| Literature DB >> 21975028 |
Alexander T Ciota1, Linda M Styer, Mark A Meola, Laura D Kramer.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding the phenotypic consequences of interactions between arthropod-borne viruses (arboviruses) and their mosquito hosts has direct implications for predicting the evolution of these relationships and the potential for changes in epidemiological patterns. Although arboviruses are generally not highly pathogenic to mosquitoes, pathology has at times been noted. Here, in order to evaluate the potential costs of West Nile virus (WNV) infection and resistance in a primary WNV vector, and to assess the extent to which virus-vector relationships are species-specific, we performed fitness studies with and without WNV exposure using a highly susceptible Culex pipiens mosquito colony. Specifically, we measured and compared survival, fecundity, and feeding rates in bloodfed mosquitoes that were (i) infected following WNV exposure (susceptible), (ii) uninfected following WNV exposure (resistant), or (iii) unexposed.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21975028 PMCID: PMC3215953 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6785-11-23
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Ecol ISSN: 1472-6785 Impact factor: 2.964
Figure 1WNV titers in . (a) Data points represent individual mosquitoes and the line represents the best-fit relationship between WNV body titer and time of death. (b) Relationship between WNV body titer and WNV leg titer in individual mosquitoes. The dotted line refers to the threshold body titer required for WNV dissemination (4.2 log10 pfu) and the linear regression analysis was completed for all values above that threshold.
Figure 2Combined survival of individual groups of . Statistically significant differences in survival were measured between both WNV susceptible and unexposed groups relative to WNV resistant mosquitoes (log-rank, p < 0.001).
Summary statistics for Cx. pipiens fitness following feeding on a bloodmeal with (resistant, susceptible) or without (unexposed) WNV
| replicate 1 | replicate 2 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | 6 | 36 | 22 | 7 | 32 | 14 |
| Wing (mm) | 3.67 | 3.73 | 3.69 | 3.70 | 3.72 | 3.67 |
| AST1(d) | 16.8 | 26.5 | 20.9 | 19.7 | 38.2 | 34.2 |
| MST2(d) | 13.5 | 25.5 | 21.0 | 14.0 | 39.5 | 36.0 |
| MaxST3(d) | 35.0 | 59.0 | 45.0 | 41.0 | 68.0 | 57.0 |
| Rafts/fem4 | 0.46 | 1.39 | 1.32 | 0.86 | 1.25 | 1.29 |
| Eggs/raft | 174.0 | 162.1 | 151.7 | 152.2 | 144.5 | 140.1 |
| R05 | 37.1 | 94.6 | 79.1 | 65.2 | 87.1 | 88.2 |
| T6 | 14.2 | 15.0 | 16.8 | 13.4 | 21.2 | 23.6 |
| r7 | 0.25 | 0.30 | 0.26 | 0.31 | 0.21 | 0.19 |
1 average survival time
2 median survival time
3 maximum survival
4 mean total egg rafts produced per female
5 net reproduction rate
6 mean generation time
7 population growth rate
Figure 3Combined fecundity of individual groups of . The percent of females ovipositing refers to individuals producing at least one egg raft during the study and smoothed mx refers to the average daily reproductive output while surviving. No significant differences were measured in these statistics (fisher's exact, p > 0.05).
Figure 4Mean egg raft sizes produced by individual groups of . No mosquitoes in the resistant group survived beyond week 3 of the study.
Figure 5Combined percent of . Significant differences were measured between groups (chi-squared, p < 0.001).
Summary of blood feeding behavior among study groups
| resistant | 34.21% | 23.1% | 2.0 +/- 1.3 |
| susceptible | 29.93% | 28.8% | 2.6 +/- 1.3 |
| unexposed | 34.15% | 29.7% | 2.5 +/- 1.1 |
Data represents combined values from two replicates.
1 Mean weekly feeding rates for surviving mosquitoes
2 Initial bloodmeal feeding was required for entry into the study. Percents represent individuals that did not take at least one subsequent bloodmeal.
3 Mean score +/- SD. Levels of engorgement were qualitatively scored as 0-4, with 0 representing no blood and 4 representing full engorgement.