| Literature DB >> 26818097 |
Elena V Shaikevich1, Elena B Vinogradova2, Ali Bouattour3, António Paulo Gouveia de Almeida4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mosquitoes of the Culex pipiens complex are cosmopolitan, and important vectors of neglected tropical diseases, such as arbovirosis and lymphatic filariasis. Among the complex taxa, Cx. pipiens (with two forms pipiens and molestus) and Cx. quinquefasciatus are the most ubiquitous mosquitoes in temperate and tropical regions respectively. Mosquitoes of this taxa lack of morphological differences between females, but have frank behavioral and physiological differences and have different trophic preferences that influence their vectorial status. Hybridization may change the vectorial capacity of these mosquitoes, increasing vector efficiency and medical importance of resulting hybrids.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26818097 PMCID: PMC4730663 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-016-1333-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Data on Culex pipiens populations and results of RFLP analysis of 5′COI gene
| Origin (Country and locality) |
| Map legend (Fig. | Coordinates latitude/longitude | Stage of development, sampling site |
| Number | Supplied by |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Russia, Moscow region (Iksha, Luzki) | A/B/C | 1 | 56°09′N 37°31′ E | larvae, rural, above ground |
| 47 | M. Fedorova | [ |
| Russia, N. Novgorod region | A/B/C | 2 | 55°02′N 43°15′E | larvae, rural, above ground |
| 10 | E. Vinogradova | [ |
| Russia, Krasnodar | A/B/C | 3 | 45°02′N 38°58′E | larvae, suburban, above ground |
| 28 | E. Vinogradova | [ |
| Russia, Volgograd (Liteishik,Sarpinsky) | A/B/C | 4 | 48°42′N 44°31′E | larvae, rural, above ground |
| 20 | M. Fedorova | [ |
| Russia, North Kaukas | A/B/C | 5 | 43°29′N 43°37′E | larvae, suburban, above ground |
| 28 | E. Vinogradova | [ |
| Germany, Hannover | A/B/C | 6 | 52°22′N 09°43′E | larvae, urban, above ground |
| 17 | E. Shaikevich | This study |
| Germany, Berlin | A/B/C | 7 | 52°31′N 13°23′E | larvae, urban, above ground |
| 9 | E. Shaikevich | This study |
| France, Prades-le-Lez1 | A/B/C | 8 | 43°42′N 03°52′ E | larvae, above ground | hybrida | 17 | O. Duron | This study |
| France, Prades-le-Lez2 | A/B/C | 9 | 43°42′N 03°52′ E | larvae, above ground | hybrida | 22 | O. Duron | This study |
| France, St-Nazaire de Pezan | A/B/C | 10 | 43°38′N 04°08′ E | larvae, above ground | hybrida | 12§ | O. Duron | This study |
| France,T7 strain,Montpellier | A/B/C | 11 | 43 36′N 03°52′E | larvae, lab culture |
| 11 | O. Duron | This study |
| Morocco, Casablanca | A/B/C | 12 | 33°32′N 07°35′W | imago, suburban, above ground | hybrida | 2 | A.- B. Failloux | This study |
| Russia, Moscow | D | 13 | 55°45′N 37°37′E | larvae, urban, underground |
| 21 | M. Fedorova | [ |
| Russia, St-Petersburg | D | 14 | 59°57′N 30°18′E | larvae, urban, underground |
| 22 | E. Vinogradova | [ |
| Russia, N. Novgorod | D | 15 | 56°20′N 44°00′E | larvae, urban, underground |
