4.6 Article

Towards the Laboratory Maintenance of Haemagogus janthinomys (Dyar, 1921), the Major Neotropical Vector of Sylvatic Yellow Fever

期刊

VIRUSES-BASEL
卷 15, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/v15010045

关键词

Haemagogus janthinomys; sylvatic; arbovirus; yellow fever; Flaviviridae; Flavivirus; blood feeding; forced mating

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We described the techniques of installment hatching, artificial blood feeding, and forced-mating, which allowed us to produce small numbers of F-3 generation Hg. janthinomys eggs for the first time. Although we were unable to maintain a laboratory colony of Hg. janthinomys past the F-3 generation, our methods provide a foundation for experimental transmission studies with this species in a laboratory setting.
Haemagogus (Haemagogus) janthinomys (Dyar, 1921), the major neotropical vector of sylvatic yellow fever virus, is notoriously difficult to maintain in captivity. It has never been reared beyond an F-1 generation, and almost no experimental transmission studies have been performed with this species since the 1940s. Herein we describe installment hatching, artificial blood feeding, and forced-mating techniques that enabled us to produce small numbers of F-3 generation Hg. janthinomys eggs for the first time. A total of 62.8% (1562/2486) F-1 generation eggs hatched during <= 10 four-day cycles of immersion in a bamboo leaf infusion followed by partial drying. Hatching decreased to 20.1% (190/944) in the F-2 generation for eggs laid by mosquitoes copulated by forced mating. More than 85% (79/92) female F-2 mosquitoes fed on an artificial blood feeding system. While we were unable to maintain a laboratory colony of Hg. janthinomys past the F-3 generation, our methods provide a foundation for experimental transmission studies with this species in a laboratory setting, a critical capacity in a region with hyper-endemic transmission of dengue, Zika, and chikungunya viruses, all posing a risk of spillback into a sylvatic cycle.

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