We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
Posts must be:
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
However, experts emphasised that the findings did not mean that travellers should ditch their Deet.
“People should understand that Deet does not lose its effectiveness through normal use, but only under specific laboratory conditions designed to reveal how it works on mosquitoes,” said Lazzari.
Let’s hope these bugs don’t escape from the lab
... Wait, why not?
It was a joke, but releasing mosquitoes that can bypass deet into the wild? They might procreate and pass that information on and create a race of superbugs, although I doubt that will happen.
Oh I see, sorry - in this case it's a matter of training, not breeding, so that's not really a concern. Unless they develop some kind of extremely high-pitched mosquito language... that would be a problem.
That’s why it was a joke, but we still don’t know everything about epigenetics, so in theory it could be possible.
In theory they could be reading everything you're typing right now. Better not give them any ideas
That is absolutely true, we really know very little about epigenetics.
That said, we do know that it's really not a 1 to 1 logical connection between an organism's experience and the epigenetic change to their DNA.
For example of an epigenetic change, improper nutrition at a particular point in an organism's development could lead to a certain disease susceptibility that could persist for several generations. So what's the link between nutrition and that particular disease? There isn't one. It was likely just that the necessary proteins for DNA replication weren't all present in a cell (due to the nutrition deficit), but the resulting DNA was "good enough", so it still got used and copied.
All that is to say, it doesn't work like "this organism learned something, and that knowledge or instinct gets passed down". It tends to be more like, this organism's body was under some specific pressure, or lived in some specific environment for an extended period, and the resulting effect is mostly unrelated and mostly unpredictable.
Those are just the examples we have found in humans, but epigenetics is certainly studied as a way organisms pass specific traits on to their offspring, for example:
Epigenetic inheritance has emerged as a new research discipline that aims to study the mechanisms underlying the transmission of acquired traits across generations.[1]
Yes, if an epigenetic mutation occurs, that is indeed passed down to offspring, I hope I didn't imply otherwise above. (Although as far as we can tell, the mutation is temporary and tends to be "corrected" within a few generations.)
All I'm really saying is that the trait acquired is not likely to have an effect in any way correlated to specific pressure that caused the mutation. For instance, exposure to a specific toxin could possibly catalyse an epigenetic mutation, but that mutation is highly unlikely to be a resistance to that toxin.
The journal article you linked seems like a great source! But I didn't see anything that contradicted what I said above.
I reacted mostly to this part:
it doesn't work like "this organism learned something, and **that** knowledge or instinct gets passed down". It tends to be more like, this organism's body was under some specific pressure, or lived in some specific environment for an extended period, and the resulting effect is mostly unrelated and mostly unpredictable.
Where it seemed like you meant specific “learned” traits in one generation are not passed down to offspring, which is contradictory to what is commonly believed by experts. In some occasions it works like you described, but not always. I’m not an expert on epigenetics or even genetics though. And like I mentioned, a lot is still unknown, so we can’t say anything with so much certainty.
Where it seemed like you meant specific “learned” traits in one generation are not passed down to offspring, which is contradictory to what is commonly believed by experts.
Ah, I see. No I meant literally learned, like from training, like training a dog. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I've sworn for years that shit is just 11 herbs and spices for the little vampire sons of bitches.
Soak your clothes gear in pyrethrin. It's more natural and generally safe. Humans have been using it for longer than the industrial revolution.
I've also had good luck with picaridin. It's some new synthetic horror, but it seems to work better than deet.
I kicked deet to the curb years ago.
Picaridin works wonderfully well at repelling ticks for when it's too hot out for permethrin pants. Though mosquitoes only care a bit if you've got repellent on, they'll still come after you no matter what you're wearing. In my experience
One note of caution- pyrethrin is good stuff and is generally relatively natural as it is derived from flowers. However it can be toxic to cats. So don't douse your clothes in the stuff and then go cuddle with Mr Mittens.
yes, once it dries though, it's cat safe, but when it's wet you shouldn't really mess with it either
Not true.
Mosquitoes are not evolving attraction to mosquito repellant. The mosquitoes described in the article were bred in a lab to see if it could happen.
Fuck their fucking mosquito gain of function research bullshit!
They should be sentenced to exsanguination for their crimes.
Yeah, why in God's name was that a good idea?
Wouldn't it be cool if on of the most lethal killers and disease vectors was absolutely invincible and could not be stopped?
Why not give them acid saliva and razor feet while we're at it?
Manufacturers have suggested users should not stop using their insect repellent simply because it does not repel insects. Insect repellent has many other benefits beyond repelling insects such as smelling bad and being sticky.
This is only applicable if mosquitoes are fed in the presence of DEET, and has been a fact or property of DEET since it was first produced
But the entire point of the repellent is that mosquitoes cannot feed in its presence and you are saying that it has been admitted not only that they infact can but once they have then they are more likely to come back. That is like a stab proof vest being marketed with the proviso that the vest does actually allow you to be stabbed and when you are stabbed it will encourage more stabbing later.
There is no evidence that mosquitoes feed in its presence in the real world
The entire point of lab work is that it mimics the real world because it can never be known it is not happening in the real world and the lab work implies mosquitoes do feed in its presence and having fed are more likely to subsequently re-feed.
What's with you and the entire point
The entire point is that you have no substantive reply and your supercilious argument collapsed under even light scrutiny but you do have two profiles to downvote people that might present alternative views. I think maybe you are a mosquito.
so you're saying it also works as human repellents?
I think those are just called repellents. Like using cheese instead of water in stews.
Well now I want to eat a cheese based stew. That sounds delicious.
Well… guess I’m fucked.
Eat more garlic and onion so your body just naturally repels the bastards. Avoid bananas.
Also works on humans
You're thinking of vampires.
Body hair though. Look like that armenian dad at the beach, and revel in your immunity to mosquitoes.
What if mosquitos start associating garlic and onion with blood meals? It's the same idea as the one mentioned in the article
The reason they work as a repellant for mosquitos after ingestion, iirc, is because it literally turns your blood to poison for them.
Well fuck.
Is there time?
what's the difference between me and a mosquito? If you slap me I don't stop sucking
squirt squirt
Mos: "jokes on you I'm into that shit"
Because, of course