Farms Ebrahim Ahmadi; *Jahangir Khajehali Department of Plant Protection, College of Agriculture, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran *Corresponding author: Dr Jahangir Khajehali, E-mail: khajeali@cc.iut.ac.ir (Received 12 May 2019; accepted 30 Nov 2020) Abstract Background: Insecticide resistance is one of the most important problems associated with the control of Musca domes- tica, due to the potential of the rapid development of resistance to different chemical insecticides. The present study was carried out to evaluate dichlorvos resistance in the house fly populations collected from central regions of Iran, Isfahan Province and Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari Province, during 2017 to 2019. Methods: Bioassays were carried out using a standard topical application method as well as a fumigation method. The Koohrang population (susceptible) with the lowest LD50 values to dichlorvos was chosen to calculate the resistance rati- os (RR). Altered sensitivity of acetylcholinesterase (AChE), a target enzyme for dichlorvos, was investigated. Results: According to the results, very high levels of dichlorvos resistance were observed in the Mobarake population (RR= 80.25-fold by topical application and 33-fold by fumigation bioassay), and Isfahan population (RR= 107.30-fold by topical application and 43-fold by fumigation bioassay) compared to the Koohrang population. Acetylcholinesterase of the Koohrang population was the most sensitive to inhibition by dichlorvos based on the determination of median inhibitory concentration (IC50), but AChE of Mobarake and Isfahan populations were 741.93- and 343.94- fold less sen- sitive to inhibition. Conclusion: The insensitivity of AChE was possibly involved in dichlorvos resistance in the house fly populations. Keywords: Organophosphorus insecticides; Target site resistance; Acetylcholinesterase; Median inhibitory concentration Introduction The house fly, Musca domestica Linnaeus, is a crucial pest in medical and veterinary. House fly is a vector of different kinds of pathogens in humans and animals. The flies not only act as a source of annoyance but also transfer pathogens mechanically when mov- ing to residential, commercial, livestock, and poultry places (1). The chemical control, of- ten against the adult stage of house flies, is mainly by synthetic insecticides such as pyre- throids, neonicotinoids, organophosphates, and carbamates (2-5). In the dairy and poultry in- dustry, house flies are considered as a major pest, and for its control, pyrethroids and or- ganophosphates are extensively applied in Iran. Several organophosphorus (OPs) compounds including of dichlorvos, diazinon, fenchlorphos, malathion, fenthion, dimethoate, and trichlor- fon are used for house fly control (4). Organ- ophosphorus bind to AChE, which leads to an accumulation of acetylcholine (ACh) in cho- linergic synapses and subsequently disrupt nerv- ous functions, resulting in paralysis and death (6). Among OPs, dichlorvos (O, O- dimethyl-O- 2,2-dichlorovinylphosphate or DDVP) has been recognized as one of the widely used insecti- cides for the management of house fly and other arthropod pests (7). However, the World Health Organization has classified dichlorvos as a highly hazardous pesticide (8), and harm- ful to human and animal health by long-term low-level dietary uptake of food containing dichlorvos residues (9). Furthermore, there are several reports on the development of dichlor- vos resistance in this species all over the world (10-16). Development of resistance may cause increasing the dosage and frequency of Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Tehran University of Medical Sciences. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by- nc/4.0/). Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted, provided the original work is properly cited. http://jad.tums.ac.ir/ mailto:khajeali@cc.iut.ac.ir https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ J Arthropod-Borne Dis, December 2020, 14(4): 344–352 E Ahmadi and J Khajehali: Dichlorvos Resistance in … 345 http://jad.tums.ac.ir Published Online: December 31, 2020 insecticide applications in the residential, com- mercial, livestock, and poultry places, which enhances the cost of control, and it also has negative impacts on the environment (17, 18). Also, metabolic resistance via the enhanced activity of detoxification enzymes has been as- sociated with resistance to OPs, and modified AChE has been reported as the main mecha- nism of resistance (19, 20). Biochemical char- acterization of altered AChEs has shown that there is a wide range of insensitivity between insect species and between OPs compounds (21). Insensitivity of AChE to OPs insecticides in house fly was documented for the first time in 1973 (22). Several mutations in the AChE gene of the house fly have been proved to be involved in OPs resistance (21). Despite nu- merous cases of insecticide resistance in the house fly, there is a broad spectrum in insecti- cide sensitivity between populations. Thus, the assessment of resistance to different insecti- cides in regional populations of house flies can provide useful information for the fly control and insecticide-resistant management programs (17, 23). In the present study, efforts were made to understand dichlorvos resistance status and mechanisms in the different house fly popula- tions. Materials and Methods Chemicals Technical grade of dichlorvos insecticide (98.7%) was provided by Golsam Sepahan Com- pany (Iran), acetylthiocholine iodide (ATChI), Coomassie Brilliant Blue G-250, bovine serum albumin, 3,3′,5,5′-, fast blue RR salt were pur- chased from Sigma-Aldrich (Germany). Insect rearing The house fly populations were collected from dairies in Mobarake (Isfahan Province- 32.3347°N, 51.5571°E) and Isfahan (Isfahan Province -32.6546° N, 51.6680° E). The pop- ulation of Koohrang (Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari Province -32.3297° N, 50.1112° E) was col- lected from a rural area where insecticides had not been used. Adults were reared under la- boratory conditions of 25±2 ºC, 16:8 (L: D), and 60±5% relative humidity. The adult diet consisted of sesame meal and wheat bran (1: 3) in a plastic container. Also, a mixture of wa- ter and sugar (10%) was provided in another plastic container. Larvae were transferred to plastic buckets containing 20g a diet, included sesame meal and wheat bran (1: 3), 1.5g milk powder, 1.5g honey mixed with 8ml of water. Female house flies were used for bioassays. Topical and fumigation bioassays Topical bioassays were followed, as de- scribed by Kasai et al. (24). Briefly, technical grade dichlorvos solved in acetone, and then 1μL were topically applied by micropipette (Nichiryo Model 8100, Tokyo, Japan) on the notum of CO2-anesthetized flies (3–5-day-old females, n= 20 flies per concentration/per rep- lication). In control groups, flies only received topical application of acetone. The treated flies were released in plastic jars (250ml) contain- ing cotton moistened with a 20% sugar solu- tion. Mortality data were recorded after 24h exposure to insecticide. For bioassays, 5 to 6 concentrations of insecticide were prepared as serial dilutions in acetone and replicated three times. The fumigant bioassay was conducted, ac- cording to Rossi et al. (25), with slight modi- fications. Briefly, female house flies (3–5-days adult) were placed in a fitted glass jar (650ml). Serial dilutions prepared dichlorvos concen- trations in acetone were then placed on a cot- ton pad inside a Petri dish; the dish was sealed to prevent fly contact and was placed inside a glass bottle. The bottle was sealed tightly and kept in a home temperature (25±2 °C) for 30 min. Mortality data were recorded after 30min of exposure. Each test was replicated three times. Acetylcholinesterase activity and inhibition by dichlorvos Twenty heads of 3–5-day old females from each population were homogenized in 1mL of http://jad.tums.ac.ir/ J Arthropod-Borne Dis, December 