2012
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049922
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Identification of Wolbachia Strains in Mosquito Disease Vectors

Abstract: Wolbachia bacteria are common endosymbionts of insects, and some strains are known to protect their hosts against RNA viruses and other parasites. This has led to the suggestion that releasing Wolbachia-infected mosquitoes could prevent the transmission of arboviruses and other human parasites. We have identified Wolbachia in Kenyan populations of the yellow fever vector Aedes bromeliae and its relative Aedes metallicus, and in Mansonia uniformis and Mansonia africana, which are vectors of lymphatic filariasis… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

4
22
3

Year Published

2013
2013
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
(80 reference statements)
4
22
3
Order By: Relevance
“…uniformis is similar to the 29% (5/19) reported in Kenyan populations 51 suggesting this species has variable prevalence rates in wild populations.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 80%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…uniformis is similar to the 29% (5/19) reported in Kenyan populations 51 suggesting this species has variable prevalence rates in wild populations.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 80%
“…Ma. uniformis was also one of the four Wolbachia-infected mosquito species from populations in Kenya 51 and this provides the only comparative MLST and reports the requirement for nested PCR to amplify hcpA. Our Wolbachia prevalence rate of 29% (7/24) for Ma.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 82%
“…This pattern is common in many other arthropods (Duron et al, 2008;Zug & Hammerstein, 2012), and it is usually associated with a weak manipulation of the host reproduction and/or imperfect maternal transmission (Engelstadter & Hurst, 2009). In general, our sampling effort was higher than in previous studies (n < 30) (Bourtzis et al, 2014;Osei-Poku et al, 2012), and this could explain why we found more infected species. Our statistical analysis showed that a sample size of 60 individuals per species is needed to quantify correct prevalence rates lower than 15%, with a probability of 95% ( Figure S3).…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 60%
“…The negative samples confirmed to be truly negative. The negative samples were not excluded from the analysis as was done previously by Osei-Poku since the percentage was significantly higher than their estimation of 0.78% (Kittayapong et al, 2000;Osei-Poku et al, 2012). The 5.25% of the uninfected population may have been due to environmental factors.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%