| Literature DB >> 22206033 |
Célestine M Atyame1, Nicole Pasteur, Emilie Dumas, Pablo Tortosa, Michaël Luciano Tantely, Nicolas Pocquet, Séverine Licciardi, Ambicadutt Bheecarry, Betty Zumbo, Mylène Weill, Olivier Duron.
Abstract
The use of the bacterium Wolbachia is an attractive alternative method to control vector populations. In mosquitoes, as in members of the Culex pipiens complex, Wolbachia induces a form of embryonic lethality called cytoplasmic incompatibility, a sperm-egg incompatibility occurring when infected males mate either with uninfected females or with females infected with incompatible Wolbachia strain(s). Here we explore the feasibility of the Incompatible Insect Technique (IIT), a species-specific control approach in which field females are sterilized by inundative releases of incompatible males. We show that the Wolbachia wPip(Is) strain, naturally infecting Cx. p. pipiens mosquitoes from Turkey, is a good candidate to control Cx. p. quinquefasciatus populations on four islands of the south-western Indian Ocean (La Réunion, Mauritius, Grande Glorieuse and Mayotte). The wPip(Is) strain was introduced into the nuclear background of Cx. p. quinquefasciatus mosquitoes from La Réunion, leading to the LR[wPip(Is)] line. Total embryonic lethality was observed in crosses between LR[wPip(Is)] males and all tested field females from the four islands. Interestingly, most crosses involving LR[wPip(Is)] females and field males were also incompatible, which is expected to reduce the impact of any accidental release of LR[wPip(Is)] females. Cage experiments demonstrate that LR[wPip(Is)] males are equally competitive with La Réunion males resulting in demographic crash when LR[wPip(Is)] males were introduced into La Réunion laboratory cages. These results, together with the geographic isolation of the four south-western Indian Ocean islands and their limited land area, support the feasibility of an IIT program using LR[wPip(Is)] males and stimulate the implementation of field tests for a Cx. p. quinquefasciatus control strategy on these islands.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22206033 PMCID: PMC3243720 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001440
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis ISSN: 1935-2727
Mosquito collections.
| Mosquito collections |
| Origin | Number of screened field specimens | Year of collection | Reference |
| Laboratory lines | |||||
| Istanbul (Is) |
| Istanbul (Turkey) | _ | 2003 |
|
| LR |
| Etang Salé, Saint Pierre and Saint Louis (La Réunion) | _ | 2009 | This study |
| LR-TC |
| derived from LR | _ | _ | This study |
| LR[ |
| derived from LR and Is | _ | _ | This study |
| Natural populations | |||||
| #1, Tana1 |
| Antananarivo (Madagascar) | 23 | 2010 | This study |
| #2, Tana2 |
| Antananarivo (Madagascar) | 22 | 2010 | This study |
| #3, Itaosy1 |
| Antananarivo (Madagascar) | 20 | 2010 | This study |
| #4, Itaosy2 |
| Antananarivo (Madagascar) | 20 | 2010 | This study |
| #5, Mada |
| Antananarivo (Madagascar) | 20 | 2011 | This study |
| #6, Grande Glorieuse |
| Grande Glorieuse | 24 | 2011 | This study |
| #7, Acoua |
| Acoua (Mayotte) | 24 | 2011 | This study |
| #8, Tsoundzou |
| Tsoundzou (Mayotte) | 21 | 2010 | This study |
| #9, M'Tsamoudou |
| M'Tsamoudou (Mayotte) | 24 | 2011 | This study |
| #10, Saint Leu |
| Saint Leu (La Réunion) | 24 | 2007 |
|
| #11, Etang Salé |
| Etang Salé (La Réunion) | 24 | 2009 |
|
| #12, Saint Louis |
| Saint Louis (La Réunion) | 23 | 2009 |
|
| #13, Saint Pierre |
| Saint Pierre (La Réunion) | 24 | 2009 |
|
| #14, Saint Joseph |
| Saint Joseph (La Réunion) | 19 | 2007 |
|
| #15, Plaine des Cafres |
| Plaine des Cafres (La Réunion) | 24 | 2009 |
|
| #16, Plaine des Palmistes |
| Plaine des Palmistes (La Réunion) | 22 | 2007 |
|
| #17, Sainte Rose |
| Sainte Rose (La Réunion) | 24 | 2007 |
|
| #18, Saint Benoît |
| Saint Benoît (La Réunion) | 24 | 2007 |
|
| #19, Bras Panon |
| Bras Panon (La Réunion) | 32 | 2007 |
|
| #20, Saint André |
| Saint André (La Réunion) | 24 | 2007 |
|
| #21, Sainte Suzanne |
| Sainte Suzanne (La Réunion) | 24 | 2007 |
|
| #22, Sainte Marie |
| Sainte Marie (La Réunion) | 24 | 2009 |
|
| #23, Saint Denis |
| Saint Denis (La Réunion) | 24 | 2007 |
|
| #24, Samuel |
| Saint Denis (La Réunion) | 24 | 2010 |
|
| #25, La Possession |
| La Possession (La Réunion) | 24 | 2007 |
|
| #26, Beau Bassin |
| Beau Bassin – Rose Hill (Mauritius) | 42 | 2010 | This study |
| #27, Salines |
| Les Salines (Mauritius) | 7 | 2010 | This study |
| #28, Port Louis |
| Port Louis (Mauritius) | 19 | 2010 | This study |
| #29, Cap Malheureux |
| Cap Malheureux (Mauritius) | 23 | 2010 | This study |
, the LR line was established from several hundred of field-caught larvae from three natural populations, i.e. Etang Salé, Saint Pierre and Saint Louis.
, LR-TC is Wolbachia-uninfected line generated by antibiotic exposure of specimens from the LR line.
