Next Article in Journal
Potential Distribution of Tribe Erythroneurini in China Based on the R-Optimized MaxEnt Model, with Implications for Management
Previous Article in Journal
The Characteristics and Functions of SSRs and SNPs Based on the Transcriptome of Tuta absoluta Exposed to Different Concentrations of Abamectin and Chlorantraniliprole
Previous Article in Special Issue
Genome-Wide Identification and Expression Profiling of Glycosidases, Lipases, and Proteases from Invasive Asian Palm Weevil, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Larvicidal Activity of Extracts from the Artemisia arborescens L. Plant and Hyrtios erectus Sponge Against the Culex pipiens Mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae) and Toxicological Assessment on Danio rerio Zebrafish Embryos as Non-Target Organism

by
Sadeem A. Alqurashi
1,
Ashraf M. Ahmed
1,
Ali A. El Gamal
2,
Shaza M. Al-Massarani
2,
Omer A. Basudan
2,
Diaa T. A. Youssef
3,
Lamiaa A. Shaala
4 and
Muhammad Farooq Khan
1,*
1
Department of Zoology, College of Science, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
2
Department of Pharmacognosy, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2457, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
3
Department of Natural Products, Faculty of Pharmacy, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia
4
Suez Canal University Hospitals, Suez Canal University, Ismailia 41522, Egypt
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2025, 16(5), 448; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects16050448
Submission received: 22 March 2025 / Revised: 19 April 2025 / Accepted: 22 April 2025 / Published: 24 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Natural Metabolites as Biocontrol Agents of Insect Pests)

Simple Summary

The study investigates the larvicidal activity of methanolic extracts from Artemisia arborescens and Hyrtios erectus sponge against Culex pipiens mosquitoes. The extracts were prepared via maceration and were further fractionated using solvents of variable polarity. The results showed a significant difference in activity; the n-hexane fraction of A. arborescens had the highest effect, while H. erectus demonstrated greater overall larvicidal potency. Safety assessments revealed low toxicity of sponge extract on zebrafish embryos, suggesting H. erectus as a promising natural alternative for controlling mosquito populations and related diseases.

Abstract

There is a growing need for eco-friendly methods to control disease-carrying insects. The present study aimed to investigate the larvicidal activity of methanolic extracts and their various fractions from a plant, Artemisia arborescens L., and a marine sponge, Hyrtios erectus, against the mosquito, Culex pipiens L. Crude methanolic extracts of A. arborescens and H. erectus were prepared by maceration and successive fractionation were obtained using the liquid–liquid partition of crude extracts. The larvicidal activity of the extracts and their fractions was determined according to the WHO standard method. The results revealed that the n-hexane fraction of A. arborescens exhibited the highest larvicidal activity (LC50 346.74 μg/mL), exceeding the efficacy of the crude extract and other fractions. Furthermore, the sponge’s n-hexane (LC50 68.39 μg/mL), chloroform (LC50 63.03 μg/mL), and n-butanol (LC50 71.23 μg/mL) fractions showed a significant 3.9 to 4.5 times increase in the larvicidal potency compared to its crude extract (LC50 = 280.74 μg/mL). The safety of the sponge extracts was tested in the embryos of zebrafish as a non-target organism. In this regard, the crude methanolic extract and n-butanol fraction exhibited weak toxicity and chloroform fraction showed no detectable toxicity. This study suggests the H. erectus sponge as a source for developing safe natural substitutes for use in the battle against Cx. pipiens mosquito, which may help in reducing the spread of mosquito vectors and mosquito-borne diseases.

1. Introduction

Mosquitoes constitute a significant health threat worldwide, transmitting a wide range of deadly diseases that affect millions of people every year [1]. The Culex pipiens mosquito, commonly known as the house mosquito [2], holds significant medical importance due to its ability to transmit various human and animal pathogens [3]. This mosquito is a critical vector of arboviruses such as the West Nile virus (WNV) [4,5], St. Louis encephalitis virus (SLEV) [6], and the Usutu virus [7], which cause severe neurological disorders in humans. It also transmits the parasitic nematode responsible for lymphatic filariasis in humans [8], as well as avian malaria parasites (Plasmodium spp.), which threaten bird populations [9]. Its ability to adapt to urban and suburban environments frequently brings it into close contact with human populations, making it a significant global public health concern and necessitating continuous efforts to control its spread and reduce disease transmission [3,10]. Conventional synthetic pesticides, while still crucial in mosquito control, have significant drawbacks. Widespread use has resulted in adverse environmental impacts, including harm to non-target organisms, the emergence of pesticide-resistant mosquitoes, disruption of beneficial insects, outbreaks of secondary pests, and the accumulation of harmful residues in the environment [11,12,13]. These challenges, coupled with limited vaccines and treatments for many mosquito-borne diseases [14], have driven a growing demand within the research community to develop more sustainable and eco-friendly mosquito control strategies from natural sources.
Plant-derived insecticides have gained attention as sustainable alternatives to synthetic chemicals due to their biodegradability, low environmental persistence, and reduced risk of resistance development [15,16,17]. Among the diverse array of plants with insecticidal properties, the Artemisia genus, belonging to the Asteraceae family, stands out due to its rich repertoire of bioactive compounds. These plants produce a wide spectrum of secondary metabolites, including monoterpenes, sesquiterpenes, flavonoids, and phenolic compounds, all contributing to their potent insecticidal activity. The synergistic interactions between these compounds amplify their effectiveness, making members of the genus Artemisia particularly potent [18]. Artemisia extracts have demonstrated efficacy in controlling a broad range of insect pests in agriculture, stored-product protection, and public health, showcasing their versatility and potential [19].
On the other hand, the marine environment stands as an exceptional source of bioactive natural products, teeming with a diverse array of novel structures boasting unique biological properties often unparalleled in terrestrial sources. This remarkable richness can be attributed to the vast biodiversity and extreme conditions characteristic of marine ecosystems [20]. Marine sponges (Phylum: Porifera), the most ancient metazoan organisms, have emerged as a rich reservoir of biologically active compounds with significant potential for human applications. These organisms are increasingly recognized as promising alternatives to synthetic pesticides [21] and a valuable source of novel antimicrobial agents [22]. The diversity of marine sponges is extensive, with approximately 9432 species described globally [23]. However, only very few of these species have been investigated for their mosquito larvicidal properties, indicating a largely untapped potential in this field [24].
The current study aims to assess and compare the larvicidal activity of crude methanolic extracts and their fractions from the Artemisia arborescens (Vaill.) L. plant and the marine sponge Hyrtios erectus (Keller, 1889) against Culex pipiens, Linnaeus, 1758. Subsequently, the extracts showing the highest potency against mosquito larvae underwent safety testing via the zebrafish, Danio rerio (Hamilton, 1822), embryonic toxicity assay as a non-target organism.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Collection of Plant Materials

Aerial parts (leaves, stems, and flowers) of the plant A. arborescens (Tracheophyta: Asterales: Asteraceae) were harvested from the Jazan region, Saudi Arabia, during the flowering stage. The plant material was thoroughly rinsed with tap water to remove dust and surface contaminants, subsequently shade-dried at ambient temperature, and ground into a fine powder. Taxonomic identification was performed by Dr. Mohammed Yusuf, taxonomist of the Medicinal, Aromatic, and Poisonous Plants Research Center (MAPPRC), College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. A voucher specimen (#16079) was archived in the Pharmacognosy Department’s repository at the same institution.

