| Literature DB >> 26852018 |
Hamidou Maïga1,2, David Damiens3, Abdoulaye Diabaté4, Roch K Dabiré5, Georges A Ouédraogo6, Rosemary S Lees7, Jeremie R L Gilles8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The success of the sterile insect technique relies, among other things, on the continuous release of over flooding numbers of sexually competitive sterile males into the target area. To produce sufficiently large quantities of sterile males, rearing protocols need to be optimized including the development and validation of a standardized egg quantification method.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26852018 PMCID: PMC4744385 DOI: 10.1186/s12936-016-1119-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Fig. 1Correlation between weight and counted number of dried Anopheles arabiensis eggs, counted by stereomicroscope and then weighed. Data is presented from five replicates each of 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000, 7000 and 8000 dried eggs
Comparison between mean absolute numbers of Anopheles arabiensis eggs, collected from either small rearing cages (SRCs) or mass-rearing cages (MRCs) and counted using a stereomicroscope, and the number of eggs expected based on previously measured correlation between egg number and weight
| Number of eggs expected | Number of eggs counted (mean ± SE (N)) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SRCs |
| MRCs |
| |
| 1000 | 989 ± 11 (14) | ns | 896 ± 23 (6) | ns |
| 3000 | 3032 ± 39 (6) | ns | 2557 ± 80 (6) | * |
| 4000 | 4270 ± 32 (6) | ns | 3737 ± 137 (6) | * |
A Chi square test was performed for all pairs of egg numbers except between cage type (SRCs and MRCs)
* Significant difference with P < 0.0001, ns no significant difference (P > 0.05). se standard error and (N) number of assessed samples of eggs
Effect of drying, brushing and quantifying Anopheles arabiensis eggs on adult life history traits in resulting mosquitoes
| Parameters | Egg type | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Fresh | Dried | ||
| PR (%) | 58.5 ± 3.2 | 63.1 ± 10.3 | t = 0.513, df = 2, |
| ER (%) | 94.6 ± 1.4 | 93.4 ± 1.5 | t = 0.736, df = 5, |
| IR (%) | 74.2 ± 8.2 | 84.6 ± 7.2 | t = 1.704, df = 2, |
| F | 772.3 ± 118.9 | 619.3 ± 331.4 | t = 0.671, df = 5, |
| WL male (µm) | 3122.8 ± 23.1 | 3118.5 ± 16.1 | t = 0.132, df = 29, |
| WL female (µm) | 3433.05 ± 22.4 | 3400.27 ± 18.4 | t = 1.554, df = 20, |
Eggs were collected from small rearing cages, and either hatched immediately or dried before hatching into larval mass-rearing trays (100 × 60 × 3 cm), and then reared to adulthood. Results of a t test comparison between fresh and dried egg batches are presented
Within each egg type all parameters were found not to be significantly different from each other (t test) (P > 0.05)
PR pupation rate as a proportion of eggs, ER emergence rate as a proportion of total pupae, IR insemination rate as a proportion of all female adults, F fecundity (mean number of eggs per treatment), WL wing length
Fig. 2Survival curves estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method of a mated males and b mated females, reared from eggs which were either hatched immediately after collection (fresh) or dried and quantified before hatching (dried)