No abstract

Since Þrst discovered in the New York City area in 1999, West Nile virus (WNV) has become established over much of the continental United States and has been responsible for Ͼ10,000 cases of severe disease and 400 human fatalities, as well as thousands of fatal infections in horses. To develop appropriate surveillance and control strategies, the identiÞcation of which mosquito species are competent vectors and how various factors inßuence their ability to transmit this virus must be determined. Therefore, we evaluated numerous mosquito species for their ability to transmit WNV under laboratory conditions. This report contains data for several mosquito species not reported previously, as well as a summary of transmission data compiled from previously reported studies. Mosquitoes were allowed to feed on chickens infected with WNV isolated from a crow that died during the 1999 outbreak in New York City. These mosquitoes were tested Ϸ2 wk later to determine infection, dissemination, and transmission rates. All Culex species tested were competent vectors in the laboratory and varied from highly efÞcient vectors (e.g., Culex tarsalis Coquillett) to moderately efÞcient ones (e.g., Culex nigripalpus Theobald). Nearly all of the Culex species tested could serve as efÞcient enzootic or amplifying vectors for WNV. Several container-breeding Aedes and Ochlerotatus species were highly efÞcient vectors under laboratory conditions, but because of their feeding preferences, would probably not be involved in the maintenance of WNV in nature. However, they would be potential bridge vectors between the avianÐCulex cycle and mammalian hosts. In contrast, most of the surface pool-breeding Aedes and Ochlerotatus species tested were relatively inefÞcient vectors under laboratory conditions and would probably not play a signiÞcant role in transmitting WNV in nature. In determining the potential for a mosquito species to become involved in transmitting WNV, it is necessary to consider not only its laboratory vector competence but also its abundance, host-feeding preference, involvement with other viruses with similar transmission cycles, and whether WNV has been isolated from this species under natural conditions.

Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.All material published in Emerging Infectious Diseases is in the public domain and may be used and reprinted without special permission; proper citation, however, is required.

Environmental temperature can affect the ability of mosquitoes to transmit an arbovirus. However, results of various studies indicate that these effects are not consistent among viruses or mosquito species, and there is no information available on the effect of environmental temperature on the ability of North American mosquito species to transmit West Nile (WN) virus. We evaluated the effect of incubation temperature (18, 20, 26, or 30 degrees C) on the ability of Culex pipiens L. derived from specimens collected during the outbreak in New York in 1999 to transmit a strain of WN virus obtained from a crow that died during this outbreak. Although mosquitoes fed on the same viremic chickens, infection rates were directly related to subsequent incubation temperatures. In mosquitoes held at 30 degrees C, virus was recovered from nearly all mosquitoes tested, disseminated infections were detected as early as 4 d after the infectious blood meal, and >90% of all mosquitoes had a disseminated infection 12 or more days after the infectious blood meal. In contrast, for mosquitoes held at 18 degrees C, disseminated infections were not detected until 25 d after the infectious blood meal, and even after 28 d, <30% contained a disseminated infection. Results for mosquitoes held at 20 and 26 degrees C were intermediate for both infection and dissemination rates. The effect of environmental temperature should to be considered when evaluating the vector competence of these mosquitoes and modeling risk of WN virus transmission in nature.

Since first discovered in the New York City area in 1999, West Nile virus (WNV) has become established over much of the continental United States and has been responsible for >10,000 cases of severe disease and 400 human fatalities, as well as thousands of fatal infections in horses. To develop appropriate surveillance and control strategies, the identification of which mosquito species are competent vectors and how various factors influence their ability to transmit this virus must be determined. Therefore, we evaluated numerous mosquito species for their ability to transmit WNV under laboratory conditions. This report contains data for several mosquito species not reported previously, as well as a summary of transmission data compiled from previously reported studies. Mosquitoes were allowed to feed on chickens infected with WNV isolated from a crow that died during the 1999 outbreak in New York City. These mosquitoes were tested approximately 2 wk later to determine infection, dissemination, and transmission rates. All Culex species tested were competent vectors in the laboratory and varied from highly efficient vectors (e.g., Culex tarsalis Coquillett) to moderately efficient ones (e.g., Culex nigripalpus Theobald). Nearly all of the Culex species tested could serve as efficient enzootic or amplifying vectors for WNV. Several container-breeding Aedes and Ochlerotatus species were highly efficient vectors under laboratory conditions, but because of their feeding preferences, would probably not be involved in the maintenance of WNV in nature. However, they would be potential bridge vectors between the avian-Culex cycle and mammalian hosts. In contrast, most of the surface pool-breeding Aedes and Ochlerotatus species tested were relatively inefficient vectors under laboratory conditions and would probably not play a significant role in transmitting WNV in nature. In determining the potential for a mosquito species to become involved in transmitting WNV, it is necessary to consider not only its laboratory vector competence but also its abundance, host-feeding preference, involvement with other viruses with similar transmission cycles, and whether WNV has been isolated from this species under natural conditions.