| Literature DB >> 26112698 |
Min-Lin Zheng1,2, Dong-Jing Zhang3, David D Damiens4, Rosemary Susan Lees5, Jeremie R L Gilles6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Management of large quantities of eggs will be a crucial aspect of the efficient and sustainable mass production of mosquitoes for programmes with a Sterile Insect Technique component. The efficiency of different hatching media and effectiveness of long term storage methods are presented here.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26112698 PMCID: PMC4485872 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-015-0951-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Hatch rate (mean ± SE) of Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus eggs in three hatching media (BB: bacterial broth, DW: deionized water, BDW: boiled deionized water during 72h after egg immersion
| Egg age (d) | Hatch rate (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BB | DW | BDW | ||
|
| 7 | 95.32 ± 1.14 | 0.42 ± 0.10 | 74.31 ± 1.40 |
| 15 | 91.87 ± 1.23 | 0.10 ± 0.10 | 52.15 ± 1.88 | |
|
| 7 | 89.66 ± 0.42 | 1.68 ± 0.20 | 9.43 ± 1.03 |
| 15 | 90.31 ± 0.88 | 0.39 ± 0.27 | 5.25 ± 0.60 | |
Hatch rate (mean ± SE) of Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti eggs after immersion in Bacterial Broth (BB) after an initial immersion in deionized water (DW) and boiled deionized water (BDW)
| Storage duration(d) | Hatch rate | ANOVA | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BB | DW | BDW | DF = 2,6 | ||
|
| 7 |
| 94.55 ± 0.75 | 94.74 ± 1.09 | F = 0.16, P = 0.86 |
| 15 |
| 92.61 ± 0.94 | 93.70 ± 1.08 | F = 1.92, P = 0.23 | |
|
| 7 |
| 90.60 ± 0.8 | 91.60 ± 0.8 | F = 0.71, P = 0.53 |
| 15 |
| 92.13 ± 0.95 | 92.48 ± 1.06 | F = 1.45, P = 0.31 | |
ANOVA results indicate a significant difference between the control hatch rate from BB and the hatch rate after the two treatments BW and BDW first and then BB. The hatch rate indicates the total hatch rate (from the initial experiment (see Table 1) and from the test of DW to BB and BDW to BB. The hatch rate was calculated from the number of eggs that hatched in the first treatment plus the number of eggs that hatched during the second treatment in BB. Text in bold indicates that data is the report of hatch rate from BB treatment reported in Table 1, reproduced for comparison
Fig. 1Effect of storage duration on egg hatch rate (Mean ± SE, dashed line) and on percentage of collapsed eggs (Mean ± SE, solid line) for Aedes aegypti (in black) and Ae. albopictus (in grey) in conventional storage condition
Fig. 2Relationship between egg hatch rate and percentage of collapsed eggs, observed on egg laying paper
Hatch rate according to the duration of storage (mean ± SD) for Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti eggs stored submerged in deionized water
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Storage duration | Storage HR in % | Final HR in % | Storage HR in % | Final HR in % |
| 1 month | 5.5 ± 0.6 | 95.6 ± 0.2 | 0.1 ± 0.2 | 91.3 ± 1.8 |
| 2 month | 10.9 ± 1.3 | 95.5 ± 1.7 | 0.3 ± 0.3 | 90.0 ± 1.9 |
| 3 month | 8.8 ± 2.3 | 95.2 ± 0.6 | 1.0 ± 1.0 | 91.6 ± 3.1 |
| 4 month | 10.8 ± 1.8 | 84.9 ± 3.44 | 7.6 ± 4.5 | 87.7 ± 0.6 |
| 5 month | 11.22 ± 1.3 | 84.2 ± 0.1 | 7.9 ± 6.9 | 84.9 ± 9.8 |
| R and P | 0.64/** | −0.82 /*** | 0.69/** | −0.46 /* |
Storage HR indicates the hatch rate of the eggs during the storage in water. Final HR also includes the hatch rate of the eggs at the end of the period of water storage, after immersion in a bacterial broth solution. R indicates the Pearson correlation coefficient between hatch rate and storage duration, and P the significance of the correlation (*P<0.05, **P<0.001 and ***P<0.0001)