| Literature DB >> 25651851 |
Claudia Cafarchia1, Davide Immediato2, Roberta Iatta3, Rafael Antonio Nascimento Ramos4, Riccardo Paolo Lia5, Daniele Porretta6, Luciana Aguiar Figueredo7,8, Filipe Dantas-Torres9,10, Domenico Otranto11.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rhipicephalus sanguineus sensu lato ticks are widespread worldwide due to their adaptability to survive under different environmental conditions. They may act as vectors of a wide range of pathogens to humans and animals and their control is based on the use of chemical products on dogs and in the environment. Alternative control strategies, such as the use of entomopathogenic fungi as bio-control agents have also been investigated. The ability of native strains of Beauveria bassiana sensu lato in causing mortality in different tick species (e.g., Amblyomma cajennense and Rhipicephalus microplus) has been demonstrated. However, limited studies have assessed the use of B. bassiana for the control of R. sanguineus s.l. and none of them have employed native strains of this fungus. Here we investigated the pathogenicity of a native strain of B. bassiana (CD1123) against all developmental stages of R. sanguineus s.l..Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25651851 PMCID: PMC4324834 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-015-0693-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Figure 1Unfed female of s.l. at 3 days post infection with
Figure 2Mycelium and conidiophores of on an engorged female of s.l. at 10 days post infection.
Figure 3Mycelium and conidiophores of on an engorged larva of s.l. at 20 days post infection.
Figure 4Mycelium without conidiophores of on an engorged nymph of s.l. at 15 days post infection.
Effects of a native strain of on engorged and unfed females of sensu lato
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Day 5 | 24/40 (60%)a | 2/40 (5%)a | 8/40 (20%)m | 0/40 (0%)m |
| Day 10 | 38/40 (95%)b | 2/40 (5%)b | 16/40 (40%)n | 2/40 (5%)n |
| Day 15 | 40/40 (100%)c | 10/40 (25%)c | 30/40 (75%)o | 4/40 (10%)o |
| Day 20 | 40/40 (100%)d | 25/40 (62%)d | 34/40 (85%)p | 6/40 (15%)p |
a-p = Chi square test, P < 0.001.
The statistically significant differences are indicated with the same superscript letters.
Effect of a native strain of on eggs of sensu lato
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|
|
|
| |
| Incubation period (days) | 0 ± 0a | 21 ± 0.8a |
| Egg hatch rate, Pos/Tot (%) | 0/2000 (0%)b | 1836/2000 (91.8%)b |
a = Chi square test, P < 0.001; b = Student’s t-test, P < 0.001.
The statistically significant differences are indicated with the same superscript letters.
Effect of a native strain of on engorged and unfed larvae of sensu lato
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Day 5 | 76/160 (47.5%)a | 0/160 (0%)a | 88/160 (55%)f | 16/160 (10%)f |
| Day 10 | 158/160 (98.7%)b | 0/160 (0%)b | 134/160 (83.7%)g | 16/160 (10%)g |
| Day 15 | 158/160 (98.7%)c | 8/160 (5%)c | 160/160 (100%)h | 22/160 (13.7%)h |
| Day 20 | 158/160 (98.7%)d | 12/160 (7.5%)d | 160/160 (100%)i | 22/160 (13.7%)i |
| Moulting rate | 2/160 (1.2%)e | 148/160 (92.5%)e | - | - |
a-i = Chi square test, P < 0.001.
The statistically significant differences are indicated with the same superscript letters.
Effect of a native strain of on engorged and unfed nymphs of sensu lato
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Day 5 | 22/80 (27.5%)a | 0/80 (0%)a | 12/80 (15%)f | 0/80 (0%)f |
| Day 10 | 68/80 (85%)b | 0/80 (0%)b | 26/80 (32.5%)g | 4/80 (5%)g |
| Day 15 | 68/80 (85%)c | 0/80 (0%)c | 46/80 (57.5%)h | 4/80 (5%)h |
| Day 20 | 68/80 (85%)d | 0/80 (0%)d | 70/80 (87.5%)i | 6/80 (7.5%)i |
| Moulting rate | 12/80 (15%)e | 80/80 (100%)e | - | - |
a-i = Chi square test, P < 0.001.
The statistically significant differences are indicated with the same superscript letters.
Effects of a native strain of on biological parameters of engorged females of sensu lato
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Female pre-oviposition weight (mg) | 159.2 ± 71.9 | 164.1 ± 77.8 | Student’s |
| Pre-oviposition period (days) | 3 ± 2.8 | 4.9 ± 1.7 | Student’s |
| Oviposition period (days) | 2.6 ± 3.5 | 11.4 ± 2.1 | Student’s |
| Oviposition rate, Pos/Tot (%) | 18/40 (45%) | 33/40 (82.5%) | Chi square test, P = 0.001 |
| Weight of eggs for single female (mg) | 4.9 ± 7.6 | 52.5 ± 18.2 | Student’s |
| Number of eggs for single female | 124.1 ± 189.8 | 1312 ± 453.3 | Student’s |
| Egg hatch rate, Pos/Tot (%) | 97.6/124.1 (78.7%) | 1293/1313 (98.5%) | Chi square test, P < 0.001 |
| Egg incubation period (days) | 7.6 ± 14.2 | 27 ± 1.6 | Student’s |
| Egg production efficiency | 4.1 ± 6.8 | 37.3 ± 14.8 | Student’s |
| Reproductive efficiency index | 1.0 ± 1 7 | 9.3 ± 3.7 | Student’s |
| Reproductive fitness index | 0.7 ± 1.5 | 12.1 ± 1.2 | Student’s |
Otherwise indicated, numbers are reported as mean ± standard deviation.