| Literature DB >> 30385841 |
Nicole J Culbert1,2, Fabrizio Balestrino3, Ariane Dor4, Gustavo S Herranz5, Hanano Yamada1, Thomas Wallner1, Jérémy Bouyer6,7.
Abstract
Vector-borne diseases are responsible for more than one million deaths per year. Alternative methods of mosquito control to insecticides such as genetic control techniques are thus urgently needed. In genetic techniques involving the release of sterile insects, it is critical to release insects of high quality. Sterile males must be able to disperse, survive and compete with wild males in order to inseminate wild females. There is currently no standardized, fast-processing method to assess mosquito male quality. Since male competitiveness is linked to their ability to fly, we developed a flight test device that aimed to measure the quality of sterile male mosquitoes via their capacity to escape a series of flight tubes within two hours and compared it to two other reference methods (survival rate and mating propensity). This comparison was achieved in three different stress treatment settings usually encountered when applying the sterile insect technique, i.e. irradiation, chilling and compaction. In all treatments, survival and insemination rates could be predicted by the results of a flight test, with over 80% of the inertia predicted. This novel tool could become a standardised quality control method to evaluate cumulative stress throughout the processes related to genetic control of mosquitoes.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30385841 PMCID: PMC6212531 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-34469-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Survival rates of male Aedes aegypti exposed to various irradiation doses over a period of 15 days. Significant differences between treatment groups (30, 90, 110 and 150 Gy) and the control group (no irradiation) are indicated (*p < 0.005, **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001). Individual values of the repeats are indicated in light grey and mean values as a solid line.
Figure 2Full insemination rates of male Aedes mosquitoes exposed to various treatments. The top panels present the impact of various irradiation doses on Aedes albopictus (left) and Ae. aegypti (right). The bottom panels present the impact of chilling (left) and compaction (right) on Ae. aegypti. Boxplots present the median value and the quartiles, horizontal bars the 95% percentiles and dots the minimal and maximal values. Significant differences between treatment groups and the control group are indicated (*p < 0.005, ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001).
Figure 3The flight test device (FTD). A complete overview of the FTD in panel A. The placing of each component can be depicted from panel B.
Figure 4Escape rates of male Aedes mosquitoes exposed to various treatments. The top panels present the impact of various irradiation doses on Aedes albopictus (left) and Ae. aegypti (right). The bottom panels present the impact of chilling (left) and compaction (right) on Ae. aegypti. Boxplots present the median value and the quartiles, horizontal bars the 95% percentiles and dots the minimal and maximal values. Significant differences between treatment groups and the control group are indicated (*p < 0.005, **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001).
Use of the male escape rates from the flight organ to predict adult male quality parameters.
| Species | Treatment | First significant impact on escape rate | First significant impact on survival rate at day 15 | First significant impact on insemination rate | First significant impact on full insemination rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Irradiation | 90 Gy | 90 Gy (0.819) | NA (0.951) | 90 Gy (0.840) |
| Chilling | 8 °C | 0 °C (0.802) | NA (0.616) | 8 °C (0.532) | |
| Compaction | 5 g | 5 g (0.776) | NA (0.879) | 15 g (0.812) | |
|
| Irradiation | 40 Gy | 40 Gy (0.918) | 40 Gy (0.790) | 20 Gy (0.859) |
The first values of the different treatments significantly impacting each male quality indicator are presented. The values in brackets correspond to the proportion of explained variance (r-square), used as a model quality indicator, based on a linear mixed-effect model where the response variable (survival, insemination and full insemination rates) is predicted using the escape rate as a fix effect and the repeats as random effects. All p-values of the predictions were below 0.001. Survival was quantified by removing and counting dead individuals from both control and experimental cages daily for a period of 15 days. Mating propensity was calculated by measuring the number of virgin females (n = 10) a single control or post stress treatment male could successfully inseminate during a period of 5 days. Females were scored as inseminated or fully inseminated if one or two or more spermatheca contained sperm respectively. NAs correspond to cases in which models did not converge, mostly because the insemination rate was 1 in some of the treatments.