4.6 Article

Brazilian Populations of Aedes aegypti Resistant to Pyriproxyfen Exhibit Lower Susceptibility to Infection with Zika Virus

期刊

VIRUSES-BASEL
卷 14, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/v14102198

关键词

Zika virus; Aedes aegypti; pyriproxyfen; per os infection; insecticide resistance; viral titer; vector competence

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aedes aegypti mosquitoes with higher insecticide resistance have lower susceptibility to Zika virus infection.
Zika virus (ZIKV) infection has caused devastating consequences in Brazil as infections were associated with neurological complications in neonates. Aedes aegypti is the primary vector of ZIKV, and the evolution of insecticide resistance (IR) in this species can compromise control efforts. Although relative levels of phenotypic IR in mosquitoes can change considerably over time, its influence on vector competence for arboviruses is unclear. Pyriproxyfen (PPF)-resistant populations of Ae. aegypti were collected from five municipalities located in Northeast of Brazil, which demonstrated different resistance levels; low (Serrinha, Brumado), moderate (Juazeiro do Norte, Itabuna), and high (Quixada). Experimental per os infection using ZIKV were performed with individuals from these populations and with an insecticide susceptible strain (Rockefeller) to determine their relative vector competence for ZIKV. Although all populations were competent to transmit ZIKV, mosquitoes derived from populations with moderate to high levels of IR exhibited similar or lower susceptibility to ZIKV infection than those from populations with low IR or the susceptible strain. These observations suggest an association between IR and arbovirus infection, which may be attributable to genetic hitchhiking. The use of PPF to control Brazilian Ae. aegypti may be associated with an indirect benefit of reduced susceptibility to infection, but no changes in disseminated infection and transmission of ZIKV among PPF-resistant phenotypes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据