2.2. Collection of a Marine Sponge

The H. erectus (Figure 1) marine sponge (Porifera: Dictyoceratida: Thorectidae) was collected by SCUBA diving at a depth of −30 m off Yanbu at the Saudi Red Sea Coast. The sponge specimens were gently detached by hand from the substrate, placed in plastic bags underwater, and frozen directly after collection. After transferring to the laboratory, the sponge materials were freeze-dried to ensure an efficient extraction process. The collected specimen was kindly identified by Rob van Soest. A sponge specimen was deposited at the Naturalis Museum, the Netherlands, under catalog number RMNH Por. 9178. Another specimen was deposited at the Red Sea Invertebrates Collection at King Abdulaziz University under code # DY-KSA-24.

2.3. Preparation of Crude Extract

Crude methanolic extracts of A. arborescens and H. erectus were prepared via room-temperature maceration according to [25]. For A. arborescens, 550 g of the air-dried powdered material underwent four extractions, each with 1 L of 95% methanol. The resulting extracts were filtered (Whatman No. 1) and concentrated by rotary evaporation at 40 °C under reduced pressure, yielding 13 g of crude methanolic extract. Similarly, 1.85 kg of freeze-dried H. erectus sponge was extracted five times, each with 2.5 L of absolute methanol. Following filtration and rotary evaporation at 40 °C, 100 g of crude extract was obtained.

2.3.1. Fractionation of Crude Extract

The crude methanolic extracts of A. arborescens and H. erectus were successively partitioned to obtain the corresponding fractions by liquid–liquid extraction following the method described by Otsuka [26]. Initially, each crude extract was dissolved in a methanol/water mixture. These solutions were then partitioned against solvents of increasing polarity: n-hexane, dichloromethane, and ethyl acetate for plant A. arborescens and n-hexane, chloroform, and n-butanol for sponge H. erectus. Using a separating funnel, each solvent fraction was separated and collected individually. The fractions were subsequently concentrated under reduced pressure using a rotary evaporator. The concentrated fractions were further dried to ensure the complete removal of the residual solvent. The yield of each fraction was determined by weighing, and the fractions were stored in the refrigerator at 4 °C for subsequent use.

2.3.2. Preparation of Stock Solution

A standard stock solution of 10 mg/mL of each crude methanolic extract and its fractions of plant and marine sponge were individually prepared by dissolving 100 mg of the dry material in 300 µL of dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO), followed by dilution with distilled water to reach a total volume of 10 mL. To ensure the complete solubility of the materials in the water, Triton X-100 (The Hartz Mountain Corporation, Secaucus, NJ, USA) was added as an emulsifier at a concentration of 0.005% in the final solution. The stock solutions were stored in a refrigerator at 4 °C to maintain stability and efficacy for subsequent experimental use.

2.4. Maintenance of Mosquitoes’ Colony

The house mosquito, Cx. pipiens, used in this study, was an insecticide-naïve laboratory strain reared in the insectary of the Zoology Department, College of Science, King Saud University for many years, and used for several similar studies in our group [27,28,29].
The information related to the strains and source of and how the mosquito colony was reared was essentially the same as described previously [30] under standardized conditions, at 28 °C and 70–80% relative humidity with a photoperiod of 12:12 (L:D) hours. Adult mosquitoes were maintained in netted cages (30 × 30 × 30 cm) and provided with a 10% sugar solution (w/v) ad libitum as an energy source. Larvae were reared in plastic trays containing dechlorinated water and fed a diet of ground Goldfish Flake Food (Warldley®, Las Vegas, NV, USA) until pupation. Pupae were collected daily and transferred to rearing cages for adult emergence. On the fifth to seventh day post-adult emergence, female mosquitoes were starved for 12 h before being offered a blood meal from a live, constrained pigeon for egg production. After three days, 300 mL plastic containers filled with tap water were provided to the gravid mosquitoes for oviposition. Egg rafts were collected and transferred to larval-rearing trays (30 × 20 × 12 cm).

2.5. Mosquito Larvicidal Bioassay

The larvicidal activity of each crude methanolic extract and its different fractions of both plant and marine sponge against the third larval instar of Cx. pipiens mosquitoes were evaluated according to the standard World Health Organization [31] method, with some modifications as described by Ahmed et al. [30]. The bioassays were conducted in 12-well tissue culture plates, with each well containing 10 larvae and five replicates per concentration. For A. arborescens, the tested concentrations included 1200, 1500, 1700, and 2000 μg/mL for the methanolic extract; 200, 300, 400, and 500 μg/mL for the n-hexane fraction; 1200, 1500, 1700, and 2000 μg/mL for the dichloromethane fraction; and 1800, 2000, 2300, and 2500 μg/mL for the ethyl acetate fraction. In the case of H. erectus, the methanolic extract was tested at 200, 300, 400, and 500 μg/mL; the n-hexane fraction at 60, 70, 80, and 100 μg/mL; the chloroform fraction at 50, 70, 90, and 100 μg/mL; and the n-butanol fraction at 60, 80, 120, and 150 μg/mL. The selection of these concentrations was determined based on preliminary screening tests. Two sets of control groups were used in the experiment, one exposed to DMSO (control-1) and the other to Triton X-100 (control-2). The bioassays lasted for 48 h, with larval mortality being observed at 24 and 48 h post-treatment.
If mortality percentages in the control groups fell within the range of 5% to 20%, Abbott’s formula [32] was used to adjust the percentage mortality in the treatments via utilizing the formula shown below:
C o r r e c t e d   m o r t a l i t y   ( % ) = %   t r e a t m e n t   m o r t a l i t y %   c o n t r o l   m o r t a l i t y 100 %   c o n t r o l   m o r t a l i t y × 100

2.6. Evalution of Biotoxicity Against Non-Target Organisms

The extracts showing the highest larvicidal activity against mosquito larvae underwent toxicological testing. The wild-type strain of zebrafish was reared and maintained at the Bioproducts Research Chair, Department of Zoology, King Saud University, at 28 °C and photoperiod of 14 light:10 dark. The embryotoxicity assessment of the zebrafish was conducted following the method described by Abutaha et al. [33] with a slight modification. Zebrafish embryos were exposed to various concentrations of crude methanolic extract of marine sponge and its derived fractions in a 12-well plate, with a DMSO and Triton X-100 mixture serving as the control. Each well consisted of three embryos and the experiment was performed in triplicate. The plates were maintained at a constant temperature of 28 °C. Observations on embryo mortality (defined by coagulation and the absence of a heartbeat), hatchability, and malformations were made at 24, 48, and 72 h post-treatment using a dissection microscope. Images were captured using an Olympus SZ10 Stereo microscope fitted with a DP72 camera (Tokyo, Japan) and analyzed by the CellsSense standard (Olympus) software (version 3.2). The biosafety index (BI) is determined using the formula established by Moungthipmalai et al. [34] to evaluate the potential toxicity associated with the marine sponge extracts under investigation.
B i o s a f e t y   i n d e x   ( B I ) = L C 50   o f   n o n - t a r g e t   o r g a n i s m L C 50   o f   t a r g e t   o r g a n i s m
A biosafety index (BI) greater than 1 indicates that the treatment is safe for non-target organisms. In contrast, a BI of less than 1 suggests that the treatment is harmful to non-target organisms. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee at King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, with the approval reference number KSU-SE-23-61 dated 21 June 2023.