| 10 | E. Vinogradova | [ |
| Russia, Krasnodar | D | 16 | 45°02′N 38°58′E | larvae, urban, above ground |
| 52 | E. Vinogradova | [ |
| Russia, Tomsk | D | 17 | 56°30′N 84°58′E | larvae, urban, underground |
| 10 | A.Sibataev | [ |
| Russia, Ekaterinburg | D | 18 | 56°53′N 60°35′E | larvae, urban, underground |
| 24 | N.Nikolaeva | [ |
| Russia, Petrozavodsk | D | 19 | 62°47′ N 34°20′E | larvae, urban, underground |
| 10 | S.Karpova | [ |
| Russia, Volgograd | D | 20 | 48°42′N 44°31′E | larvae, urban, underground |
| 30 | M. Fedorova | [ |
| Russia, Vladikavkaz | D | 21 | 43°01′N 44°39′E | larvae, urban, underground |
| 1 | E. Vinogradova | [ |
| Germany, Berlin | D | 22 | 52°31′N 13°23′E | imago, urban, indoor space |
| 4 | E. Shaikevich | This study |
| Germany, Hannover | D | 23 | 52°22′N 9°43′E | imago, urban, indoor space |
| 1 | E. Shaikevich | This study |
| Italy, Piedmont (Frugarolo, Tortona) | D | 24 | 44°54′ N 8°37′ E | imago and larvae, urban, above ground | hybrida | 18¥ | A. Talbalaghi | [ |
| Tunisia, Nefza | D | 25 | 37°06′N 9°11′E | imago and larvae, above ground | hybrida | 16† | A. Bouattour | This study |
| Tunisia, Tabarka | D | 26 | 36°57′N 8°45′E | imago and larvae, above ground | hybrida | 12† | A. Bouattour | This study |
| Morocco, Casablanca | D | 27 | 33°32′N 7°35′W | imago, suburban, above ground | hybrida | 1 | A.- B. Failloux | This study |
| India, Hydarabad | E/E1 | 28 | 17°8′ N 78° 31′ E | larvae, lab culture |
| 20 | E. Vinogradova | This study |
| India, Pondicherry | E/E1 | 29 | 12°25′ N 80°41′ E | larvae, lab culture |
| 23 | E. Vinogradova | This study |
| Portugal, Comporta | E/E1 | 30 | 38°22′ N 8°46′ W | imago, above ground |
| 6 | P. Almeida | This study |
| Portugal, Comporta | E/E1 | 30 | 38°22′ N 8°46′ W | imago, above ground |
| 14 | P. Almeida | This study |
| Italy, Viterbo | E/E1 | 31 | 42°23′ N 12°7′ E | larvae, urban, above ground |
| 15 | E. Vinogradova | This study |
| Israel, Haifa | E/E1 | 32 | 32° 49′N34° 57′E | imago, urban, indoor space |
| 7 | E. Shaikevich | This study |
| Morocco, Tanger | E/E1 | 33 | 35° 46′ N 5° 48′ W | imago, urban, above ground | pip/quin hybridb | 13 | A.- B. Failloux | This study |
| Greece, Cyprus | E/E1 | 34 | 34°46′N 32°25′E | imago, urban, indoor space | hybrida | 3§ | E. Vinogradova | This study |
| Greece, Kos | E/E1 | 35 | 36°49′N 27°06′E | imago, urban, indoor space | pip/quin hybridb | 24 | E. Vinogradova | [ |
| Total | 580 |
Cx. pipiens s.l. correspopnds to unknown taxa discrimination
*-expression of autogeny was studied, hybrida – pipiens/molestus hybrid populations according to CQ11 assay, pip/quin hybridb - according to ACE2 assay see Table 4
§ - 1 with unknown status; ¥ - 6 with unknown status; † − 3 with unknown status
The association between mtDNA, type of bacteria Wolbachia and ACE2 and CQ11 nuclear loci
| Sampling site | Number |
|
| ACE2btype | CQ11 results c | References | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pip | quin | hybrid | pip | mol/quin | hybrid | neg | |||||
