The Role of Culex pipiens L. (Diptera: Culicidae) in Virus Transmission in Europe

Brugman, Victor A.; Hernández‐Triana, Luis M.; Medlock, Jolyon M.; Fooks, Anthony R.; Carpenter, Simon; Johnson, Nicholas

doi:10.3390/ijerph15020389

Cited by 113 publications

(101 citation statements)

References 205 publications

(247 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The complexity of taxonomy of Cx. pipiens is discussed elsewhere [77] and here we use the term Cx. pipiens as mosquitoes were differentiated from Cx.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laboratory transmission potential of British mosquitoes for equine arboviruses

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: There has been no evidence of transmission of mosquito-borne arboviruses of equine or human health concern to date in the UK. However, in recent years there have been a number of outbreaks of viral diseases spread by vectors in Europe. These events, in conjunction with increasing rates of globalisation and climate change, have led to concern over the future risk of mosquito-borne viral disease outbreaks in northern Europe and have highlighted the importance of being prepared for potential disease outbreaks. Here we assess several UK mosquito species for their potential to transmit arboviruses important for both equine and human health, as measured by the presence of viral RNA in saliva at different time points after taking an infective blood meal. Results: The following wild-caught British mosquitoes were evaluated for their potential as vectors of zoonotic equine arboviruses: Ochlerotatus detritus for Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) and Ross River virus (RRV), and Culiseta annulata and Culex pipiens for Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV). Production of RNA in saliva was demonstrated at varying efficiencies for all mosquito-virus pairs. Ochlerotatus detritus was more permissive for production of RRV RNA in saliva than VEEV RNA. For RRV, 27.3% of mosquitoes expectorated viral RNA at 7 days post-infection when incubated at 21 °C and 50% at 24 °C. Strikingly, 72% of Cx. pipiens produced JEV RNA in saliva after 21 days at 18 °C. For some mosquito-virus pairs, infection and salivary RNA titres reduced over time, suggesting unstable infection dynamics. Conclusions: This study adds to the number of Palaearctic mosquito species that demonstrate expectoration of viral RNA, for arboviruses of importance to human and equine health. This work adds to evidence that native mosquito species should be investigated further for their potential to vector zoonotic mosquito-borne arboviral disease of equines in northern Europe. The evidence that Cx. pipiens is potentially an efficient laboratory vector of JEV at temperatures as low as 18 °C warrants further investigation, as this mosquito is abundant in cooler regions of Europe and is considered an important vector for West Nile Virus, which has a comparable transmission ecology.

show abstract

“…The complexity of taxonomy of Cx. pipiens is discussed elsewhere [77] and here we use the term Cx. pipiens as mosquitoes were differentiated from Cx.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laboratory transmission potential of British mosquitoes for equine arboviruses

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Members of the Culex pipiens complex are critical for the epidemiology of certain viruses that menace public and veterinary health (Brugman et al 2018 ). At least, Sindbis and Sindbis-like viruses (Togaviridae), Lednice virus (Bunyaviridae) and Usutu and West Nile virus (Flaviviridae) are primarily transmitted by Culex species in Europe (Becker et al 2012 ; Roiz et al 2012 ; Fros et al 2015 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

DNA-aided identification of Culex mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) reveals unexpected diversity in underground cavities in Austria

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Subterranean cavities serve as resting places and hibernation shelters for mosquitoes. In Europe, members of the genus Culex are often the most abundant insects on cave walls. Culex pipiens L., the common house mosquito, exists in two physically very similar, yet genetically and ecologically distinct biotypes (or forms, ‘f.’), namely Cx. pipiens f. pipiens and Cx . pipiens f. molestus . Autogeny and stenogamy of the latter form have been interpreted as adaptations to underground habitats. The epigean occurrence of the two biotypes and their hybrids was recently examined in Eastern Austria, but the hypogean distribution of the Cx. pipiens complex and morphologically similar non-members such as Cx. torrentium is unknown. Considering the key role of Culex mosquitoes in the epidemiology of certain zoonotic pathogens, the general paucity of data on species composition and relative abundance in subterranean shelters appears unfortunate. For a first pertinent investigation in Austria, we collected mosquitoes in four eastern federal states. Based on analyses of the ACE2 gene and the CQ11 microsatellite locus, 150 female and three male mosquitoes of the genus Culex , two females of the genus Culiseta and a single female of the genus Anopheles were determined to species level or below. In our catches, Cx. pipiens f. pipiens exceeded the apparent abundance of the purportedly cave-adapted Cx . pipiens f. molestus many times over. Records of Cx. hortensis and Cx. territans , two species rarely collected in Austria, lead us to infer that underground habitats host a higher diversity of culicine mosquitoes than previously thought.

