Optimization of the feeding rate of Anopheles farauti s.s. colony mosquitoes in direct membrane feeding assays.
Anopheles farauti
Direct membrane feeding assay
Papua New Guinea
Journal
Parasites & vectors
ISSN: 1756-3305
Titre abrégé: Parasit Vectors
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101462774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Jul 2021
07 Jul 2021
Historique:
received:
08
03
2021
accepted:
11
06
2021
entrez:
8
7
2021
pubmed:
9
7
2021
medline:
5
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Direct membrane feeding assays (DMFA) are an important tool to study parasite transmission to mosquitoes. Mosquito feeding rates in these artificial systems require optimization, as there are a number of factors that potentially influence the feeding rates and there are no standardized methods that apply to all anopheline species. A range of parameters prior to and during direct membrane feeding (DMF) were evaluated for their impact on Anopheles farauti sensu stricto feeding rates, including the starving conditions and duration of starving prior to feeding, membrane type, DMF exposure time, mosquito age, feeding in the light versus the dark, blood volume, mosquito density and temperature of water bath. The average successful DMFA feeding rate for An. farauti s.s. colony mosquitoes increased from 50 to 85% when assay parameters were varied. Overnight starvation and Baudruche membrane yielded the highest feeding rates but rates were also affected by blood volume in the feeder and the mosquito density in the feeding cups. Availability of water during the pre-feed starvation period did not significantly impact feeding rates, nor did the exposure duration to blood in membrane feeders, the age of mosquitoes (3, 5 and 7 days post-emergence), feeding in the light versus the dark, or the temperature (34 °C, 38 °C, 42 °C and 46 °C) of the water bath. Optimal feeding conditions in An. farauti s.s. DMFA were to offer 50 female mosquitoes in a cup (with a total surface area of ~ 340 cm
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Direct membrane feeding assays (DMFA) are an important tool to study parasite transmission to mosquitoes. Mosquito feeding rates in these artificial systems require optimization, as there are a number of factors that potentially influence the feeding rates and there are no standardized methods that apply to all anopheline species.
METHODS
METHODS
A range of parameters prior to and during direct membrane feeding (DMF) were evaluated for their impact on Anopheles farauti sensu stricto feeding rates, including the starving conditions and duration of starving prior to feeding, membrane type, DMF exposure time, mosquito age, feeding in the light versus the dark, blood volume, mosquito density and temperature of water bath.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The average successful DMFA feeding rate for An. farauti s.s. colony mosquitoes increased from 50 to 85% when assay parameters were varied. Overnight starvation and Baudruche membrane yielded the highest feeding rates but rates were also affected by blood volume in the feeder and the mosquito density in the feeding cups. Availability of water during the pre-feed starvation period did not significantly impact feeding rates, nor did the exposure duration to blood in membrane feeders, the age of mosquitoes (3, 5 and 7 days post-emergence), feeding in the light versus the dark, or the temperature (34 °C, 38 °C, 42 °C and 46 °C) of the water bath.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Optimal feeding conditions in An. farauti s.s. DMFA were to offer 50 female mosquitoes in a cup (with a total surface area of ~ 340 cm
Identifiants
pubmed: 34233734
doi: 10.1186/s13071-021-04842-y
pii: 10.1186/s13071-021-04842-y
pmc: PMC8261992
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
356Références
Parasit Vectors. 2016 Oct 18;9(1):552
pubmed: 27756355
J Med Invest. 2002 Aug;49(3-4):118-23
pubmed: 12323000
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2001 Jan-Feb;64(1-2):32-4
pubmed: 11425159
Neuron. 2020 Dec 23;108(6):1163-1180.e12
pubmed: 33049200
Methods Mol Biol. 2015;1325:93-9
pubmed: 26450382
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016 Jun 29;10(6):e0004807
pubmed: 27355210
PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e42821
pubmed: 22936993
Sci Rep. 2013 Dec 04;3:3418
pubmed: 24301557
Malar J. 2016 Jan 12;15:25
pubmed: 26753618
Vaccine. 2015 Dec 22;33(52):7476-82
pubmed: 26409813
Int J Parasitol. 2017 Feb;47(2-3):163-170
pubmed: 28043858
Parasitology. 1988 Apr;96 ( Pt 2):251-63
pubmed: 3374964
Malar J. 2018 Aug 3;17(1):282
pubmed: 30075783
J Med Entomol. 2016 Nov;53(6):1425-1432
pubmed: 27493248
Parasitology. 2001 May;122(Pt 5):491-6
pubmed: 11393821
Parasit Vectors. 2013 Jun 14;6:176
pubmed: 23768077
J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 1991 Jun;7(2):327-9
pubmed: 1680153
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2003 Nov;69(5):529-35
pubmed: 14695091
J Med Entomol. 2013 Mar;50(2):336-43
pubmed: 23540122
Exp Parasitol. 2015 Feb;149:74-83
pubmed: 25541384
Malar J. 2013 Dec 21;12:460
pubmed: 24359307
Malar J. 2008 Dec 02;7:248
pubmed: 19055715
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2000 Jan-Feb;94(1):103-6
pubmed: 10748913
Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2014 Aug;109(5):644-61
pubmed: 25185005
J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 1987 Dec;3(4):589-92
pubmed: 3504945
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2017 Sep;97(3):719-725
pubmed: 28722588