2020, 14(4): 344–352 E Ahmadi and J Khajehali: Dichlorvos Resistance in … 346 http://jad.tums.ac.ir Published Online: December 31, 2020 sodium phosphate buffer (0.1M, pH 7.5), con- taining 0.1% (w/v) Triton X-100 in ice-cold conditions. After centrifugation (12,000g at 4 °C for 15min), the supernatant was used for the enzyme assay. The AChE activity was assayed based on the method of Ellman et al. (26) with slight modifications. The ATChI (10 mM) was used as the substrate. To determine median in- hibitory concentrations (IC50s) aliquots (10μL) series of dichlorvos concentrations mixed with 20μL enzyme source and 70μL sodium phos- phate buffer solution and the mixture was in- cubated for 5min at room temperature (25±2 °C). The reaction was started by adding 900 μL of substrate - reagent solution, containing 1mL ATChI, 250μL DTNB reagent (10mM) dissolved in 8.750mL sodium phosphate buff- er (0.1M, pH 7.5). The control treatments were prepared by adding 10μL of acetone without insecticide. The acetone concentration of all re- actions was 1%. The change in absorbance was measured using a spectrophotometer (Unico, Model UV-2100, USA) at 412nm for 10min with a read interval of the 30s at room temper- ature (25±2 °C). The tests were replicated three times. Protein content was determined by the Bradford method (25), and bovine serum al- bumin was used as the standard. To convert ab- sorbance into molarity an extinction coefficient of 13.6mM−1 cm−1 was used. The specific ac- tivity of AChE expressed as nmol of acetylthi- ocholine iodide hydrolyzed per min per mg pro- tein (nmol min−1 mg of protein−1). The inhibition rate was calculated as a percentage with respect to the control by the following formula (26): % Inhibition= 100– [(Enzyme Activity of Treatment÷ Enzyme Activity of Control)× 100] Statistical analyses Percentage mortality data of the topical ap- plication and fumigant assay were corrected by using Abbott formula (27), and data were in- putted to the POLO-Plus software for analysis (28). Median inhibitory concentration (IC50) val- ues were determined by probit analysis between the inhibition percentages against the insecticide concentrations (29). The AChE enzyme activi- ties were subjected to ANOVA, and differences among means were compared by the LSD test (P< 0.05) using SAS 9.4 software (30). Results Topical and fumigation bioassays The LD50 values of dichlorvos in the Isfa- han, Mobarake, and Koohrang populations by the topical application were estimated 515.29, 385.22, and 4.80μg/fly, respectively. The Koohrang population exhibited the lowest LD50 value and was used as the reference strain to evaluate the resistance ratios (RR). There- fore, high RR values were observed in Mo- barake (80.25-fold) and Isfahan (107.30- fold) populations (Table 1). The fumigation assay of the dichlorvos in- secticide on female house flies on different pop- ulations was performed, and the LD50 values against dichlorvos in the Isfahan, Mobarake, and Koohrang populations were 1.34, 1.00, and 0.03 (μL/L), respectively (Table 2). Fumigant bioassay revealed high resistance levels to dichlorvos in Mobarake and Isfahan popula- tions, 33- and 43-fold, respectively. Acetylcholinesterase activity and inhibition by dichlorvos The activity of AChE was highest in the Mobarakh population (155.65±2.83nmol/min/ mg Protein) and Isfahan population (234.79± 7.07nmol/min/mg protein). It was lowest in the Koohrang population (79.25±2.28nmol/min/mg protein) (Table 3). The AChE activities in the Mobarakh and Isfahan populations were signif- icantly higher than that of the Koohrang popu- lation (P< 0.05). Sensitivities of three AChEs to dichlorvos as an inhibitor were also determined. The estimated IC50 values by series of dichlorvos concentrations showed the insensitivity of AChE to the insecticide in the resistant populations. Ac- etylcholinesterase of the Koohrang population was the most sensitive, and AChEs of Mo- barakh and Isfahan populations showed insen- sitivity to dichlorvos (Table 