, the LR[wPip(Is)] line combined the Is cytoplasm, including the wPip(Is) strain, and the LR nuclear genome.
, number of field specimens examined for wPip genetic diversity.
Figure 1Sample site locations.
A: location of the study area; B, Madagascar and surrounding islands, including Grande Glorieuse; C, Mayotte; D, La Réunion; E, Mauritius. Populations are numbered from 1 to 29. Numbers correspond to those in Table 1.
Comparisons of CI properties of different mosquito lines.
| Females | Males | |||
| LR[ | Is | LR | LR-TC | |
| LR[ | 0.919±0.027 (2298; 14) | 0.967±0.010 (1405; 12) | 0.000±0.000 (>6000; 47) | 0.915±0.070 (2953; 19) |
| Is | 0.958±0.016 (1414; 12) | 0.951±0.061 (1402; 10) | 0.021±0.021 (>6000; 47) | n.d. |
| LR | 0.000±0.000 (>3500; 31) | 0.000±0.000 (>8000; 68) | 0.930±0.031 (1423; 10) | n.d. |
| LR-TC | 0.000±0.000 (>2000; 21) | 0.000±0.000 (>1200; 15) | 0.000±0.000 (>3500; 31) | 0.905±0.028 (1423; 10) |
LR[wPip(Is)] and Is lines were both infected by the wPip(Is) strain but had different nuclear genomes. LR-TC is a Wolbachia-uninfected line derived from the LR line. For each cross, mean hatching rate ± standard error, number of eggs and egg-rafts are reported.
represent statistical groups (Wilcoxon two sided-test with Bonferonni's adjustment for multiple comparisons); n.d., not determined.
Effect of LR[wPip(Is)] males ageing on CI phenotype.
| Crosses | Hatching rate | |
| 2-day old males | 24-day old males | |
| ♂LR[ | 0.919±0.027 (2298; 14) | 0.940±0.030 (900; 8) |
| ♂LR[ | 0.000±0.000 (>3500; 31) | 0.000±0.000 (>1000; 9) |
For each cross, mean hatching rate ± standard error, number of eggs and egg-rafts are reported.
represent statistical groups (Wilcoxon two sided-test with Bonferonni's adjustment for multiple comparisons).
†: This cross is the same as shown in Table 2.
Reciprocal crosses between LR[wPip(Is)] line and field specimens.
| Crosses | Hatching rate | Outcomes |
| ♂ LR[ | 0.011±0.006 (>9000; 75) | bidirectional CI |
| ♂ Samuel×♀ LR[ | 0.000±0.000 (>4400; 36) | |
| ♂LR[ | 0.007±0.005 (>6000; 51) | bidirectional CI |
| ♂ Salines×♀ LR[ | 0.000±0.000 (>4500; 37) | |
| ♂LR[ | 0.000±0.000 (>12000; 97) | bidirectional CI |
| ♂ Grande Glorieuse×♀ LR[ | 0.000±0.000 (>500; 40) | |
| ♂LR[ | 0.000±0.000 (>9000; 75) | uni- and bidirectional CI |
| ♂ Tsoundzou×♀ LR[ | 0.112±0.092 (>2000; 16) | |
| ♂LR[ | 0.000±0.000 (>5000; 44) | uni- and bidirectional CI |
| ♂ Mada×♀ LR[ | 0.804±0.283 (>2500; 20) |
Field specimens are from Samuel (La Réunion), Salines (Mauritius), Grande Glorieuse, Tsoundzou (Mayotte) and Mada (Madagascar). For each cross, mean hatching rate ± standard error, number of eggs and egg-rafts are reported.
represent statistical groups (Wilcoxon two sided-test with Bonferonni's adjustment for multiple comparisons). Note that, in the cross ♂ Tsoundzou×♀ LR[wPip(Is)], 14 males induced complete CI while 2 were compatible; in the cross ♂ Mada×♀ LR[wPip(Is)], 2 males induced complete CI and 18 were compatible (see text for more details).
Figure 2Survival curves for LR (n = 238; dotted line) and LR[wPip(Is)] males (n = 154; solid line).
Figure 3Tibia size of the LR and LR[wPip(Is)] males.
Thirty individuals have been measured for each line. a represents statistical group (Wilcoxon two sided-test).
Competition cages with different ratio of LR[wPip(Is)] males.
| LR♀∶LR♂∶ LR[wPip(Is)]♂ ratio | Number of adults (number of LR♀, LR♂, LR[ | Number of egg-rafts (number of eggs) | Observed frequency of infertile egg-rafts (n) | Expected frequency of infertile egg-rafts | P-value |
| First blood meal | |||||
| 1∶1∶0 | 200 (100, 100, 0) | 72 (>7500) | 0.00 (72) | 0.00 | 0.99 |
| 1∶1∶1 | 300 (100, 100, 100) | 90 (>9000) | 0.52 (47) | 0.50 | 0.75 |
| 1∶1∶5 | 350 (50, 50, 250) | 43 (>4500) | 0.91 (39) | 0.83 | 0.22 |
| 1∶1∶10 | 600 (50, 50, 500) | 45 (>4600) | 0.98 (44) | 0.91 | 0.18 |
| Second blood meal | |||||
| 1∶1∶0 | _ | 38 (>7500) | 0.00 (38) | 0.00 | 0.99 |
| 1∶1∶1 | _ | 42 (>9000) | 0.45 (19) | 0.50 | 0.64 |
| 1∶1∶5 | _ | 12 (>4500) | 0.92 (11) | 0.83 | 0.70 |
| 1∶1∶10 | _ | 14 (>4600) | 1.00 (14) | 0.91 | 0.63 |
*: , comparisons between the observed and expected frequencies of infertile egg-rafts through exact binomial test.