Plant sugar feeding patterns of wild‐caught Aedes aegypti from dengue endemic and non‐endemic areas of Kenya

Abstract

A fundamental understanding of plant sugar feeding behaviour in vector populations can lead to the development of ecologically effective vector monitoring and control strategies. Despite previous studies on mosquito–plant interactions, relatively few have been conducted on the dengue vector Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). The authors studied Ae. aegypti–plant interactions at two sites of varying dengue endemicity in Kenya: Kilifi (endemic) and Isiolo (non‐endemic). Using chemical and molecular assays [DNA barcoding targeting the chloroplast ribulose‐1,5 bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase large chain (rbcL) gene], the authors show that at the two sites plant feeding in this mosquito species: (a) varies by sex and season; (b) results in the acquisition of diverse sugars, and (c) is associated with diverse host plants in the families Fabaceae, Malvaceae, Poaceae and Rosaceae. These results reveal insights into the plant sugar feeding patterns of wild‐caught Ae. aegypti and provide a baseline for future studies on the olfactory basis for host plant attraction for the development of vector monitoring and control tools.

Sugar prevalence in Aedes albopictus differs by habitat, sex and time of day on Masig Island, Torres Strait, Australia

“…For Ae. aegypti in Kenya, higher rates of sugar feeding were only observed for males in the dry season (27%) compared with the wet season (11%) [ 48 ]. Investigations of Ae.…”

“…Previous studies have identified a preference of Ae. aegypti for host plants in these families [ 48 , 56 ]. Future studies could utilise more sophisticated molecular techniques, such as DNA barcoding or mass spectrometry, to determine the exact sources of sugar and the relative sugar-feeding frequency of Ae.…”

Sugar feeding by invasive mosquito species on ornamental and wild plants

“…The copyright holder for this preprint (which this version posted April 14, 2023. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.04.13.536683 doi: bioRxiv preprint buffered saline (Sigma-Aldrich, #806552-1L) to remove plant material contaminants, after which they were crushed in a microcentrifuge tube containing 100 μL of 0.3 M sodium acetate (Thermo Scientific, AM9740) and 200 μL of absolute molecular grade ethanol (Sigma-Aldrich, E7023-500mL) as in Wanjiku et al (2021) [32]. After incubation for 30 minutes at -20°C, homogenates were centrifuged at 4°C for 10 minutes at 12,000g.…”

Contemporary exploitation of natural products for arthropod-borne pathogen transmission-blocking interventions

“…(Fabaceae) Aedes spp. [ 100 , 103 , 110 ] 3 Solanum lycopersicum (Solanaceae) Triatomine Rhodnius prolixus [ 108 ] 4 Prosopis juliflora (Fabaceae), Parthenium hysterophorus (Asteraceae), Senna occidentalis (Fabaceae), Senna alata (Fabaceae), Senna tora , (Fabaceae), Ricinus communis (Euphorbiaceae), Leonotis nepetifolia (Lamiaceae), Bidens pilosa (Asteraceae), Senna didymobotrya (Fabacae), Tecoma stans (Bignoniaceae), Acacia macrostachya (Fabaceae), Faidherbia albida (Fabaceae), Boscia angustifolia (Capparaceae), Ziziphus jujuba (Rhamnaceae), Mangifera indica (Anacardiaceae), Delonix regia (Fabaceae), Thevetia neriifolia , Senna siamea (Fabaceae), Cassia sieberiana (Fabaceae) An. gambiae [ 100 , 109 , 111 , 112 ] a Host plants were validated by PCR targeting chloroplast DNA using gene-specific primers: matK , rbcL and trnH - psbA , and also through chemical olfactory attractiveness …”