4.5 Article

Culicoides arakawae (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) efficiently blood-fed and infected with Leucocytozoon caulleryi through a natural membrane

期刊

VETERINARY PARASITOLOGY
卷 99, 期 4, 页码 297-303

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0304-4017(01)00491-5

关键词

Culicoides arakawae; Leucocytozoon caulleryi; Ceratopogonidae; membrane-feeding

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Culicoides arakawae, the most common Culicoides sp. on chicken farms in East Asia, is an important blood-sucking insect and Leucocytozoon caulleryi vector. How parasites, in an ingested blood bolus, enter the midgut of insects and deal with this complex and biochemically hostile environment is poorly understood. However, successful blood-feeding through a membrane in C. arakawae is beneficial for studying this phenomenon. Therefore, a membrane-feeding method for C. arakawae was developed in. The blood-feeding success rates of C. arakawae fed through five different membranes were: turkey egg at 43.7 +/- 11.7%, chicken egg at 45.2 +/- 12.1%, duck egg at 38.8 +/- 12.0%, pig gut at 0% and chick skin at 0%. In fertility measurements, the average number of eggs produced for C. arakawae fed through egg-shell membrane, at 77.7 +/- 15.1 per female, was significantly higher (P < 0.01) than the 46.7 +/- 10.6 found in C. arakawae fed on the breast skin of a live chicken. Meanwhile, in parasite infectivity tests, C. arakawae could be infected by L. caulleryi when the vector was blood-fed with infective blood cells reconstituted with specific pathogen-free (SPF) sera through an egg-shell membrane. The sporozoite average and infection rates of inoculated chicks were 166.8 +/- 12.5 and 100%, respectively. In conclusion, feeding C. arakawae blood through fowl-egg-shell membranes should be an efficient method for in vitro infection of midges as the engorged midges are infected by parasites and display reproductive potential. Furthermore, the method is practical for feeding a large number of midges. (C) 2001 Published by Elsevier Science B.V.

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

4.5
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