2.7. Statistical Analysis

The larvicidal bioassay data underwent Probit analysis following Finney’s method [35] to determine the LC50 and LC90 values (µg/mL) along with their 95% confidence limits (lower and upper limits), Slope ± SE, and Chi-square value utilizing the LdP Line software available online: https://www.ehabsoft.com/ldpline/ (accessed on 24 February 2025). Treatments were deemed non-significantly different in toxicity if the 95% confidence intervals overlapped, as observed by [36].

3. Results

3.1. Mosquito Larvicidal Activity

This study compared the larvicidal activity of the local plant, A. arborescens, and the marine sponge, H. erectus, derived extracts and fractions against the third larval instar of Cx. pipiens larvae mosquito at 24 and 48 h post-treatment.
As shown in Table 1, the crude methanolic extract of A. arborescens and its three fractions (n-hexane, dichloromethane, and ethyl acetate) exhibited larvicidal efficacy against Cx. pipiens larvae. The n-hexane fraction exhibited the highest larvicidal activity against the mosquito larvae in comparison to the other plant treatments, causing mortality rates ranging from 8% to 86% at concentrations of 200 to 500 µg/mL. The crude methanolic extract and dichloromethane fraction were moderately effective against mosquito larvae, while the lowest activity was observed for the ethyl acetate fraction, which induced mortality rates ranging from 4% to 64% at concentrations between 1800 µg/mL and 2500 µg/mL.
A Probit analysis of the A. arborescens crude methanolic extract and its fractions’ potency produced the 24 h and 48 h LC50 and LC90 values, respectively, shown in Table 2.
Non-overlapping confidence intervals between plant treatments confirmed statistically significant differences in larval sensitivity. However, comparisons of LC50 values across exposure periods (24 vs. 48 h) for the individual treatment showed overlapping confidence intervals, indicating no significant time-dependent differences in larval susceptibility except for the n-hexane fraction, whose LC50 reduction from 346.74 µg/mL to 289.78 µg/mL reflected a significant increase in potency over time.
Table 3 presents the larvicidal activity of the H. erectus marine sponge crude methanolic extract and its fractions against mosquito larvae. The results revealed a significant contrast in efficacy between the crude extract and its derived fractions. The crude methanolic extract showed lower activity, inducing mortality rates varying from 20% to 92% at concentrations ranging from 200 µg/mL to 500 µg/mL. On the contrary, the chloroform fraction exhibited remarkable activity, with a mortality rate of 22% at a low concentration of 50 µg/mL, escalating to 96% at a higher concentration of 100 µg/mL within 24 h post-treatment. The n-hexane and n-butanol fractions demonstrated comparable toxicity levels to the chloroform fraction against the targeted mosquito larvae.
A Probit analysis of the H. erectus methanolic, n-hexane, chloroform, and n-butanol fraction potency produced the 24 h and 48 h LC50 and LC90 values, respectively, shown in Table 4.
The effectiveness of the methanolic extract of H. erectus marine sponge against mosquito larvae was significantly different from its three derived fractions. This was evident by the non-overlapping confidence intervals for the LC50 values after the exposure periods. Essentially, the n-hexane, chloroform, and n-butanol fractions demonstrated greater larvicidal potency compared to the crude methanolic extract by approximately 4.1, 4.5, and 3.9 times, respectively. On the other hand, there was no significant difference among the three fractions themselves in terms of their efficiency, as indicated by the overlapping confidence limits of the LC50 values. This suggests that these fractions had similar toxic effects on the targeted larvae mosquitoes. Additionally, the larvicidal effectiveness of the crude methanolic extract and chloroform fraction of H. erectus marine sponge is significantly influenced by the duration of exposure, unlike the n-butanol and n-hexane fractions, as indicated by the non-overlapping in confidence limits for the LC50 values at two different periods.

3.2. Biotoxicity Against Non-Target Organisms

The toxicological effect of the crude methanolic extract of H. erectus and its fraction on zebrafish embryos is displayed in Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6. The crude methanolic extract showed a concentration-dependent response of zebrafish embryo toxicity towards H. erectus crude and solvent fractions. There was a direct correlation between increasing extract concentrations and greater mortality percentages among the embryos, ranging from 22.2% at the lowest concentration to a complete mortality percentage of 100% at the highest concentration after 72 h of exposure (Figure 2). This increase in toxicity corresponded with reduced hatching percentages across all the tested concentrations, with the group exposed to 1000 µg/mL showing no successful hatching. The n-hexane fraction demonstrated a clear distinction in embryonic mortality and hatching success between lower and higher concentration groups (Figure 3). No mortality was observed at the lower concentrations of 10 and 25 µg/mL, and all the embryos hatched successfully. In contrast, a significant increase in mortality percentages was observed in the embryos exposed to higher extract concentrations, particularly at 30 and 35 µg/mL, where the mortality percentage reached 100%. Conversely, the survival of the zebrafish embryos was not adversely affected by the chloroform fraction across the tested concentration range of 300 to 600 µg/mL (Figure 4). Remarkably, all the chloroform fraction concentrations demonstrated a complete hatching rate, indicating that the extract does not pose a significant threat to embryo survival within this range. However, it is noteworthy that at the concentration of 500 µg/mL, a slight decrease in the hatching percentage was observed, with 88.9% of the embryos successfully hatching. The n-butanol fraction had variable impacts on zebrafish embryos depending on the concentration administered (Figure 5). No adverse effects were observed at 300 µg/mL, with a complete hatching percentage of the embryos. However, when the concentration was increased to 400 µg/mL, a notable mortality rate of 22.2% was recorded, indicating that this concentration begins to exert detrimental effects on embryo survival. Further increases in concentration to 500 µg/mL and 600 µg/mL resulted in an identical mortality percentage of 44.4%, suggesting a significant escalation in toxicity at these higher levels. The consistent mortality rate at both concentrations implies that the embryos experience similar levels of toxicological impact, regardless of the slight increase in concentration. Overall, the hatching embryos developed normally with no observable differences in morphology or growth compared to the control group (Figure 6).
The biosafety indexes (BIs) presented in Table 5 indicate that both the n-butanol fraction and crude methanolic extract of H. erectus are safe for the zebrafish embryos. The n-butanol fraction showed remarkable safety with a high BI of 8.85 and an LC50 of 616.47 µg/mL (551.40–854.78 µg/mL). The crude methanolic extract also demonstrated safety with a BI of 1.82 and an LC50 of 511 µg/mL (462.54–566.34 µg/mL). On the other hand, the determination of LC50 values for the n-hexane and chloroform fractions on the zebrafish embryos cannot be calculated due to insufficient data in the observed mortality percentages across the concentration ranges tested in this study. Consequently, this limitation prevented the reliable construction of a linearized concentration–response curve, which is essential for accurately calculating LC50 values. The significantly lower concentrations of n-hexane fraction showed toxicity in the zebrafish embryos as compared to its larvicidal activity in mosquitoes, strongly suggesting its high acute toxicity in the zebrafish embryos. Conversely, the chloroform fraction was safe even at significantly higher concentrations in the zebrafish embryos than those applied to mosquito larvae, suggesting the potential safety of this extract for the zebrafish embryos at the tested concentrations.

