SUMMARY
1. The status of anticoagulant resistance in the UK is unique in several ways. Most importantly, more than fifty years of continuous research into this phenomenon, both in Norway rats and house mice, has provided an extensive platform of knowledge upon which to base practical advice on anticoagulant use and recommendations on resistance management. Regrettably, an axiom of resistance management, not to use active substances in areas where they are resisted, has been difficult to apply in practice because of a long-standing regulatory policy, virtually unknown elsewhere, wherein the most potent anticoagulant rodenticides were precluded from use in the management of resistant Norway rats because of perceived risks to the environment. This policy has now been superseded and all five second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) can now be used against Norway rat infestations outdoors but undoubtedly its legacy is still felt. Finally, and again uniquely, the UK is home to more anticoagulant resistance mutations in Norway rats than any other country world-wide, with five having practical impacts.
2. Developments in the last decade have revolutionised the study of anticoagulant resistance, in terms of our understanding of its genetic basis, physiological mechanisms and geographical distribution. New resistance tests based on DNA extraction and sequencing, permit rapid, cheap, accurate and humane resistance monitoring. These tests, however, still rely on older techniques, involving laboratory studies using either live rodents or blood samples taken from them and field efficacy testing, to understand practical impacts of resistance mutations on the outcome of anticoagulant applications. Fortunately, these two information threads come together in the UK.
3. Among UK Norway rats we have identified a total of nine genetical mutations in areas of the genome that are known to be important for the action of anticoagulants. Among these, three (L120Q, Y139C, Y139F) confer resistance to the first-generations anticoagulants (FGARs) and to one or more of the second-generation anticoagulants (SGARs). Among the remainder, two (Y139S, L128Q) confer significant levels of resistance to FGARs, one (R33P) has been found to confer resistance to warfarin in the laboratory, two (F63C, Y39N) impair protein function and one (A26T) is thought to have no practical consequences. Both mutations found in UK house mice (L128S, Y139C) confer resistance to FGARs and to one or more SGARs.
4. This report presents additional results of anticoagulant resistance monitoring conducted at the Vertebrate Pests Unit, the University of Reading, for both Norway rats and house mice since the publication of the report of 2017 (Prescott et al., 2017). A total of 37 tissue samples of Norway rat were sequenced during the period March to August 2018. Among these 24 (64.9%) were either homozygous or heterozygous for one or more resistance mutations and 13 (35.1%) were homozygous susceptible. Tissue samples from nine house mice were obtained and eight of these carried one or more resistance mutations. Although the numbers sampled are small, they serve to support the long-held assumption that resistance is now so prevalent in UK house mouse infestations that FGARs should not be used against them.
5. These data confirm the extent of L120Q resistance in Norway rats, the most severe form of resistance in this species, across the whole of central southern England. The ubiquity of Y139F resistance among rats in Kent and East Sussex is also apparent. Of concern are further isolated records of these mutations, far from their core areas, suggesting either transportation of resistant rodents or the de novo development of new foci. Y139C, another relatively severe form of resistance, is also widely dispersed. Several new foci of resistance are reported including, for the first time, both Y139F and Y139C embedded within the resistance focus in Wales that was previously exclusively Y139S, and the continuing spread of both L120Q and Y139C in many foci virtually nationwide. It seems unlikely that these foci have sprung up since the last report. It is more likely that these resistant populations were fostered during the period when only bromadiolone and difenacoum were available for use against rat infestations.
6.
7. Much of the UK remains untested because our laboratory has been unable to obtain biological material from many areas. It is particularly apparent that we have no information for large areas of the Midland counties. A special effort is needed to rectify this unsatisfactory situation. It is unsafe to assume, however, that the absence of a sample showing resistance from any particular area indicates that resistance is absent. Furthermore, the scarcity of wild-type (i.e. fully susceptible) Norway rats, particularly in central-southern and south-east England, suggests that it is reasonable to assume that almost any rodent infestation in those areas will contain rats carrying one or other of the severe L120Q or Y139F mutations. A sample of house mice from south-east England has been tested and results are given in this report for the first time. It is perhaps not surprising that, although the sample is small, both known house mouse resistance mutations (L128S, Y139C) were found at high frequency, with some individuals worryingly possessing both mutations.
8. Recommendations in this report about the use of anticoagulant rodenticides against resistant rodent infestations are reproduced from recently revised resistance management guidelines published by the UK Rodenticide Resistance Action Group (RRAG).