The Future for MET Acaricides and Insecticides

Included in the key considerations for mite control are (a) a high degree of efficacy on several growth stages and (b) a lack of cross-resistance with acaricides 

Likewise attempts to improve upon fenazaquin also led to improved sucking and chewing insect activity, but with an associated increase in mammalian toxicity [71]. A pro-insecticidal approach also met with only limited success [73]. Thus, current chemistries have not yet been able to strike an optimal balance between spectrum, efficacy, mammalian and environmental selectivity, resulting in a tme broad spectrum insect control agent possessing toxicological profiles comparable to some of the other newer chemistries (e.g., indoxacarb, spinosad). 

Inhibitors acting on the MET-I 11 system presents an interesting contrast to the MET-I inhibitors. Based on a very limited number of compounds and data, compounds in the MET-III group appear to exhibit, at least for acute rat oral toxicity, a far more favorable toxicological profile than the MET-I inhibitors discovered to date. While Complex III and the strobUurin motif have been widely exploited for the control for fungicide pests, thus far only fluacrypyrim exploits this target and chemistry for the control of mites or insects. 

The need for new insect control agents utilizing novel modes of action is ever present. As such the MET chain remains an attractive target site. 

The authors thank Drs. Joel Sheets, Mark Hertlein, and Frank Burroughs for their valuable suggestions and discussions, and Mike Delporte and Carol Freemen for assistance in obtaining the diverse reference materials used in the writing of this chapter. This work was supported by Dow AgroSciences. 

---