4. Discussion

The search for eco-friendly pesticide alternatives from natural sources, particularly for mosquito control, has gained significant attention, driven by a global shift toward eco-conscious solutions over harmful synthetic chemical insecticides. Nature harbors a wealth of bioactive compounds, with plants and marine organisms being vital sources of bioactive molecules, offering beneficial compounds for a wide range of applications, including mosquito control [24,37].
The study revealed significant variations in larvicidal efficacy among the tested extracts and fractions derived from both the plant and the marine sponge. Among the plant-derived extracts from A. arborescens, the n-hexane fraction was the most potent plant-based larvicide with LC50 of 346.74 μg/mL, showing significantly higher activity than the A. arborescens methanolic extract and other its fractions (dichloromethane and ethyl acetate).
The observed variability in larvicidal efficacy among A. arborescens crude extract and its fractions in this study can be attributed to the differing polarities of the solvents used in fractionation, which directly influence their ability to solubilize and concentrate bioactive constituents [38,39].
This finding supports the established mosquitocidal potential of various Artemisia species, known for their effectiveness against different mosquito developmental stages. The A. arborescens n-hexane fraction exhibited superior larvicidal activity, exceeding the effectiveness previously reported for extracts from French Artemisia molinieri (LC50 9091 ppm) and A. campestris var. glutinosa (LC50 9898 ppm) against Cx. pipiens larvae after 48 h [40]. Similarly, its efficacy surpassed that reported for Indian A. absinthium methanolic (LC50 888.6 ppm) and ethanolic (LC50 694.3 ppm) extracts against 4th instar Aedes aegypti larvae [41]. In contrast, essential oils derived from Moroccan Artemisia species displayed even stronger larvicidal activity against Cx. pipiens, outperforming the current study’s results with calculated LC50 values of 11.11 μg/mL for A. arborescens, 16.98 μg/mL for A. absinthium, and 19.07 μg/mL for A. campestris [42]. Likewise, Moroccan A. flahaultii (LC50 29.328 ppm) and A. annua (LC50 278.539 ppm) essential oils also demonstrated notable efficacy against the same species, while A. aragonensis (LC50 2373.75 ppm) exhibited lower larvicidal activity than the A. arborescens methanolic extract and its fractions in this study, except for the ethyl acetate fraction [40].
The marine sponge H. erectus extracts showed promising results regarding larvicidal activity. Overall, these sponge-derived extracts (including both crude and fractionated forms) exhibited significantly higher potency compared to all the tested plant-derived extracts. This observation underscores the potential of marine organisms as a rich source of unique bioactive compounds for mosquito control. Notably, three H. erectus fractions—n-hexane, chloroform, and n-butanol—demonstrated remarkable efficacy with LC50 values of 68.39 μg/mL, 63.03 μg/mL, and 71.23 μg/mL, respectively. These fractions showed 3.9 to 4.5 times greater larvicidal activity than the crude methanolic sponge extract. This substantial increase in potency highlights the enhanced effectiveness achieved through fractionation, particularly for marine sponge extracts.
According to the available research, there is no specific information about the mosquitocidal or larvicidal activity of the marine sponge H. erectus against mosquitoes. Therefore, this study represents the first investigation into the larvicidal properties of the crude methanolic extract of H. erectus and its fractions derived using solvents of varying polarities on Culex larvae. This is particularly significant given the limited literature on the larvicidal effects of this sponge species, necessitating comparisons with other marine-derived agents. The H. erectus fractions demonstrated the highest larvicidal activity, surpassing previously reported results for the Indian marine sponge Cliona celata, which was tested against Anopheles stephensi, Ae. aegypti, and Cx. quinquefasciatus, with LC50 values ranging from 80.61 to 364.71 ppm [24,43]. Although the methanolic extract of H. erectus was the least potent among its fractions (LC50 = 280.74 μg/mL), it still outperformed the hexane extract of C. celata against Aedes aegypti (LC50 = 364.71 ppm). In contrast, significantly stronger larvicidal effects were reported for other marine-derived agents. For example, the Red Sea marine sponge Amphimedon chloros, when combined with carbon nanotubes, achieved an LC50 of 15.569 ppm against Ae. aegypti [44]. Similarly, a biosurfactant produced by Enterobacter cloacae SJ2, isolated from the marine sponge Clathria sp., exhibited a 48 h LC50 of 26.49 mg/L against Cx. quinquefasciatus [45], both demonstrate greater potency than the H. erectus extracts evaluated in this study.
The present study also sought to provide insights into the toxicological effects of H. erectus crude methanolic extracts and its fractions using the embryos of zebrafish as the vertebrate model. The zebrafish embryos have emerged as valuable models for assessing toxicity, offering several advantages over traditional mammalian models. Their rapid development, with major organs forming within 24 h post-fertilization, allows for the quick assessment of developmental toxicity [46,47]. Embryo transparency enables the real-time, non-invasive observation of morphological changes and organ development [48]. The zebrafish embryo toxicity test (ZFET) has shown a strong correlation with mammalian toxicity data, making it suitable for chemical screening and hazard assessment. This model is particularly useful for assessing specific organ toxicities, including neurotoxic, cardiotoxic, hepatotoxic, and genotoxic effects. Additionally, it offers ethical and cost-effective advantages, potentially reducing the use of mammalian models in early-stage toxicity testing [49].
The recent findings from the toxicology study revealed that the zebrafish embryos exhibited varying levels of response to the tested marine sponge over 72 h of exposure. They were least responsive to n-butanol fraction, with biosafety indexes of 8.85. Similarly, the zebrafish embryos showed less susceptibility to the crude methanolic extract, with a biosafety index of 1.82. In contrast, the n-hexane fraction demonstrated high toxicity levels at concentrations exceeding 25 µg/mL. Whereas, the chloroform fraction showed no toxic effects at most concentrations tested, except for slight toxicity at 500 µg/mL. These findings align with previous studies that have explored the toxicological impacts of marine sponge extracts on zebrafish embryos. For instance, A study by Carnovali et al. [50] revealed that eight compounds isolated from the marine sponge Aplysina aerophoba exhibited varying toxicity profiles in zebrafish embryos. While compounds showed mild toxicity at later stages, aerophobin-1 demonstrated low toxicity above 1 μM, and aerophobin-2 and LL-PAA216 were non-toxic. In contrast, uranidine and fistularin-3 exhibited high toxicity, with uranidine causing embryo death at all concentrations and fistularin-3 inducing death at 48 h post-fertilization and causing pericardial edema at higher concentrations. Hanif et al. reported that araguspongines alkaloid isolated from the marine sponge Neopetrosia chaliniformis was toxic to zebrafish embryos, with an LC50 value of 4.3 µg/mL at 48 hpf and 3.6 µg/mL at 72 hpf. The study also observed significant teratogenic effects, including malformations and cell death in embryos, with 76% exhibiting abnormalities [51]. The varying toxicity profiles observed across different fractions and concentrations in this study emphasize the need for further research to understand the underlying mechanisms of these differential toxicities and their potential implications for pharmaceutical and environmental applications.