| Russia, Moscow region | 7 | A,B,C | II | 7 | - | - | 7 | - | - | - | This study |
| Germany, Berlin | 9 | A,C | II | 9 | - | - | 9 | - | - | - | This study |
| Germany, Hannover | 17 | A (B,C) | II | 17 | - | - | 17 | - | - | - | This study |
| Russia, Volgograd | 12 | A (B,C) | II | 12 | - | - | 12 | - | - | - | This study |
| France, Prades-le-Lez 1 | 16 | A (B,C) | II | 16 | - | - | 14 | - | 2 | - | This study |
| France, Prades-le-Lez 2 | 22 | A (B,C) | II | 22 | - | - | 16 | 3 | 3 | - | This study |
| France, Saint-Nazaire de Pezan | 12 | A (B,C) | II | 12 | - | - | 9 | - | 2 | 1 | This study |
| T7 strain, France,Montpellier | 11 | A (B,C) | II | 11 | - | - | - | 8 | 1 | - | This study |
| Morocco, Casablanca | 2 | A (B,C) | II | 2 | - | - | - | - | 2 | - | This study |
| Russia, S-Peterburg1a | 8 | D | IV | 8 | - | - | - | 6 | 2 | - | This study |
| Russia, S-Peterburg2a | 7 | D | IV | 7 | - | - | - | 3 | 4 | - | This study |
| Russia, Tomska | 9 | D | IV | 9 | - | - | ND | ND | ND | ND | [ |
| Russia, Ekaterinburga | 6 | D | IV | 6 | - | - | ND | ND | ND | ND | [ |
| Russia, Moscowa | 20 | D | IV | 20 | - | - | - | 18 | 2 | - | This study |
| Germany, Berlina | 4 | D | IV | 4 | - | - | - | 3 | 1 | - | This study |
| Germany, Hannovera | 1 | D | IV | 1 | - | - | - | 1 | - | - | This study |
| Russia, Volgograda | 8 | D | IV | 8 | - | - | - | 5 | 3 | - | This study |
| Italy, Piedmont | 18 | D | IV | 18 | - | - | 9 | - | 3 | 6 | This study |
| Tunisia, Nefza | 16 | D | IV | 16 | - | - | 7 | 4 | 2 | 3 | This study |
| Tunisia, Tabarka | 12 | D | IV | 12 | - | - | 4 | 2 | 3 | 3 | This study |
| Morocco, Casablanca | 1 | D | IV | 1 | - | - | - | - | 1 | - | This study |
| Portugal, Comporta | 4 | E | I | 4 | - | - | 3 | 1 | - | - | This study and CQ11 from [ |
| Portugal, Comporta | 6 | E1 | I | 6 | - | - | 1 | 4 | 1 | - | |
| Greece, Kos | 24 | E | I | 11 | - | 13 | 3 | 7 | 14 | - | This study and ACE2 and CQ11 from [ |
| Greece, Cyprus | 3 | E | ND | 3 | - | - | - | - | 2 | 1 | This study |
| Morocco, Tanger | 13 | E | I | 6 | - | 7 | 3 | - | 10 | - | This study |
| India, Pondisherry | 6 | E | I | - | 6 | - | ND | ND | ND | ND | This study |
| Total | 274 | ||||||||||
pip pipiens, mol molestus, quin quinquefasciatus
ND not determined
aundergound (or indoor) sampling sites
b ACE2 assay: Cx. pipiens (both forms) - 610 bp, Cx. quinquefasciatus - 274 bp, hybrid - 610 and 274 bp
c CQ11 assay: Cx. pipiens f. pipiens - 200 bp, Cx. pipiens f. molestus/Cx. quinquefasciatus - 250 bp, hybrid - 250 and 200 bp, neg - PCR is negative
Distribution of COI haplotypes between Cx. pipiens taxa base on PCR-RFLP
|
|
| N (544) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Group A | 201 (117 + 84a) (91 %) | 11a (5 %) | 0 | 0 | 10a (4 %) | 222 |
| D | 20a (9 %) | 179 (137 + 42a) (81 %) | 0 | 0 | 21a (10 %) | 220 |
| Group E | 9a (9 %) | 14a (14 %) | 43 (42 %) | 33 (32 %) | 3a (3 %) | 102 |
Percentages were calculated along respective line, among 544 individuals, excluding inconclusive from the analysis. Chi-square = 732.71, d.f. = 8, P < 0.0001
