Evaluating sampling strategies for enzootic Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus vectors in Florida and Panama.
Journal
PLoS neglected tropical diseases
ISSN: 1935-2735
Titre abrégé: PLoS Negl Trop Dis
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101291488
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2022
04 2022
Historique:
received:
16
11
2021
accepted:
14
03
2022
entrez:
13
4
2022
pubmed:
14
4
2022
medline:
16
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Determining effective sampling methods for mosquitoes are among the first objectives in elucidating transmission cycles of vector-borne zoonotic disease, as the effectiveness of sampling methods can differ based on species, location, and physiological state. The Spissipes section of the subgenus Melanoconion of Culex represents an understudied group of mosquitoes which transmit Venezuelan equine encephalitis viruses (VEEV) in the Western Hemisphere. The objective of this study was to determine effective collection methods that target both blood-engorged and non-engorged females of the Spissipes section of Culex subgenus Melanoconion to test the hypothesis that favorable trapping methods differ between species and by physiological status within a species. Mosquitoes were collected using two commercially available traps, (CDC-light trap and BG-Sentinel trap), two novel passive traps (a novel mosquito drift fence and pop-up resting shelters), and two novel aspirators, (a small-diameter aspirator and a large-diameter aspirator) in Darién, Panama, and Florida, USA. The total number of female mosquitoes collected for each species was compared using rarefaction curves and diversity metrics. We also compared the utility of each trap for collecting total females and blood-engorged females of four Spissipes section mosquito species in Florida and Darién. In Darién, it was found that both blood-engorged and unfed females of Cx. pedroi were most effectively collected using the mosquito drift fence at 57.6% and 61.7% respectively. In contrast, the most unfed Cx. spissipes were collected using the mosquito drift fence (40.7%) while blood-engorged females were collected effectively by pop-up resting shelters (42.3%). In Florida, the best sampling technique for the collection of blood-engorged Cx. panocossa was the large diameter aspirator at 41.9%, while the best trap for collecting Cx. cedecei was the pop-up resting shelter at 45.9%. For unfed female Spissipes section mosquitoes in Florida, the CDC light trap with CO2 collected 84.5% and 98.3% of Cx. cedecei and Cx. panocossa respectively in Florida. Rarefaction analysis, and both the Shannon and Simpsons diversity indices all demonstrated that the mosquito drift fence was capable of collecting the greatest diversity of mosquito species regardless of location. The finding that the proportions of unfed and blood-engorged mosquitoes collected by traps differed both among and between species has implications for how studies of VEEV vectors will be carried out in future investigations. In Florida a combination of pop-up resting shelters and use of a large-diameter aspirator would be optimal for the collection of both VEEV vectors for host-use studies. Results demonstrate that traps can be constructed from common materials to collect mosquitoes for VEEV vector studies and could be assessed for their utilization in vectors of other systems as well. Unfortunately, no single method was effective for capturing all species and physiological states, highlighting a particular need for assessing trap utility for target species of a study.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35417476
doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010329
pii: PNTD-D-21-01631
pmc: PMC9007344
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0010329Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Emerg Infect Dis. 2003 Jan;9(1):49-54
pubmed: 12533281
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1986 May;35(3):619-23
pubmed: 3706626
PLoS One. 2017 Sep 22;12(9):e0185491
pubmed: 28937995
Annu Rev Entomol. 2004;49:141-74
pubmed: 14651460
J Med Entomol. 1979 Sep 4;15(5-6):521-5
pubmed: 544824
Acta Trop. 2016 Dec;164:137-149
pubmed: 27609637
Future Virol. 2011;6(6):721-740
pubmed: 21765860
J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2006 Jun;22(2):229-38
pubmed: 17019768
J Med Entomol. 2004 Jul;41(4):575-81
pubmed: 15311446
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1996 Aug;55(2):202-8
pubmed: 8780461
Rev Saude Publica. 1991 Aug;25(4):257-66
pubmed: 1820613
Science. 1971 May 7;172(3983):594-5
pubmed: 5555082
Acta Trop. 2017 Mar;167:59-63
pubmed: 28012907
J Med Entomol. 2005 May;42(3):404-8
pubmed: 15962794
J Med Entomol. 2009 Jul;46(4):745-52
pubmed: 19645276
J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 1990 Mar;6(1):7-34
pubmed: 2324726
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2009 Jun 30;3(6):e472
pubmed: 19564908
J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 1994 Dec;10(4):511-4
pubmed: 7707056
Emerg Infect Dis. 2004 Dec;10(12):2182-8
pubmed: 15663857
PLoS One. 2019 Feb 22;14(2):e0212688
pubmed: 30794670
J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2006 Mar;22(1):70-5
pubmed: 16646325
Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2012 Feb;107(1):125-8
pubmed: 22310545
Emerg Infect Dis. 2019 Jun;25(6):1093-1100
pubmed: 31107225
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017 Aug 3;11(8):e0005693
pubmed: 28771475
J Med Entomol. 1999 Jul;36(4):407-9
pubmed: 10467764
Acta Trop. 2019 Feb;190:288-292
pubmed: 30521803
Malar J. 2013 Feb 05;12:49
pubmed: 23379959
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016 Apr 21;10(4):e0004554
pubmed: 27101567
Parasit Vectors. 2020 May 27;13(1):269
pubmed: 32460878
J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 1996 Sep;12(3 Pt 2):517-600
pubmed: 8887711
Parasit Vectors. 2019 Jan 14;12(1):31
pubmed: 30642379
J Med Entomol. 2009 Jul;46(4):919-25
pubmed: 19645298
J Med Entomol. 1975 Jun 30;12(2):205-9
pubmed: 1159744
Biol Lett. 2017 Oct;13(10):
pubmed: 28978755
J Virol. 1997 Sep;71(9):6697-705
pubmed: 9261393
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1979 Nov;28(6):1060-3
pubmed: 507283
J Med Entomol. 2000 Nov;37(6):835-9
pubmed: 11126537
J Med Entomol. 2005 Sep;42(5):891-8
pubmed: 16366001
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2020 Dec;103(6):2429-2437
pubmed: 33124532
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1980 Sep;29(5):969-83
pubmed: 7435797
World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 1967;369:1-84
pubmed: 4963041
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1998 Jul;59(1):100-7
pubmed: 9684636