4.6 Review

Biting Midges (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) as Vectors of Viruses

期刊

MICROORGANISMS
卷 11, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms11112706

关键词

Culicoides; vector; arbovirus; disease; distribution; epidemiology; transmission; microbiota; interaction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biting midges are globally distributed and can reach high densities. They not only cause nuisance but also transmit disease agents. However, knowledge on their biology and ecology is limited due to various challenges in research, such as unknown larval habitats and difficulty in laboratory breeding.
Biting midges of the genus Culicoides occur almost globally and can regionally and seasonally reach high abundances. Most species are hematophagous, feeding on all groups of vertebrates, including humans. In addition to being nuisance pests, they are able to transmit disease agents, with some viruses causing high morbidity and/or mortality in ruminants, horses and humans. Despite their impact on animal husbandry, public health and tourism, knowledge on the biology and ecology of culicoid biting midges and their interactions with ingested pathogens or symbiotic microorganisms is limited. Research is challenging due to unknown larval habitats, the insects' tiny size, the inability to establish and breed most species in the laboratory and the laborious maintenance of colonies of the few species that can be reared in the laboratory. Consequently, the natural transmission of pathogens has experimentally been demonstrated for few species while, for others, only indirect evidence of vector potential exists. Most experimental data are available for Culicoides sonorensis and C. nubeculosus, the only species kept in western-world insectaries. This contribution gives an overview on important biting midge vectors, transmitted viruses, culicoid-borne viral diseases and their epidemiologies and summarizes the little knowledge on interactions between biting midges, their microflora and culicoid-borne arboviruses.

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