3). http://jad.tums.ac.ir/ J Arthropod-Borne Dis, December 2020, 14(4): 344–352 E Ahmadi and J Khajehali: Dichlorvos Resistance in … 347 http://jad.tums.ac.ir Published Online: December 31, 2020 Table 1. Contact toxicity of dichlorvos insecticide on the field populations of house flies Insecticide populations n LD50 (μg/fly) (95% FL) Slope±SE Chi- square Df RR dichlorvos Koohrang 360 4.80 (4–5.8) 1.885±0.173 0.72 4 - Mobarake 322 385.22 (296–502) 1.337+-0.156 0.8 4 80.25 Isfahan 300 515.29 (387–710) 1.242±0.161 0.078 4 107.3 n: number of flies used in bioassays FL: fiducial limits DF: degrees of freedom RR: LD50 of Mobarake or Isfahan/ LD50 of Koohrang Table 2. Fumigant toxicity of dichlorvos on the field populations of house flies Insecticide populations n1 LD50 (μL/L) (95% FL) Slope±SE Chi-square Df RR dichlorvos Koohrang 360 0.03 (0.029–0.044) 1.651±0.167 0.845 4 - Mobarake 360 1.00 (0.87–1.3) 1.565±0.158 0.174 4 33 Isfahan 360 1.3 (1–1.6) 1.479±0.154 0.229 4 43 n: number of flies used in bioassays FL: fiducial limits DF: degrees of freedom RR: LD50 of Mobarake or Isfahan/ LD50 of the Koohrang population Table 3. Mean AChE activity (nmol/min/mg protein) and its inhibition by dichlorvos populations AChE RatioA IC50 (M) RatioB Koohrang 79.25±2.28c - 3.14×10 -7±1.56 - Mobarake 155.65±2.83b 1.96 2.32×10 -4±5.78 741.93 Isfahan 234.79±7.07a 2.96 1.08×10 -4±2.33 343.94 A: ratio of enzyme activity in the resistant population/ enzyme activity in the susceptible population B: ratio of IC50 in the resistant population/ IC50 in the susceptible population a, b, c significantly different by applying LSD (P< 0.05) Discussion Dichlorvos is one of the most common in- secticides used for house fly control in cattle farms of Isfahan Province. Therefore, moni- toring of susceptibility of the fly to dichlorvos is necessary for managing programs of M. do- mestica. To our knowledge, no information is available on the resistance status of house flies of Iranian cattle farms. In the present study, lev- els of resistance to dichlorvos were determined through both topical and fumigation applica- http://jad.tums.ac.ir/ J Arthropod-Borne Dis, December 2020, 14(4): 344–352 E Ahmadi and J Khajehali: Dichlorvos Resistance in … 348 http://jad.tums.ac.ir Published Online: December 31, 2020 tion methods in different field-collected pop- ulations. Because of a known reference strain was not available, in this study the most suscepti- ble strain, i.e. the Koohrang population, was con- sidered as the reference strain. Although this strain possibly was not fully susceptible, field populations showed significantly high resistance ratios, justifying the resistance mechanisms. Ac- cording to the results, high RR values to di- chlorvos were observed in both cattle farm pop- ulations of Mobarake and Isfahan, ranging from 33- to 107.30-fold. The RR values in topical bi- oassay were estimated higher than fumigant bioassay in the resistance populations of the house fly. It could be associated with the cu- ticular penetration factor involved in the re- sistance that can decrease insecticide pene- tration (31, 32). Several studies have already documented house fly resistance to dichlorvos and other OPs. Wang et al. (35) reported a 14- to 28-fold resistance to dichlorvos. Moderate levels of resistance have also been reported from the house fly population in Argentina (33) and Denmark (34). Resistance to dichlorvos has also been found in other medically important Diptera, such as Aedes aegypti (35). Also, low RR value to temephos was observed in Anoph- eles stephensi in the Chabahar sea of Iran (36). Furthermore, OPs resistance has been investi- gated in crop pests. High levels of resistance to OPs insecticides were reported in Spodop- tera litura (229-fold) (37) and Tetranychus ur- ticae (4164 -fold) (38). The main mechanism of OPs resistance is altered AChE, which led to enzyme insensi- tivity to inhibition by insecticides. Also, 2- to 5- fold increases in the activity of AChE were associated with OPs resistance in Drosophila