5. Conclusions

This study is considered an initial step towards implementing natural products in the battle against this Filaria vector as it highlighted the promising potential of eco-friendly alternatives for mosquito control derived from natural sources. The significant variations in larvicidal efficacy observed among the tested extracts, with A. arborescens and the marine sponge H. erectus showing notable effectiveness, underline the richness of natural biodiversity in providing viable solutions to combat mosquito populations. Furthermore, the investigation into the toxicological effects utilizing zebrafish embryos provides critical insights into the safety profiles of these extracts. The varying responses observed across different fractions and concentrations highlight the need for careful assessment to balance efficacy against potential toxicity. Given the escalating concerns over synthetic insecticides and their environmental impact, the findings from this study advocate for further exploration and development of these natural extracts. Continued research could lead to the formulation of effective and safe mosquito control agents, contributing to sustainable pest management practices while minimizing ecological disruption. Overall, this study paves the way for the integration of natural products as viable alternatives in integrated pest management systems, promoting a healthier, more sustainable environment. This necessitates conducting more future studies for the phytochemical characterization of these extracts and their possible synergistic activity against mosquito larvae. Moreover, semi-field experiments should be conducted prior to a wide-range field application.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.M.A., A.A.E.G. and M.F.K.; methodology, S.A.A., A.M.A., A.A.E.G., S.M.A.-M., O.A.B., D.T.A.Y., L.A.S. and M.F.K.; validation, A.M.A., A.A.E.G. and M.F.K.; formal analysis, A.M.A., A.A.E.G. and M.F.K.; investigation, S.A.A., S.M.A.-M., O.A.B., D.T.A.Y. and L.A.S. resources, A.M.A., A.A.E.G. and M.F.K.; data curation, S.A.A., A.M.A., A.A.E.G., S.M.A.-M., O.A.B., D.T.A.Y., L.A.S. and M.F.K.; writing—original draft preparation, S.A.A., S.M.A.-M. and M.F.K.; writing—review and editing, S.A.A., A.M.A., A.A.E.G., S.M.A.-M., O.A.B., D.T.A.Y., L.A.S. and M.F.K.; supervision, A.M.A., A.A.E.G. and M.F.K.; project administration, A.M.A. funding acquisition, A.M.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research has been funded by the Researchers Supporting Project number (RSPD2025R695), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee at King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (Reference number KSU-SE-23-61 dated 21 June 2023).

