| Literature DB >> 12296972 |
F M Okanda1, A Dao, B N Njiru, J Arija, H A Akelo, Y Touré, A Odulaja, J C Beier, J I Githure, G Yan, L C Gouagna, B G J Knols, G F Killeen.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Plasmodium-refractory mosquitoes are being rapidly developed for malaria control but will only succeed if they can successfully compete for mates when released into the wild. Pre-copulatory behavioural traits maintain genetic population structure in wild mosquito populations and mating barriers have foiled previous attempts to control malaria vectors through sterile male release.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2002 PMID: 12296972 PMCID: PMC140138 DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-1-10
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Final fitted logistic regression model accounting for variations in probability of female insemination as a function of male and female numbers per cage and replicate. Deviance and Pearsons χ2 goodness of fit statistics were 3.35 and 3.31 per degree of freedom, respectively, with 49 degrees of freedom and P < 0.0001 for both.
| Factor | β ± SEM | P |
| Intercept | -0.599 ± 0.070 | <0.0001 |
| Reciprocal of females per cage | 6.12 ± 1.79 | 0.0006 |
| Males per cage | 0.00586 ± 0.00054 | <0.0001 |
Figure 1The insemination success of females as a function of the numbers of males and female per cage. The proportion of uninseminated females is plotted as lines representing of the fitted competition model (See materials and methods) at each level of female numbers per cage (See table 2). The mean of observations at each number of males per cage (n = 3) are represented by circles, diamonds and squares for 10, 30 and 100 females per cage, respectively.
The ability of males to inseminate females as a function of competition and female density. Estimates for the proportion of females inseminated by the addition of one male only (I1) and the rate at which they are inseminated by additional competing males (Ic) were estimated by fitting a simple mechanistic model and the competition index (C) calculated as their quotient (See materials and methods).
| Females per cage | I1 | Ic | P* | C |
| 10 | 0.422 ± 0.053 | 0.0073 ± 0.0016 | 0.992 | 58 ± 15 |
| 30 | 0.338 ± 0.042 | 0.0040 ± 0.0009 | 0.932 | 84 ± 21 |
| 100 | 0.362 ± 0.045 | 0.0031 ± 0.0009 | 0.336 | 116 ± 37 |
* Pearsons goodness of fit statistic
Dependence of female insemination probability and fecundity upon size, male competition level and strain.*
| Experiment | N | Outcome | Parameter | β ± SEM | P |
| 1 & 2 | 91 | Oviposition† | Intercept | -16.5± 5.6 | <0.001 |
| Size | 5.4 ± 1.8 | 0.001 | |||
| Competition | -1.44 ± 0.59 | 0.009 | |||
| 2 | 46 | Insemination† | Intercept | -38.1 ± 10.7 | <0.001 |
| Size | 13.1 ± 3.7 | <0.001 | |||
| Competition | 1.91 ± 1.0 | 0.034 | |||
| Oviposition after insemination† | Intercept | 0.15 ± 0.56 | 0.782 | ||
| Competition | -1.95 ± 0.95 | 0.024 | |||
| 3 | 180 | Insemination† | Intercept | -13.0 ± 3.4 | <0.001 |
| Competition | 2.37 ± 0.38 | <0.001 | |||
| Size | 3.98 ± 1.12 | <0.001 | |||
| 180 | Oviposition† | Intercept | -10.2 ± 3.1 | 0.001 | |
| Competition | 1.83 ± 0.34 | <0.001 | |||
| Size | 3.06 ± 1.01 | 0.003 | |||
| 94 | Oviposition after insemination† | Intercept | 2.52 ± 0.39 | <0.001 | |
| 87 | Egg batch size of ovipositors‡ | Intercept | -1.16 ± 0.47 | 0.017 | |
| Size | 0.94 ± 0.15 | <0.001 | |||
* Size was measured as wing length (mm) and male competition was either low or high (5 versus 50 males per cage, respectively, with 30 females). † Logistic regression model fitted by forward conditional stepwise selection ‡ Generalized linear model fitted manually including only terms found to be significant upon testing all candidates. The size of egg batches was log-normally distributed and correspondingly transformed so parameter estimates refer to their influence upon Log 10 (egg batch size +1).
Figure 2Insemination and oviposition success of females as a function of size. Empty and solid bars represent the number of females that respectively failed and succeeded in (A) becoming inseminated and (B) ovipositing in the pooled groups of different mosquito strains and competition levels carried out in experiment 3 (See Table 3).
Figure 3Egg batch size as a function of size in the pooled groups of different mosquito strains and competition levels carried out in experiment 3 (See Table 3). Each circle represents the egg batch of one mosquito.