abased on CQ11
Distribution of COI haplotypes between Cx. pipiens taxa base on sequence analysis
| Populations (country, name) | Taxonomy status | Frequency of mt haplotype (number of specimens) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | D | E | E1 | |||
| Russia | Moscow region, Iksha |
| 0.4 (2) | - | 0.6 (3) | - | - | - |
| Moscow region, Luzki |
| 0.3 (1) | 0.7 (2) | - | - | - | - | |
| Volgograd Region, Sarepta |
| 1 (1) | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Volgograd Region, Liteishik |
| - | - | 1 (1) | - | - | - | |
| Petrozavodsk |
| - | - | - | 1 (1) | - | - | |
| Saint Petersburg |
| - | - | - | 1 (2) | - | - | |
| Moscow |
| - | - | - | 1 (1) | - | - | |
| Nizhniy Novgorod |
| - | - | - | 1 (1) | - | - | |
| Volgograd |
| - | - | - | 1 (5) | - | - | |
| Germany | Berlin |
| 0.5 (1) | - | 0.5 (1) | - | - | - |
|
| - | - | - | 1 (2) | - | - | ||
| Hannover |
| 0.5 (1) | - | 0.5 (1) | - | - | - | |
|
| - | - | - | 1 (1) | - | - | ||
| Italy | Piedmont |
| - | - | - | 1 (2) | - | - |
| Viterbo |
| - | - | - | - | 1 (1) | - | |
| Portugal | Comporta |
| - | - | - | - | 1 (3) | - |
| Comporta |
| - | - | - | - | 0.14 (1) | 0.86 (6) | |
| Greece | Cyprus |
| - | - | - | - | 1 (1) | - |
| Israel | Haifa |
| - | - | - | - | 1 (2) | - |
| Tunisia | Nefza |
| - | - | - | 1 (5) | - | - |
| Tabarka |
| - | - | - | 1 (2) | - | - | |
| India | Hydarabad |
| - | - | - | - | 1 (2) | - |
| Pondicherry |
| - | - | - | - | 1 (2) | - | |
abased on CQ11 assay, with no data regarding autogeny status
Fig. 1Network analysis based on statistical parsimony showing the relationships of the Cx. pipiens COI haplotypes. Mutations are shown on the branches. The size of the ovals are proportional to the number of the occurring haplotypes in 48 samples from 20 localities (Table 2)
Fig. 2Molecular Phylogenetic analysis of COI gene from Cx. pipiens taxa. A total of 48 sequences within the 54 mentioned in Table 2 were analyzed. The evolutionary history was inferred by using the Maximum Likelihood method based on the Hasegawa-Kishino-Yano model [46]. The tree with the highest log likelihood (−1539.7457) is shown. Initial tree(s) for the heuristic search were obtained by applying the Neighbor-Joining method to a matrix of pairwise distances estimated using the Maximum Composite Likelihood (MCL) approach. The tree is drawn to scale, with branch lengths measured in the number of substitutions per site, numbers are bootstrap coefficients calculated for a 1000 repeats. All positions containing gaps and missing data were eliminated. There were a total of 1150 positions in the final dataset. Evolutionary analyses were conducted in MEGA6 [44]. Taxa names: pip – Cx. pipiens form pipiens, mol - Cx. pipiens form molestus, quin - Cx. quinquefasciatus, hyb – hybrid, unk – unknown or Cx. pipiens sl
Fig. 3Geographic distribution of COI haplotypes. Numbers in the map correspond to locality numbers in Table 1; green, COI types A-C; pink, COI type D; blue, COI types E and E1