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We thank Researchers Supporting Project number (RSPD2025R695), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, for funding this research. We also thank Rob van Soest, Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden, The Netherlandst for the identification of the sponge material.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Siam, M.H.; Owaresat, J.; Khan, A. Mosquito Control Management Using Phytochemicals: A Review. Int. J. Mosq. Res. 2022, 9, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Saleem, M.A.; Lobanova, I. Mosquito-Borne Diseases. In Dengue Virus Disease: From Origin to Outbreak; Qureshi, A.I., Saeed, O., Eds.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 57–83. ISBN 9780128182703. [Google Scholar]
  3. Farajollahi, A.; Fonseca, D.M.; Kramer, L.D.; Marm Kilpatrick, A. “Bird Biting” Mosquitoes and Human Disease: A Review of the Role of Culex pipiens Complex Mosquitoes in Epidemiology. Infect. Genet. and Evol. 2011, 11, 1577–1585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Gangoso, L.; Aragonés, D.; Martínez-de la Puente, J.; Lucientes, J.; Delacour-Estrella, S.; Estrada Peña, R.; Montalvo, T.; Bueno-Marí, R.; Bravo-Barriga, D.; Frontera, E.; et al. Determinants of the Current and Future Distribution of the West Nile Virus Mosquito Vector Culex pipiens in Spain. Environ. Res. 2020, 188, 109837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Brugman, V.A.; Hernández-Triana, L.M.; Medlock, J.M.; Fooks, A.R.; Carpenter, S.; Johnson, N. The Role of Culex pipiens L. (Diptera: Culicidae) in Virus Transmission in Europe. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Turell, M.J. Members of the Culex pipiens Complex as Vectors of Viruses1. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 2012, 28, 123–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Fros, J.J.; Miesen, P.; Vogels, C.B.; Gaibani, P.; Sambri, V.; Martina, B.E.; Koenraadt, C.J.; van Rij, R.P.; Vlak, J.M.; Takken, W.; et al. Comparative Usutu and West Nile Virus Transmission Potential by Local Culex pipiens Mosquitoes in North-Western Europe. One Health 2015, 1, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Kassem, Y.E.; El-Baghdady, K.Z.; Saleh, N.E.M.; Wahba, M.M.I. Biological Control of Culex pipiens Mosquito by Local Bacterial Isolates. Afr. J. Biol. Sci. 2018, 14, 21–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ferraguti, M.; Heesterbeek, H.; Martínez-de la Puente, J.; Jiménez-Clavero, M.Á.; Vázquez, A.; Ruiz, S.; Llorente, F.; Roiz, D.; Vernooij, H.; Soriguer, R.; et al. The Role of Different Culex Mosquito Species in the Transmission of West Nile Virus and Avian Malaria Parasites in Mediterranean Areas. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2021, 68, 920–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Marcolin, L.; Zardini, A.; Longo, E.; Caputo, B.; Poletti, P.; Di Marco, M. Mapping the Habitat Suitability of Culex Pipiens in Europe Using Ensemble Bioclimatic Modelling. bioRxiv 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wani, J.A.; Wali, A.F.; Majid, S.; Rasool, S.; Rehman, M.U.; Rashid, S.M.; Ali, S.; Farooq, S.; Rasool, S.; Ahmad, A.; et al. Bio-Pesticides: Application and Possible Mechanism of Action. In Bioremediation and Biotechnology; Bhat, R.A., Hakeem, K.R., Dervash, M.A., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; Volume 2, pp. 97–119. ISBN 9783030403331. [Google Scholar]
  12. Meier, C.J.; Rouhier, M.F.; Hillyer, J.F. Chemical Control of Mosquitoes and the Pesticide Treadmill: A Case for Photosensitive Insecticides as Larvicides. Insects 2022, 13, 1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Gajger, I.T.; Dar, S.A. Plant Allelochemicals as Sources of Insecticides. Insects 2021, 12, 189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Cuervo-Parra, J.A.; Cortés, T.R.; Ramirez-Lepe, M. Mosquito-Borne Diseases, Pesticides Used for Mosquito Control, and Development of Resistance to Insecticides. In Insecticides Resistance; Trdan, S., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2016; Volume 2, pp. 111–134. [Google Scholar]
  15. Thongni, A.; Ariina, M.S.; Susngi, W.E. Botanical Pesticides- An Alternative for Insect Pest Management. Just Agric. 2023, 3, 49–58. [Google Scholar]
  16. Gharsan, F.N. A Review of the Bioactivity of Plant Products Against Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). J. Entomol. Sci. 2019, 54, 256–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Souto, A.L.; Sylvestre, M.; Tölke, E.D.; Tavares, J.F.; Barbosa-Filho, J.M.; Cebrián-Torrejón, G. Plant-Derived Pesticides as an Alternative to Pest Management and Sustainable Agricultural Production: Prospects, Applications and Challenges. Molecules 2021, 26, 4835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ivănescu, B.; Burlec, A.F.; Crivoi, F.; Roșu, C.; Corciovă, A. Secondary Metabolites from Artemisia Genus as Biopesticides and Innovative Nano-based Application Strategies. Molecules 2021, 26, 3061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Pandey, A.K.; Singh, P. The Genus Artemisia: A 2012–2017 Literature Review on Chemical Composition, Antimicrobial, Insecticidal and Antioxidant Activities of Essential Oils. Medicines 2017, 4, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Joseph, B.; Sujatha, S.; Jeevitha, M.V. Screening of Pesticidal Activities of Some Marine Sponge Extracts against Chosen Pests. J. Biopest. 2010, 3, 495–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mathivanan, A.; Ravikumar, S.; Selvakumar, G. Bioprospecting of Sponge and Its Symbionts: New Tool for Mosquitocidal & Insecticidal Metabolites. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2019, 19, 101158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Varijakzhan, D.; Loh, J.Y.; Yap, W.S.; Yusoff, K.; Seboussi, R.; Lim, S.H.E.; Lai, K.S.; Chong, C.M. Bioactive Compounds from Marine Sponges: Fundamentals and Applications. Mar. Drugs 2021, 19, 246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Anteneh, Y.S.; Yang, Q.; Brown, M.H.; Franco, C.M.M. Factors Affecting the Isolation and Diversity of Marine Sponge-Associated Bacteria. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2022, 106, 1729–1744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Reegan, A.D.; Kinsalin, A.V.; Paulraj, M.G.; Ignacimuthu, S. Larvicidal, Ovicidal, and Repellent Activities of Marine Sponge Cliona celata (Grant) Extracts against Culex quinquefasciatus Say and Aedes aegypti L. (Diptera: Culicidae). ISRN Entomol. 2013, 2013, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. El-Gamal, A.A.; Al-Massarani, S.M.; Shaala, L.A.; Alahdald, A.M.; Al-Said, M.S.; Ashour, A.E.; Kumar, A.; Abdel-Kader, M.S.; Abdel-Mageed, W.M.; Youssef, D.T.A. Cytotoxic Compounds from the Saudi Red Sea Sponge Xestospongia testudinaria. Mar. Drugs 2016, 14, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Otsuka, H. Purification by Solvent Extraction Using Partition Coefficient. In Natural Products Isolation; Sarker, S.D., Latif, Z., Gary, A.I., Eds.; Humana Press Inc.: Totowa, NJ, USA, 2006; pp. 269–370. [Google Scholar]
  27. Ahmed, A.M.; Hussein, H.I.; El-Kersh, T.A.; Al-Sheikh, Y.A.; Ayaad, T.H.; El-Sadawy, H.A.; Al-Mekhlafi, F.A.; Ibrahim, M.S.; Al-Tamimi, J.; Nasr, F.A. Larvicidal Activities of Indigenous Bacillus thuringiensis Isolates and Nematode Symbiotic Bacterial Toxins against the Mosquito Vector, Culex pipiens (Diptera: Culicidae). J. Arthropod-Borne Dis. 2017, 11, 260–277. [Google Scholar]
  28. El-Sadawy, H.A.; El Namaky, A.H.; Hafez, E.E.; Baiome, B.A.; Ahmed, A.M.; Ashry, H.M.; Ayaad, T.H. Silver Nanoparticles Enhance the Larvicidal Toxicity of Photorhabdus and Xenorhabdus Bacterial Toxins: An Approach to Control the Filarial Vector, Culex pipiens. Trop. Biomed. 2018, 35, 392–407. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  29. Abutaha, N.; Mashaly, A.M.A.; Al-Mekhlafi, F.A.; Farooq, M.; Al-shami, M.; Wadaan, M.A. Larvicidal Activity of Endophytic Fungal Extract of Cochliobolus spicifer (Pleosporales: Pleosporaceae) on Aedes caspius and Culex pipiens (Diptera: Culicidae). Appl. Entomol. Zool. 2015, 50, 405–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ahmed, A.M.; El-Kersh, T.A.; Hussein, H.I.; Ayaad, T.H.; El-Sadawy, H.A.; Ibrahim, M.S.; Amoudi, M.A.; Aseery, G.M. Larvicidal Activities of Local Bacillus thuringiensis Isolates and Toxins from Nematode Bacterial Symbionts against the Rift Valley Fever Vector, Aedes caspius (Diptera: Culicidae). J. Afr. Zool. 2021, 56, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. WHO. Guidelines for Laboratory and Field Testing of Mosquito Larvicides; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2005; Available online: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/69101/WHO_CDS_WHOPES_GCDPP_2005.13.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed on 24 January 2025).
  32. Abbott, W.S. A Method of Computing the Effectiveness of an Insecticide. J. Econ. Entomol. 1925, 18, 265–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Abutaha, N.; Al-Mekhlafi, F.A.; Farooq, M. Target and Nontarget Toxicity of Cassia fistula Fruit Extract Against Culex pipiens (Diptera: Culicidae), Lung Cells (BEAS-2B) and Zebrafish (Danio rerio) Embryos. J. Med. Entomol. 2020, 57, 493–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Moungthipmalai, T.; Puwanard, C.; Aungtikun, J.; Sittichok, S.; Soonwera, M. Ovicidal Toxicity of Plant Essential Oils and Their Major Constituents against Two Mosquito Vectors and Their Non-Target Aquatic Predators. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 2119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Finney, D.J. Probit Analysis: A Statistical Treatment of the Sigmoid Response Curve, 3rd ed.; Cambridge University Press: London, UK, 1947. [Google Scholar]
  36. Litchfield, J.T.; Wilcoxon, F. A Simplified Method of Evaluating Dose-Effect Experiments. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 1949, 92, 99–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Pavela, R. Essential Oils for the Development of Eco-Friendly Mosquito Larvicides: A Review. Ind. Crops. Prod. 2015, 76, 174–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Akinmoladun, A.C.; Falaiye, O.E.; Ojo, O.B.; Adeoti, A.; Amoo, Z.A.; Olaleye, M.T. Effect of Extraction Technique, Solvent Polarity, and Plant Matrix on the Antioxidant Properties of Chrysophyllum albidum G. Don (African Star Apple). Bull. Natl. Res. Cent. 2022, 46, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Nawaz, H.; Shad, M.A.; Rehman, N.; Andaleeb, H.; Ullah, N. Effect of Solvent Polarity on Extraction Yield and Antioxidant Properties of Phytochemicals from Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) Seeds. Braz. J. Pharm. Sci. 2020, 56, e17129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Chebbac, K.; Abchir, O.; Chalkha, M.; El Moussaoui, A.; El kasmi-Alaoui, M.; Lafraxo, S.; Chtita, S.; Alanazi, M.M.; Alanazi, A.S.; Hefnawy, M.; et al. Larvicidal Properties of Essential Oils of Three Artemisia species against the Chemically Insecticide-Resistant Nile Fever Vector Culex pipiens (L.) (Diptera: Culicidae): In Vitro and in Silico Studies. Open Chem 2024, 22, 20240108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sofi, M.A.; Nanda, A.; Sofi, M.A.; Maduraiveeran, R.; Nazir, S.; Siddiqui, N.; Nadeem, A.; Shah, Z.A.; Rehman, M.U. Larvicidal Activity of Artemisia absinthium Extracts with Special Reference to Inhibition of Detoxifying Enzymes in Larvae of Aedes aegypti L. J. King Saud Univ. Sci. 2022, 34, 102248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Alami, A.; Ez zoubi, Y.; Fadil, M.; Annemer, S.; Bassouya, M.; Moustaid, W.; Farah, A. Exploring Ternary Essential Oil Mixtures of Moroccan Artemisia species for Larvicidal Effectiveness Against Culex pipiens Mosquitoes: A Mixture Design Approach. J Parasitol. Res. 2025, 2025, 2379638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Reegan, A.D.; Kinsalin, A.V.; Paulraj, M.G.; Ignacimuthu, S. Larvicidal, Ovicidal and Repellent Activities of Marine Sponge Cliona celata (Grant) Extracts against Anopheles stephensi Liston (Diptera: Culicidae). Asian Pac. J. Trop. Med. 2015, 8, 29–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Alkenani, N.A.; Basabreen, M.A.; Shaala, L.A.; Alshaeri, M.A.; Mahyoub, J.A.; Ullah, I.; Algamdi, K.M.; Youssef, D.T. Larvicidal Effects of Carbon Nanotubes Loaded with Selected Marine Sponges Extracts. Arch. Pharm. Pract. 