show abstract

“…Pupal survival rates were 50.7%, 45.0% and 44.4% for control, DBF and Bti selected population respectively and did not differ signi cantly among the three populations (Chi-square test, X 2 2 = 2.10, P = 0.349). Neither mosquito population (Wald test, X 2 2 = 4.00, P = 0.135) nor sex (Wald test, X 2 1 = 1.20, P = 0.272) were signi cant predictors of the pupae developmental duration of Cx. pipiens f. molestus (Fig.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…The common house mosquito, Culex pipiens (L.) is a widespread insect pest of extremely high medical and veterinary importance as it is considered effective vector of several human and animal diseases, including larial nematodes and arbovirus such as West Nile virus (WNV), Sindbis virus, Rift Valley fever and Japanese encephalitis virus [1,2]. Culex pipiens includes two distinct forms (usually referred and as biotypes), pipiens and molestus, which are morphologically identical but differ in several behavioral and physiological aspects [3,4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resistance Development to Diflubenzuron and Bacillus Thuringiensis Subsp. Israelensis of Culex Pipiens f. Pipiens and Culex Pipiens f. Molestus (Diptera: Culicidae) and its Effects on Their Winter Survival

Ioannou¹,

Hadjichristodoulou²,

Kyritsi³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The Culex pipiens mosquito consists of two forms named pipiens and molestus that exhibit substantial differences in their biology including overwintering behavior. Diflubenzuron (DFB) and Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis (Bti) are among the most widely used larvicides for controlling Cx. pipiens populations. The high dependency on these two larvicides, pose major concerns for resistance development. The evolution and stability of resistance to insecticides has been associated with fitness costs that may be manifested under stressful conditions such as the winter period. The aim of the present study was to explore the resistance development of pipiens and molestus forms to both larvicides and its potential fitness costs on their winter survival.Methods: Colonies of both forms of Cx. pipiens were established from the same area. Following the World Health Organization protocols (WHO), the efficacy of both larvicides was determined for each mosquito population. Then, larvae from each form were selected for three successive generations by applying fixed doses corresponding to IE80 (IE: Inhibition of adult Emergence) and LC80 (LC: Lethal Concentration) for DFB and Bti respectively. At the end of this process, the resistance levels and the winter survival of the selected populations relative to controls (colonies that received no selection) were determined.Results: Contrary to Bti, selection with DFB induced different levels of resistance between the two forms of Cx. pipiens. The selected populations of Cx. pipiens f. molestus to both larvicides exhibited a high fitness cost in terms of reduced winter larval survival rates relative to control. Moreover, the obtained adults of the Bti selected population experienced significantly shorter lifespan compared to control and DFB selected population. On the other hand, selection with both DFB and Bti had no apparent effects on Cx. pipiens f. pipiens female winter survival rates relative to control. Furthermore, the reproductive parameters and the longevity of the overwintered females were similar between the selected populations and the control. Conclusions: Our findings are expected to contribute on the better understanding of the resistance development and evolution of the two forms of Cx. pipiens to DFB and Bti allowing the adoption of appropriate resistance management strategies.

show abstract

The Role of Culex pipiens L. (Diptera: Culicidae) in Virus Transmission in Europe

Cited by 113 publications

References 205 publications

Laboratory transmission potential of British mosquitoes for equine arboviruses

Laboratory transmission potential of British mosquitoes for equine arboviruses

DNA-aided identification of Culex mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) reveals unexpected diversity in underground cavities in Austria

Resistance Development to Diflubenzuron and Bacillus Thuringiensis Subsp. Israelensis of Culex Pipiens f. Pipiens and Culex Pipiens f. Molestus (Diptera: Culicidae) and its Effects on Their Winter Survival

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About