Journal
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MOSQUITO CONTROL ASSOCIATION
Volume 28, Issue 4, Pages 68-74Publisher
AMER MOSQUITO CONTROL ASSOC
DOI: 10.2987/8756-971X-28.0.68
Keywords
Culex pipiens complex; Culex torrentium; identification; CQ11 assay; COI barcoding
Categories
Funding
- Canterbury Christ Church University
- Natural History Museum London
- National Research Council
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Until the relatively recent application of molecular identification tools, identification of Culex pipiens f. pipiens and Cx. pipiens f. molestus relied on expressed ecological characteristics, including autogeny, host preference and stenogamy. Herein we test two DNA assays, one based on the microsatellite locus CQ11 and the other on species-diagnostic nucleotide bases in the mtDNA cytochrome oxidase I, on 322 wild-caught Cx. pipiens s.l. collected in above ground habitats from 6 counties across southern England and Wales. Of the 322 Culex pipiens s.l. screened using the CQ11 assay, 205 were identified as Cx. pipiens f. pipiens, 95 as Cx. pipiens f. molestus and 22 were determined as hybrids. Neither above ground Cx. pipiens f. molestus, nor hybrids have previously been reported in UK. However, comparison of COI barcodes (658bp) from 30 individuals from the above defined grouping indicated that inadvertent inclusion of specimens of Cx. torrentium resulted in the expected product sizes purportedly diagnostic for Cx. pipiens f. molestus, Cx. pipiens f. pipiens and hybrids in the CQ11 assay. COI sequences showed Cx. torrentium was misidentified as Cx. pipiens s.l. in more than 50% of cases and that all above ground Cx. pipiens s.l. collected in this study were in fact Cx. pipiens f. pipiens. Thus in regions of the Palearctic where Cx. torrentium and Cx. pipiens s.l. are sympatric, we showed that the CQ11 assay produces misleading results and should not be used.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available