2021, 12, 100–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Harikrishnan, S.; Sudarshan, S.; Sivasubramani, K.; Nandini, M.S.; Narenkumar, J.; Ramachandran, V.; Almutairi, B.O.; Arunkumar, P.; Rajasekar, A.; Jayalakshmi, S. Larvicidal and Anti-Termite Activities of Microbial Biosurfactant Produced by Enterobacter cloacae SJ2 Isolated from Marine Sponge Clathria sp. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 15153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Truong, L.; Harper, S.L.; Tanguay, R.L. Evaluation of Embryotoxicity Using the Zebrafish Model. Methods Mol. Biol. 2011, 691, 271–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bauer, B.; Mally, A.; Liedtke, D. Zebrafish Embryos and Larvae as Alternative Animal Models for Toxicity Testing. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 13417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Jayasinghe, C.D.; Jayawardena, U.A. Toxicity Assessment of Herbal Medicine Using Zebrafish Embryos: A Systematic Review. J. Evid. Based Complementary Altern. Med. 2019, 2019, 7272808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Caballero, M.V.; Candiracci, M. Zebrafish as Screening Model for Detecting Toxicity and Drugs Efficacy. J. Unexplored Med. Data 2018, 3, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Carnovali, M.; Ciavatta, M.L.; Mollo, E.; Roussis, V.; Banfi, G.; Carbone, M.; Mariotti, M. Aerophobin-1 from the Marine Sponge Aplysina aerophoba Modulates Osteogenesis in Zebrafish Larvae. Mar. Drugs. 2022, 20, 135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hanif, N.; Ardianti, R.; Ahmadi, P.; Setiawan, A.; Mohamad, K.; de Voogd, N.J.; Murni, A.; Tanaka, J. Ichthyotoxic Principles against Zebrafish Embryos from the Indonesian Marine Sponge Neopetrosia chaliniformis. J. Appl. Pharm. Sci. 2018, 8, 044–048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Underwater (−30 m) photograph of the Red Sea sponge H. erectus.
Figure 1. Underwater (−30 m) photograph of the Red Sea sponge H. erectus.
Insects 16 00448 g001
Figure 2. The toxicity effect of the crude methanolic extract of H. erectus marine sponge on the zebrafish embryos.
Figure 2. The toxicity effect of the crude methanolic extract of H. erectus marine sponge on the zebrafish embryos.
Insects 16 00448 g002
Figure 3. The toxicity effect of the n-hexane fraction derived from the crude methanolic extract of H. erectus marine sponge on the zebrafish embryos.
Figure 3. The toxicity effect of the n-hexane fraction derived from the crude methanolic extract of H. erectus marine sponge on the zebrafish embryos.
Insects 16 00448 g003
Figure 4. The toxicity effect of the chloroform fraction derived from the crude methanolic extract of H. erectus marine sponge on the zebrafish embryos.
Figure 4. The toxicity effect of the chloroform fraction derived from the crude methanolic extract of H. erectus marine sponge on the zebrafish embryos.
Insects 16 00448 g004
Figure 5. The toxicity effect of the n-butanol fraction derived from the crude methanolic extract of H. erectus marine sponge on the zebrafish embryos.
Figure 5. The toxicity effect of the n-butanol fraction derived from the crude methanolic extract of H. erectus marine sponge on the zebrafish embryos.
Insects 16 00448 g005
Figure 6. Biosafety evaluation of H. eretus in the zebrafish embryos. Representative micrographs of the zebrafish embryos at 3 days post-fertilization were treated with the crude methanolic extract of the marine sponge H. erectus and its various fractions. The embryos treated with the crude methanolic extract (B), as well as the n-hexane (<25 µL) (C), chloroform (D), and n-butanol (E) fractions, developed normally with no observable differences in morphology or growth compared to the control group (A). However, the embryos exposed to a higher concentration of n-hexane (>25 µL) showed complete lethality (F). Additionally, unhatched embryos were also observed in some treatments (G).
Figure 6. Biosafety evaluation of H. eretus in the zebrafish embryos. Representative micrographs of the zebrafish embryos at 3 days post-fertilization were treated with the crude methanolic extract of the marine sponge H. erectus and its various fractions. The embryos treated with the crude methanolic extract (B), as well as the n-hexane (<25 µL) (C), chloroform (D), and n-butanol (E) fractions, developed normally with no observable differences in morphology or growth compared to the control group (A). However, the embryos exposed to a higher concentration of n-hexane (>25 µL) showed complete lethality (F). Additionally, unhatched embryos were also observed in some treatments (G).
Insects 16 00448 g006
Table 1. Larvicidal activity of the crude methanolic extract of A. arborescens and its fractions of various solvents against 3rd instar larvae of Cx. pipiens mosquito.
Table 1. Larvicidal activity of the crude methanolic extract of A. arborescens and its fractions of various solvents against 3rd instar larvae of Cx. pipiens mosquito.
Extract/FractionConcentration
(µg/mL)
Mean Mortality% ± SE
Exposure Period
24 h48 h
Crude methanolic extract120010 ± 3.1614 ± 4.00
150040 ± 6.3252 ± 8.00
170070 ± 4.4776 ± 5.10
200086 ± 5.1094 ± 2.48
n-Hexane fraction2008 ± 4.9016 ± 4.00
30032 ± 8.0050 ± 8.60
40064 ± 7.4884 ± 8.12
50086 ± 6.7896 ± 4.00
Dichloromethane fraction120010 ± 0.014 ± 3.16
150028 ± 7.3534 ± 8.12
170040 ± 8.3752 ± 10.7
200078 ± 5.8380 ± 10.5
Ethyl acetate fraction18004 ± 2.456 ± 2.45
200020 ± 5.4820 ± 5.48
230036 ± 8.7244 ± 5.10
250062 ± 12.070 ± 8.94
Each value is represented as the mean ± standard error (SE) of five replicates (n = 5), and each replicate had 10 individual larvae. No mortality was observed in the control groups.
Table 2. Probit analysis of the mortality percentages of the 3rd instar larvae of Cx. pipiens mosquito exposed to A. arborescens crude methanolic extract and its fractions of various solvents.
Table 2. Probit analysis of the mortality percentages of the 3rd instar larvae of Cx. pipiens mosquito exposed to A. arborescens crude methanolic extract and its fractions of various solvents.
Exposure PeriodExtract/FractionLC50 (µg/mL)
(LCL-UCL)
LC90 (µg/mL)
(LCL-UCL)
Slope ± SEChi-Square
24 hCrude methanolic extract1564.44
(1517.63–1611.56)
2046.76
(1951.60–2183.55)
10.981 ± 1.01.4786
n-Hexane fraction346.74
(328.86–365.45)
554.26
(509.29–621.47)
6.291 ± 0.5670.927
Dichloromethane fraction1722.37
(1663.77–1791.66)
2377.80
(2212.36–2644.81)
8.634 ± 0.9251.612
Ethyl acetate fraction2392.88
(2328.44–2478.21)
3006.58
(2832.64–3292.91)
12.926 ± 1.463.173
48 hCrude methanolic extract1491.22
(1442.63–1537.73)
1957.59
(1866.92–2089.13)
10.844 ± 1.041.169
n-Hexane fraction289.78
(274.33–304.49)
454.78
(426.62–492.57)
6.548 ± 0.5070.928
Dichloromethane fraction1643.06
(1585.26–1706.68)
2312.53
(2153.37–2568.49)
8.634 ± 0.9251.612
Ethyl acetate fraction2318.78
(2264.67–2384.08)
2862.38
(2726.98–3071.54)
14.012 ± 1.441.074
LC50—lethal concentration that kills 50% of the exposed larvae. LC90—lethal concentration that kills 90% of the exposed larvae. LCL represents the lower confidence limit, and UCL represents the upper confidence limit based on a 95% confidence interval. Values of different treatments with non-overlapping confidence limits are considered significantly different (p ≤ 0.5) according to Litchfield and Wilcoxon [36].
Table 3. Larvicidal activity of the crude methanolic extract of H. erectus marine sponge and its fractions of various solvents against 3rd instar larvae of Cx. pipiens mosquito.
Table 3. Larvicidal activity of the crude methanolic extract of H. erectus marine sponge and its fractions of various solvents against 3rd instar larvae of Cx. pipiens mosquito.
Extract/FractionConcentration
(µg/mL)
Mean Mortality% ± SE
Exposure Period
24 h48 h
Crude methanolic extract20020 ± 3.1644 ± 3.16
30056 ± 5.1066 ± 5.10
40082 ± 6.6386 ± 5.10
50092 ± 5.8398 ± 4.00
n-Hexane fraction6020 ± 3.1626 ± 6.78
7064 ± 5.1072 ± 9.17
8078 ± 3.7484 ± 9.27
10094 ± 6.0098 ± 2.00
Chloroform fraction5022 ± 7.3530 ± 6.32
7068 ± 10.2068 ± 5.83
9080 ± 8.9482 ± 4.90
10096 ± 2.4596 ± 4.00
n-Butanol fraction6032 ± 4.9036 ± 6.00
8068 ± 4.9072 ± 3.74
12080 ± 4.4786 ± 5.10
15096 ± 2.4598 ± 2.00
Each value is represented as a mean ± standard error (SE) of five replicates (n = 5), and each replicate had 10 individual larvae. No mortality was observed in the control groups.
Table 4. Probit analysis of the mortality percentages of the 3rd instar larvae of Cx. pipiens mosquito exposed to H. erectus marine sponge crude methanolic extract and its fractions of various solvents.
Table 4. Probit analysis of the mortality percentages of the 3rd instar larvae of Cx. pipiens mosquito exposed to H. erectus marine sponge crude methanolic extract and its fractions of various solvents.
Exposure PeriodExtract/FractionLC50 (µg/mL)
(LCL-UCL)
LC90 (µg/mL)
(LCL-UCL)
Slope ± SEChi-Square
24 hCrude methanolic extract280.74
(254.72–304.62)
470.44
(421.28–555.59)
5.717 ± 0.7430.049
n-Hexane fraction68.39
(64.995–71.37)
89.65
(84.28–98.99)
10.903 ± 1.5513.885
Chloroform fraction63.03
(58.00–67.38)
94.80
(87.18–107.28)
7.231 ± 0.9393.482
n-Butanol fraction71.23
(62.03–78.78)
132.8
(117.3–161.1)
4.738 ± 0.6803.418
48 hCrude methanolic extract225.98
(190.8–252.8)
426.01
(377.88–513.68)
4.654 ± 0.7081.956
n-Hexane fraction65.54
(61.65–68.62)
86.79
(81.61–96.07)
10.509 ± 1.601.571
Chloroform fraction60.58
(55.55–64.78)
90.93
(84.34–101.04)
7.265 ± 0.8932.368
n-Butanol fraction67.49
(58.85–74.43)
118.37
(105.43–142.02)
5.252 ± 0.7852.810
LC50—lethal concentration that kills 50% of the exposed larvae. LC90—lethal concentration that kills 90% of the exposed larvae. LC90 represents the lower confidence limit, and UCL represents the upper confidence limit based on a 95% confidence interval. Values of different treatments with non-overlapping confidence limits are considered significantly different (p ≤ 0.5) according to Litchfield and Wilcoxon [36].
Table 5. Biosafety index of H. erectus marine sponge and its fractions against zebrafish embryos and median lethal concentration (LC50) values based on Probit analysis.
Table 5. Biosafety index of H. erectus marine sponge and its fractions against zebrafish embryos and median lethal concentration (LC50) values based on Probit analysis.
Extract/FractionLC50 (µg/mL)
(UCL-LCL) *
Biosafety Index
Crude methanolic extract511
(462.54–566.34)
1.82
n-Hexane fractionnot determinednot determined
Chloroform fractionnot determinednot determined
n-Butanol fraction616.47
(551.40–854.78)
8.85
* LC50—lethal concentration that kills 50% of the exposed embryos. LC90 represents the lower confidence limit, and UCL represents the upper confidence limit based on a 95% confidence interval.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Alqurashi, S.A.; Ahmed, A.M.; El Gamal, A.A.; Al-Massarani, S.M.; Basudan, O.A.; Youssef, D.T.A.; Shaala, L.A.; Khan, M.F. Larvicidal Activity of Extracts from the Artemisia arborescens L. Plant and Hyrtios erectus Sponge Against the Culex pipiens Mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae) and Toxicological Assessment on Danio rerio Zebrafish Embryos as Non-Target Organism. Insects 2025, 16, 448. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects16050448

