| Literature DB >> 29587876 |
Etienne Bilgo1,2, Brian Lovett3, Raymond J St Leger3, Antoine Sanon4, Roch K Dabiré5, Abdoulaye Diabaté5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Genetically enhanced Metarhizium pingshaense are being developed for malaria vector control in Burkina Faso. However, not much is known about the local prevalence and pathogenicity of this fungus, so we prospected mosquitoes and plant roots (a common habitat for Metarhizium spp.) for entomopathogenic fungi.Entities:
Keywords: Burkina Faso; Cockroaches; Entomopathogenic fungi; Honeybees; Malaria; Metarhizium; Mosquitoes; Vector control
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29587876 PMCID: PMC5870526 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-018-2796-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Fig. 1Rhizosphere and mosquito collection sites
Fig. 2Survival curves of mosquitoes infected with Burkina Faso Metarhizium pingshaense isolates at different concentrations: C1, 1 × 108 conidia/ml; C2, 1 × 107 conidia/ml; C3, 1 × 106 conidia/ml
LT80s and grouping LT80 values for Anopheles coluzzii adults treated with Burkina Faso local Metarhizium pingshaense strains (Met_10 and Met_26) compared with wild type Metarhizium pingshaense expressing red fluorescent protein (Met_RFP) at three different concentrations
| Concentration (conidia/ml)a | Treatment | LT80 + SE (days) | Grouping LT80b |
|---|---|---|---|
| C1 (1 × 108) | Met_S10 | 5.67 ± 0.167 | a |
| Met_S26 | 7.50 ± 0.289 | b | |
| Met_RFP | 7.18 ± 0.167 | b | |
| C2 (1 × 107) | Met_S10 | 6.67 ± 0.167 | a |
| Met_S26 | 8.67 ± 0.167 | b | |
| Met_RFP | 8.83 ± 0.167 | b | |
| C3 (1 × 106) | Met_S10 | 7.00 ± 0.289 | a |
| Met_S26 | 10.00 ± 0.500 | b | |
| Met_RFP | 10.00 ± 1.041 | b |
Abbreviation: SE standard error of the mean
aIn 0.01% Tween80
bPairwise comparison of LT80 values per spraying conidia suspension concentrations; treatments with no letters in common differ significantly at P < 0.05
Two week-survival and grouping survival values for non-target insects (Honeybees and Cockroachs) treated with Burkina Faso local Metarhizium pingshaense strains (Met_10 and Met_26) compared with wild type Metarhizium pingshaense expressing red fluorescent protein (Met_RFP) at three different concentrations and a control (0.01% Tween)
| Non-target insect | Concentration (conidia/ml)a | Treatment | Survival + SE (%) | Grouping survivalb |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Honeybee | C1 (1 × 108) | Control | 93.8 ± 1 | a |
| Met_RFP | 98.2 ± 1 | a | ||
| Met_S10 | 98.1 ± 2 | a | ||
| Met_S26 | 94.6 ± 2 | a | ||
| C2 (1 × 107) | Control | 94.6 ± 1 | a | |
| Met_RFP | 97.3 ± 2 | a | ||
| Met_S10 | 98.3 ± 1 | a | ||
| Met_S26 | 97.3 ± 0 | a | ||
| C3 (1 × 106) | Control | 95.3 ± 1 | a | |
| Met_RFP | 99.1 ± 1 | a | ||
| Met_S10 | 99.0 ± 0 | a | ||
| Met_S26 | 95.1 ± 2 | a | ||
| Cockroach | C1 (1 × 108) | Control | 95.7 ± 2 | a |
| Met_RFP | 97.8 ± 2 | a | ||
| Met_S10 | 98.8 ± 1 | a | ||
| Met_S26 | 97.5 ± 1 | a | ||
| C2 (1 × 107) | Control | 96.1 ± 2 | a | |
| Met_RFP | 97.5 ± 1 | a | ||
| Met_S10 | 98.7 ± 1 | a | ||
| Met_S26 | 97.7 ± 1 | a | ||
| C3 (1 × 106) | Control | 96.0 ± 1 | a | |
| Met_RFP | 97.0 ± 1 | a | ||
| Met_S10 | 97.0 ± 1 | a | ||
| Met_S26 | 96.0 ± 1 | a |
Abbreviation: SE standard error of the mean
aIn 0.01% Tween80
bPairwise comparison of survival mean values per spraying conidia suspension concentrations; treatments with no letters in common differ significantly at P < 0.05