melanogaster and M. domestica, respectively. The higher AChE activity in strains with al- tered AChE could be directly contributed to OPs resistance or compensate for decrease AChE hy- drolysis (11, 39). Soltani et al. (43) have report- ed the altered AChE in Anopheles stephensi in the south of Iran, which causes resistance to temephos insecticide. In this study also an in- crease in AChE activity was observed in re- sistant populations of Mobarake (1.96-fold) and Isfahan (2.96- fold). Walsh et al. (21) have reported a higher than 500-fold insensitively of AChE to dichlor- vos in house fly resistant populations. Moreo- ver, it has reported that resistance to OPs in Schizaphis graminum contributed to increased AChE activity through elevated expression of the AChE gene (40) and AChE insensitivity (41). Based on the biochemical assays on the AChE inhibition by dichlorvos and obtained IC50 values, target-site modification is possi- bly involved in resistance to dichlorvos in house fly populations. The AChE of the Koohrang population was most sensitive, while AChE of Mobarake and Isfahan populations showed 741.93- and 343.94- fold insensitivity to di- chlorvos. Several point mutations in the AChE gene can confer enzyme insensitivity to inhi- bition by OPs insecticides (38, 42-44). Metabolic detoxification has been demon- strated to be a key OPs resistance mechanism in the house fly, which is mediated by cyto- chrome P450 monooxygenases (P450s), the glutathione S-transferases (GSTs) and the car- boxylesterases (CarEs) (45, 46). Ahmadi et al. (5) determined detoxification enzyme activi- ties in Koohrang, Mobarake, and Isfahan pop- ulations and reported significantly lower ac- tivities of P450s, GSTs, and CarEs in the Koohrang population than that of Mobarake and Isfahan populations. P450s have been im- plicated to play major role in conferring OPs resistance in house fly strains. For example, OPs resistance in the Rutgers strain has been linked to the overexpression of P450s (47). Thus, enhanced activity of P450s in Mobar- ake and Isfahan populations (more than 2.2 folds) possibly contribute to dichlorvos re- sistance. In house flies, enhanced production of CarEs has been implicated as contributing to resistance to OPs and other insecticides (48). In the ALHF house fly strain, OPs re- sistance have been found due to increased ac- http://jad.tums.ac.ir/ J Arthropod-Borne Dis, December 2020, 14(4): 344–352 E Ahmadi and J Khajehali: Dichlorvos Resistance in … 349 http://jad.tums.ac.ir Published Online: December 31, 2020 tivities of CarE (49). The CarE activity in the OPs resistant strains of Mobarake and Isfahan was reported significantly higher than that of Koohrang population (3.7- and 2.01-fold, re- spectively). OPs resistance in house flies has been also linked to increased activities of GSTs (45). Previously, 4.9 and 5.2- fold higher ac- tivities of GSTs were found in Mobarake and Isfahan populations compared to the Koohrang population (5). It seems that enhanced detox- ification by P450s, GSTs, and CarEs is an im- portant mechanism of dichlorvos resistance in Mobarake and Isfahan populations. The en- hanced detoxification could also be responsi- ble for cross-resistance to other insecticides in house fly populations (50). Insecticide resistance can increase costs and doses of insecticides in the house fly control, as well as decrease inefficiency of control (18). It also has environmental pollution problems and human health risks and negatively effects the non-target organisms (51). Conclusion The present study revealed high levels of dichlorvos resistance in house fly populations. AChE insensitivity and enhanced metabolic detoxification identified as the conferring mech- anisms. However, the molecular mechanisms involved in AChE insensitivity and enzyme detoxification remain uncharacterized. Further studies in Iranian cattle farms are needed to confirm these findings and to design manage- ment strategies to delay the development of insecticide resistance in house fly populations. Acknowledgements The authors are the highly grateful Isfahan University of Technology and Barij Essence Pharmaceutical Company for providing finan- cial assistance to carry out this study. The authors declare that there is no con- flict of interests. References 1. Nayduch D, Burrus RG (2017) Flourishing in filth: house fly–microbe interactions across life history. Ann Entomol Soc Am. 110(1): 6–18. 