AMA Style

Alqurashi SA, Ahmed AM, El Gamal AA, Al-Massarani SM, Basudan OA, Youssef DTA, Shaala LA, Khan MF. Larvicidal Activity of Extracts from the Artemisia arborescens L. Plant and Hyrtios erectus Sponge Against the Culex pipiens Mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae) and Toxicological Assessment on Danio rerio Zebrafish Embryos as Non-Target Organism. Insects. 2025; 16(5):448. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects16050448

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alqurashi, Sadeem A., Ashraf M. Ahmed, Ali A. El Gamal, Shaza M. Al-Massarani, Omer A. Basudan, Diaa T. A. Youssef, Lamiaa A. Shaala, and Muhammad Farooq Khan. 2025. "Larvicidal Activity of Extracts from the Artemisia arborescens L. Plant and Hyrtios erectus Sponge Against the Culex pipiens Mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae) and Toxicological Assessment on Danio rerio Zebrafish Embryos as Non-Target Organism" Insects 16, no. 5: 448. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects16050448

APA Style

Alqurashi, S. A., Ahmed, A. M., El Gamal, A. A., Al-Massarani, S. M., Basudan, O. A., Youssef, D. T. A., Shaala, L. A., & Khan, M. F. (2025). Larvicidal Activity of Extracts from the Artemisia arborescens L. Plant and Hyrtios erectus Sponge Against the Culex pipiens Mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae) and Toxicological Assessment on Danio rerio Zebrafish Embryos as Non-Target Organism. Insects, 16(5), 448. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects16050448

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop