I have been interested in the Zika Virus ever since I heard about it while visiting Brazil last year to give a talk at the Brazilian Natural Products conference. What I did not expect was the incredible surge in worldwide attention that Zika would attract. I am grateful to have been included in the work led by Sean Ekins (@collabchem) in the perspective “Open Drug Discovery for the Zika Virus” recently published on F1000Research. Up until last week the hypothesis was that Zika was a mosquito-borne disease but now the suggestion is that the disease may be related to a larvicide.
The chemical in question that is being named as the offending agent is Pyriproxyfen. I had never even heard of this chemical until a couple of days ago. At that time there was nothing on Wikipedia but, of course, it has since been updated with this
“In 2014, pyriproxifen was put into Brazilian water supplies to fight the proliferation of mosquito larvae. Some Brazilian doctors have hypothesized that pyriproxyfen, not the Zika virus, is the cause of the 2015-2016 microcephaly epidemic in Brazil. 
Consequently, in 2016, the Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul suspended pyriproxyfen’s use. The Health Minister of Brazil, Marcelo Castro, criticized this step, noting that the claim is “a rumor lacking logic and sense. It has no basis.” They also noted that the insecticide is approved by the National Sanitary Monitoring Agency and “all regulatory agencies in the whole world”. The manufacturer of the insecticide, Sumitomo Chemical, stated “”there is no scientific basis for such a claim” and also referred to the approval of pyriproxyfen by the World Health Organization since 2004 and the United States Environmental Protection Agency since 2001.
Noted skeptic David Gorski discussed the claim and pointed out that anti-vaccine proponents had also claimed that the Tdap vaccine was the cause of the microcephaly epidemic, due to its introduction in 2014, along with adding “One can’t help but wonder what else the Brazilian Ministry of Health did in 2014 that cranks can blame microcephaly on.” Gorski also pointed out the extensive physiochemical understanding of pyriproxyfen that the WHO has, which concluded in a past evaluation that the insecticide is not genotoxic, and that the doctor organization making the claim has been advocating against all pesticides since 2010, complicating their reliability.“
Because we live in a time of Open Data, and at a time when there is soooooo much information available on open databases, I thought I would go after any evidence-based identification of the chemical as a potential contributor to the explosion in Microcephaly.
PubChem exposes a LOT of useful data under the Safety and Hazards tab. The long-term exposure points to issues with blood and liver. FIFRA requirements are listed on PubChem and toxicity data is also available here. Reproductive toxicity is limited to reports in animals that reports