2. Kaufman PE, Nunez SC, Mann RS, Geden CJ, Scharf ME (2010) Nicotinoid and pyrethroid insecticide resistance in house- flies (Diptera: Muscidae) collected from Florida dairies. Pest Manag Sci. 66(3): 290–294. 3. Scott JG (2017) Evolution of resistance to pyrethroid insecticides in Musca domes- tica. Pest Manag Sci. 73(4): 716–722. 4. Kristensen M, Jespersen JB (2008) Sus- ceptibility to thiamethoxam of Musca domestica from Danish livestock farms. Pest Manag Sci. 64(2): 126–132. 5. Ahmadi E, Khajehali J, Rameshgar F (2020) Evaluation of resistance to permethrin, cypermethrin and deltamethrin in dif- ferent populations of Musca domestica (L.), collected from the Iranian dairy cat- tle farms. J Asia Pac Entomol. 23(2): 277–284. 6. Zheng Y, Liu Z, Jing Y, Li J, Zhan H (2015) An acetylcholinesterase biosensor based on ionic liquid functionalized gra- phene-gelatin-modified electrode for sen- sitive detection of pesticides. Sens Ac- tuators B Chem. 210: 389–397. 7. Matthysse JG, McClain D (1973) House fly control in climate-controlled caged-hen layer houses. J Econ Entomol. 66(4): 927–933. 8. Velmurugan G, Babu DV, Ramasamy S (2013) Prolonged monocrotophos intake induces cardiac oxidative stress and my- ocardial damage in rats. Toxicology. 307: 103–108. 9. Du L, Li S, Qi L, Hou Y, Zeng Y, Xu W, Wang H, Zhao X, Sun C (2014) Meta- bonomic analysis of the joint toxic ac- tion of long-term low-level exposure to a mixture of four organophosphate pes- http://jad.tums.ac.ir/ J Arthropod-Borne Dis, December 2020, 14(4): 344–352 E Ahmadi and J Khajehali: Dichlorvos Resistance in … 350 http://jad.tums.ac.ir Published Online: December 31, 2020 ticides in rat plasma. Mol Biosyst. 10 (5): 1153–1161. 10. Srinivasan R, Jambulingam P, Gunasekaran K, Boopathidoss P (2008) Tolerance of house fly, Musca domestica L.(Diptera: Muscidae) to dichlorvos (76% EC) an in- secticide used for fly control in the tsunami-hit coastal villages of southern India. Acta Trop. 105(2): 187–190. 11. Kristensen M, Huang J, Qiao CL, Jes- persen JB (2006) Variation of Musca domestica L. acetylcholinesterase in Da- nish housefly populations. Pest Manag Sci. 62(8): 738 –745. 12. Vontas J, Hernández-Crespo P, Margarito- poulos JT, Ortego F, Feng HT, Mathio- poulos KD, Hsu JC. (2011) Insecticide resistance in Tephritid flies. Pestic Bio- chem Physiol. 100(3): 199–205. 13. Wang JJ, Cheng WX, Ding W, Zhao ZM (2004) The effect of the insecticide di- chlorvos on esterase activity extracted from the psocids, Liposcelis bostrycho- phila and L. entomophila. J Insect Sci. 4(1): 23–25. 14. Boyer S, Zhang H, Lempérière G (2012) A review of control methods and re- sistance mechanisms in stored-product in- sects. Bull Entomol Res. 102(2): 213–229. 15. Zhao M, Dong Y, Ran X, Wu Z, Guo X, Zhang Y, Xing D, Yan T, Wang G, Zhu X, Zhang H (2014) Point mutations as- sociated with organophosphate and car- bamate resistance in Chinese strains of Culex pipiens quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae). PloS One. 9(5): e95260. 16. Wang L, Zhang Y, Han Z, Liu Y, Fang J (2010) Cross‐resistance and possible me- chanisms of chlorpyrifos resistance in La- odelphax striatellus (Fallén). Pest Manag Sci. 66(10): 1096–1100. 17. Marcon PC, Thomas GD, Siegfried BD, Campbell JB, Skoda SR (2003) Re- sistance status of house flies (Diptera: Muscidae) from southeastern Nebraska beef cattle feedlots to selected insecti- cides. J Econ Entomol. 96(3): 1016–1020. 18. Metcalf RL (1989) Insect resistance to in- secticides. Pestic Sci. 26(4): 333–358. 