| Literature DB >> 28882146 |
Dieudonné D Soma1,2,3, Hamidou Maïga4,5, Wadaka Mamai5,6, Nanwintoun S Bimbile-Somda4,5, Nelius Venter7, Adel B Ali5, Hanano Yamada5, Abdoulaye Diabaté4, Florence Fournet8, Georges A Ouédraogo9, Rosemary S Lees10, Roch K Dabiré4, Jeremie R L Gilles11.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The success of the sterile insect technique depends, among other things, on continuous releases of sexually competitive sterile males within the target area. Several factors (including high rearing density and physical manipulation, such as larvae and pupae separation) can influence the quality of males produced in mass-rearing facilities. The different steps in mass production in the laboratory may modify the behaviour of mosquitoes, directly or through loss of natural characters as a result of adaptation to lab rearing, and lead to the competitiveness of sterile male being reduced. In the present study, the objective was to evaluate the effect of mass-rearing conditions on sterile male sexual competitiveness in semi-field cages compared to routine small scale laboratory rearing methods.Entities:
Keywords: Anopheles arabiensis; Competitiveness; Mass-rearing; Sterile insect technique
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28882146 PMCID: PMC5590130 DOI: 10.1186/s12936-017-2012-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Fig. 1Experimental design used to assess Anopheles arabiensis male mating competitiveness. MRS mass-rearing scale, SRS small rearing scale, #irradiated males; ♀ female; ♂ male
Fig. 2Mean wing length in Anopheles arabiensis reared at MRS and SRS
Fig. 3Longevity curves of Anopheles arabiensis males reared at MRS and SRS
Mean proportion of recaptured females, female insemination rate and fecundity of An. arabiensis following mating competitiveness experiments in semi-field cages
| Treatments | Ratio S♂:F♂:F♀ | Mean of R ± SE (min–max) | IR | F (mean ± SE) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % mean ± SE | ||||
| Unirradiated control-MRS | 0:100:100 | 81.28 ± 3.81 (70–92) | 212 | 64.30 ± 4.15 | 691.75 ± 177.46 |
| Unirradiated control-SRS | 0:100:100 | 76.20 ± 5.62 (54–84) | 199 | 60.17 ± 4.36 | 234.50 ± 148.05 |
| Irradiated control-MRS | 100:0:100 | 68.20 ± 3.26 (59–76) | 211 | 53.22 ± 5.85 | 370.75 ± 281.13 |
| Irradiated control-SRS | 100:0:100 | 73.83 ± 7.94 (49–94) | 235 | 57.34 ± 5.30 | 598.50 ± 337.80 |
| ♂ MRS#:♂SRS:♀SRS | 100:100:100 | 75.08 ± 6.23 (57–97) | 280 | 53.84 ± 2.40 | 155.00 ± 89.83 |
| ♂SRS#:♂ MRS:♀SRS | 100:100:100 | 72.43 ± 4.12 (57–89) | 271 | 50.02 ± 1.47 | 206.00 ± 55.75 |
R (% ± SE) average percentage of recaptured females, (min–max) minimum and maximum, IR (% ± SE) proportion of dissected females per treatment, n number of dissected females, F (% ± SE) average number of eggs laid per female, SE standard error, S♂ irradiated male, F♂ unirradiated male, F♀ virgin female
Competitiveness index of irradiated Anopheles arabiensis males and induced sterility in large cage experiment
| Treatments | Ratio S♂:F♂:F♀ | Hatch rate (% mean ± SE) | C (mean ± SE) | IS (% ± SE) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unirradiated control-MRS | 0:100:100 | 84.22 ± 2.88a | ||
| Unirradiated control-SRS | 0:100:100 | 86.22 ± 2.70a | ||
| Irradiated control-MRS# | 100:0:100 | 19.14 ± 1.45b | ||
| Irradiated control-SRS# | 100:0:100 | 20.85 ± 0.77b | ||
| ♂ MRS#:♂SRS:♀SRS | 100:100:100 | 61.07 ± 2.32c | 0.58 ± 0.10 | 27.81 ± 3.79 |
| ♂SRS#:♂ MRS:♀SRS | 100:100:100 | 61.79 ± 2.05c | 0.59 ± 0.07 | 27.94 ± 2.21 |
Significantly differences between hatch rates are indicated by different letters (Tukey’s posthoc test, P < 0.05)
C competitiveness index, IS induced sterility, SE standard error, S♂ irradiated male, F♂ unirradiated male, F♀ virgin female
#Irradiated male
Fig. 4Proportion of Anopheles arabiensis larvae, pupae and adults emerging from eggs collected from different treatment cages. Proportion of larvae = black bars; pupae = grey bars; adults = white bars; UC-MRS/UC-SRS unirradiated control male from mass or small rearing scale, IC-MRS/IC-SRS irradiated control male from mass or small rearing scale, MRS vs SRS/SRS vs MRS irradiated male versus unirradiated male. Within each parameter were found not to be significantly different from each other (Tukey’s posthoc test, P < 0.05)