19. Kim CS, Kim WT, Boo KS, Kim SI (2003) Cloning, mutagenesis, and expre- ssion of the acetylcholinesterase gene from a strain of Musca domestica; the change from a drug-resistant to a sen- sitive enzyme. Mol Cells. 15(2): 208– 215. 20. Naqqash MN, Gökçe A, Bakhsh A, Salim M (2016) Insecticide resistance and its molecular basis in urban insect pests. Parasitol Res. 115(4): 1363–1373. 21. Walsh SB, Dolden TA, Moores GD, Kris- tensen M, Lewis T, Devonshire AL, Wi- lliamson MS (2001) Identification and characterization of mutations in house fly (Musca domestica) acetylcholines- terase involved in insecticide resistance. Biochem J. 359(1): 175–181. 22. Tripathi RK, O'Brien RD (1973) Insensitivity of acetylcholinesterase as a factor in re- sistance of house flies to the organophos- phate Rabon. Pestic Biochem Physiol. 3 (4): 495–498. 23. Kaufman PE, Scott JG, Rutz DA (2001) Monitoring insecticide resistance in house flies (Diptera: Muscidae) from New York dairies. Pest Manag Sci. 57(6): 514–521. 24. Kasai S, Sun H, Scott J (2017) Diversity of knockdown resistance alleles in a single house fly population facilitates adaptation to pyrethroid insecticides. In- sect Mol Biol. 26(1): 13–24. 25. Rossi YE, Palacios SM (2015) Insecticidal toxicity of Eucalyptus cinerea essential oil and 1, 8-cineole against Musca domes- tica and possible uses according to the metabolic response of flies. Ind Crops Prod. 63: 133–137. 26. Ellman GL, Courtney KD, Andres Jr V, Featherstone RM (1961) A new and ra- pid colorimetric determination of acetyl- cholinesterase activity. Biochem Phar- macol. 7(2): 88–95. http://jad.tums.ac.ir/ J Arthropod-Borne Dis, December 2020, 14(4): 344–352 E Ahmadi and J Khajehali: Dichlorvos Resistance in … 351 http://jad.tums.ac.ir Published Online: December 31, 2020 27. Bradford MM (1976) A rapid and sensi- tive method for the quantitation of mic- rogram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal Biochem. 72(1–2): 248–254. 28. Seo SM, Jung CS, Kang J, Lee HR, Kim SW, Hyun J, Park IK (2015) Larvicidal and acetylcholinesterase inhibitory acti- vities of Apiaceae plant essential oils and their constituents against Aedes al- bopictus and formulation development. J Agric Food Chem. 63(45): 9977–9986. 29. Abbott WS (1925) A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. J Econ Entomol. 18(2): 265–267. 30. Robertson JL, Jones MM, Olguin E, Al- berts B (2017) Bioassays with Arthro- pods. CRC Press, Boca Raton. 31. Finney D (1971) Probit analysis, Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK. 32. Institute S (2017) Base SAS 9.4 procedures guide: Statistical procedures (SAS Ins- titute). 33. Gerolt P (1974) Mechanism of resistance to dichlorvos in adult houseflies. Pestic Biochem Physiol. 4(3): 275–288. 34. Saito K, Motoyama N, Dauterman W (1992) Effect of synergists on the oral and to- pical toxicity of azamethiphos to orga- nophosphate-resistant houseflies (Dipte- ra: Muscidae). J Econ Entomol. 85(4): 1041–1045. 35. Wang Q, Li M, Pan J, Di M, Liu Q, Meng F, Scott JG, Qiu X (2012) Diversity and frequencies of genetic mutations in- volved in insecticide resistance in field populations of the house fly (Musca domestica L.) from China. Pestic Bio- chem Physiol. 102(2): 153–159. 36. Acevedo GR, Zapater M, Toloza AC (2009) Insecticide resistance of house fly, Musca domestica (L.) from Argen- tina. Parasitol Res. 105(2): 489–493. 37. Kristensen M, Knorr M, Spencer AG, Jes- persen JB (2000) Selection and reversion of azamethiphos-resistance in a field popu- lation of the housefly Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae), and the underlying biochemical mechanisms. J Econ Ento- mol. 93(6): 1788–1795. 38. Melo-Santos MA, Varjal-Melo JJ, Araújo AP, Gomes TC, Paiva MH, Regis LN, Furtado AF, Magalhães T, Macoris ML, Andrighetti MT, Ayres CF (2010) Re- sistance to the organophosphate teme- phos: mechanisms, evolution and rever- sion in an Aedes aegypti laboratory strain from Brazil. Acta Trop. 113(2): 180–189. 39. Soltani A, Vatandoost H, Oshaghi MA, Enayati AA, Raeisi A, Eshraghian MR, Soltan-Dallal MM, Hanafi-Bojd AA, Abai MR, Rafi F (2013) Baseline Sus- ceptibility of Different Geographical Strains of Anopheles stephensi (Diptera: Culicidae) to Temephos in Malarious Areas of Irana. J Arthropod Borne Dis. 7(1): 56. 40. Tong H, Su Q, Zhou X, Bai L (2013) Field resistance of Spodoptera litura (Lepidop- tera: Noctuidae) to organophosphates, pyrethroids, carbamates and four newer chemistry insecticides in Hunan, China. J Pest Sci (2004). 86(3): 599–609. 41. Khajehali J, Van Leeuwen T, Grispou M, Morou E, Alout H, Weill M, Tirry L, Vontas J, Tsagkarakou A (2010) Acetyl- cholinesterase point mutations in Euro- pean strains of Tetranychus urticae (Aca- ri: Tetranychidae) resistant to organophos- phates. Pest Manag Sci. 66(2): 220–228. 42. Charpentier A, Fournier D (2001) Levels of total acetylcholinesterase in Drosophila melanogaster in relation to insecticide resistance. Pestic Biochem Physiol. 70 (2): 100–107. 43. Soltani A, Vatandoost H, Oshaghi MA, Ravasan NM, Enayati AA, Asgarian F (2015) Resistance mechanisms of Ano- pheles stephensi (Diptera: Culicidae) to temephos. J Arthropod Borne Dis. 9(1): 71. 44. Gao JR, Kambhampati S, Zhu K (2002) Mo- http://jad.tums.ac.ir/ J Arthropod-Borne Dis, December 2020, 14(4): 344–352 E Ahmadi and J Khajehali: Dichlorvos Resistance in … 352 http://jad.tums.ac.ir Published Online: December 31, 2020 lecular cloning and characterization of a greenbug (Schizaphis graminum) cDNA encoding acetylcholinesterase possibly evolved from a duplicate gene lineage. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 32(7): 765– 775. 45. Mutero A, Pralavorio M, Bride JM, Fournier D (1994) Resistance-associated point mutations in insecticide-insensitive acetyl- cholinesterase. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 91(13): 5922–5926. 46. Kozaki T, Shono T, Tomita T, Kono Y (2001) Fenitroxon insensitive acetyl- cholinesterases of the housefly, Musca domestica associated with point muta- tions. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 31 (10): 991–997. 47. Kozaki T, Brady SG, Scott JG (2009) Frequencies and evolution of organo- phosphate insensitive acetylcholinesterase alleles in laboratory and field popula- tions of the house fly, Musca domestica L. Pestic Biochem Physiol. 95(1): 6–11. 48. Lokeshwari D, Krishna Kumar N, Man- junatha H (2016) Multiple mutations on the second acetylcholinesterase gene associated with dimethoate resistance in the melon aphid, Aphis gossypii (Hemip- tera: Aphididae). J Econ Entomol. 109 (2): 887–897. 49. Fournier D, Bride JM, Poirie M, Berge JB, Plapp F (1992) Insect glutathione S- transferases. Biochemical characteristics of the major forms from houseflies sus- ceptible and resistant to insecticides. J Biol Chem. 267(3): 1840–1845. 50. Liu N, Yue X (2000) Insecticide re- sistance and cross-resistance in the house fly (Diptera: Muscidae). J Econ Ento- mol. 93(4): 1269–1275. 51. Carino F, Koener J, Plapp Jr F, Feyereisen R (1994) Constitutive overexpression of the cytochrome P450 gene CYP6A1 in a house fly strain with metabolic re- sistance to insecticides. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 24(4): 411–418. 52. Zhang Y, Li J, Ma Z, Shan C, Gao X (2018) Multiple mutations and overexpression of the MdaE7 carboxylesterase gene associated with male-linked malathion resistance in housefly, Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae). Sci Rep. 8(1): 1–11. 53. Feng X, Li M, Liu N (2018) Carboxy- lesterase genes in pyrethroid resistant house flies, Musca domestica. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 92:30–39. 54. Khan HAA, Akram W, Iqbal J, Naeem- Ullah U (2015) Thiamethoxam resistance in the house fly, Musca domestica L.: current status, resistance selection, cross- resistance potential and possible bio- chemical mechanisms. PLoS One. 10(5): e0125850. 55. Kumar P, Mishra S, Malik A, Satya S (2014) Biocontrol potential of essential oil monoterpenes against housefly, Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae). Ecoto- xicol Environ Saf. 100: 1–6. http://jad.tums.ac.ir/