Molecular Evidence of Wolbachia Species in Wild-Caught Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti Mosquitoes in Four States of Northeast India

Vinayagam, Sathishkumar; Nirmolia, Tulika; Chetry, Sumi; Kumar, Narendran Pradeep; Saini, Prasanta; Bhattacharyya, Dibya Ranjan; Bhowmick, Ipsita Pal; Sattu, Kamaraj; Patgiri, Saurav Jyoti

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/6678627

Journal of Tropical Medicine

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2023 | Article ID 6678627 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/6678627

Molecular Evidence of Wolbachia Species in Wild-Caught Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti Mosquitoes in Four States of Northeast India

Sathishkumar Vinayagam,^1,2Tulika Nirmolia,¹Sumi Chetry,¹Narendran Pradeep Kumar,³Prasanta Saini,³Dibya Ranjan Bhattacharyya,¹Ipsita Pal Bhowmick,¹Kamaraj Sattu,²and Saurav Jyoti Patgiri¹

Academic Editor: Rajib Chowdhury

Received31 May 2023

Revised17 Aug 2023

Accepted25 Aug 2023

Published05 Sept 2023

Abstract

Wolbachia, a Gram-negative intracellular bacterium, naturally infects many arthropods, including mosquito vectors responsible for the spread of arboviral diseases such as Zika, chikungunya, and dengue fever. Certain Wolbachia strains are involved in inhibiting arbovirus replication in mosquitoes, and this phenomenon is currently being studied to combat disease vectors. A study was conducted in four states in north-eastern India to investigate the presence of natural Wolbachia infection in wild-caught Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti mosquitoes, the established vectors of dengue. The detection of a Wolbachia infection was confirmed by nested PCR and sequencing in the two mosquito species Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus. Positivity rates observed in Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus pools were 38% (44 of 115) and 85% (41 of 48), respectively, and the difference was significant (chi-square = 28.3174, = 0.00000010). Sequencing revealed that all detected Wolbachia strains belonged to supergroup B. Although Wolbachia infection in Ae. aegypti has been previously reported from India, no such reports are available from north-eastern India. Data on naturally occurring Wolbachia strains are essential for selecting the optimal strain for the development of Wolbachia-based control measures. This information will be helpful for the future application of Wolbachia-based vector control measures in this part of the country.

1. Introduction

Vector-borne diseases cause significant loss of life in terms of morbidity and mortality. In north-eastern (NE) India, dengue fever and malaria are endemic and outbreaks are common in various states in the region [1–4]. Mosquito vectors such as Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus cause many dengue outbreaks each year and traditional measures to combat them have not yielded the expected results [5]. Increasing insecticide resistance among the mosquito population further exacerbates this problem. In India, both mosquito species showed different degrees of resistance to dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DTT) in most states [6, 7]. Therefore, more effective and biologically active vector control measures are needed to prevent these vector-borne diseases [8]. Wolbachia, a class of Alphaproteobacteria, is endosymbiotic in several arthropods and filarial nematodes in the biosphere. There are currently 17 supergroups of endosymbiotic Wolbachia (A–S, excluding G and R), most of which infect terrestrial arthropods, particularly insects and arachnids [9–11]. Interestingly, certain Wolbachia species have been shown to possess a natural ability to alter the biology of the infected host mosquito, making them less susceptible to infection by arboviruses such as dengue virus (DENV), chikungunya virus (CHIKV), yellow fever virus (YFV), and Zika virus (ZIKV). This property has been exploited by various groups to transfect Ae. aegypti with Wolbachia strains such as , , , and [5]. In Orissa, genetically distinct and unique Wolbachia species have been reported in the coastal plains, which show completely different characteristics from the other populations of the country [12]. In addition, both and Wolbachia endosymbionts were observed in Ae. albopictus population from the Andaman and Nicobar Islands [13]. A low prevalence of these Wolbachia endosymbionts has been observed in Indian wild mosquitoes of An. culicifacies and An. stephensi species from Tamil Nadu [14]. However, there can be significant overlap in Wolbachia strains infecting one host, and different strains can affect the survival of the other [15]. Geographical and ecological factors must also be taken into account. This could have an important impact on the selection of the optimal strain for transfection in Wolbachia-based vector control strategies since a detailed assessment of native strains in mosquito populations is first required. The current study was conducted to detect Wolbachia infection in adult Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus mosquitoes collected in four different states (Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, and Meghalaya) in NE India by nested PCR using 16S rRNA-specific primers followed by sequencing.

2. Materials and Methods

We used archived mosquito samples collected as part of the previously conducted project “Vector Surveillance for ZIKV in Selected High-Risk Areas” [16, 17]. Ae. albopictus and Ae. aegypti mosquitoes (adult) were sampled from February 2018 to February 2019 in urban areas from four dengue-prone regions in four different states in NE India: Guwahati (Kamrup Metro district, Assam), Tura (West Garo Hills district, Meghalaya), Pasighat (East Siang district, Arunachal Pradesh), and Dimapur (Dimapur district, Nagaland). The location of the study sites is shown in Figure 1. Adult mosquitoes were originally collected using suction tubes from indoor and outdoor resting sites such as open water tanks, garages, tire dumps, and leaf axils. Mosquitoes collected in the field were separated according to species, collection site, date, sex, and blood-fed status of the female mosquitoes. A maximum of 20 mosquitoes were pooled in one tube and transported to the laboratory in 50 μL of TRI Reagent (Molecular Research Center, Inc., USA) at 4°C. Samples were uniformly homogenized, and DNA was extracted using the commercially available DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit (Qiagen) and stored at −20°C until further processing.

With some minor modifications, ITS2-PCR (Internal Transcribed Spacer-2) was performed to validate Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus species in the collected mosquito pools [18]. The PCR contained 1.0 mM MgCl₂ and the primers ITS2-F and ITS2-R (5′-ATCACTCGGCTCGTGGATCG-3′,5′-ATGCTTAAATTTAGGGGGTAGT-3′) at a concentration of 1 μM each. The PCR settings were as follows: 95°C for 5 minutes (initial denaturation), then 35 cycles of 95°C for 30 seconds (denaturation), 56°C for 30 seconds (annealing), 72°C for 45 seconds (extension), and 72°C for ten minutes the last extension. Positive controls for Ae. albopictus were provided by the Indian Council of Medical Research-Vector Control Research Center (ICMR-VCRC, Puducherry) and internal controls were used for Ae. aegypti. Wolbachia detection in Aedes mosquitoes was performed using nested PCR (nPCR) as described by Shaw et al. [19]. From the extracted individual pools of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus gDNA, 16S rRNA Wolbachia gene was targeted by nested PCR. The initial PCR was performed with Wolbachia 16S rRNA-specific primer pairs (W-Specf: 5-CATACCTATTCGAAGGGATAG-3 and W-Specr: 5-AGCTTCGAGTGAAACCAATTC-3) in a 25 μL reaction volume with 5 μL of gDNA. Then, 5 μL of the primary PCR amplicon was used as a target in the second round of PCR with the following internal primers: 16SNF (5-GAAGGGATAGGGTCGGTTCG-3) and 16SNR (5-CAATTCCCATGGCGGTGACG-3) in a reaction volume of 50 μL. The PCR protocol for nested 16S rRNA PCR was as follows: initial denaturation at 95°C for 15 minutes, followed by 35 cycles of 15 seconds at 95°C, 25 seconds at 66°C, and 30 seconds at 72°C; followed by a final extension step at 72°C for 5 minutes [19]. Wolbachia control DNA provided by ICMR-VCRC, Puducherry, was used as a PCR positive control, and double distilled water (ddH₂O) was used as a negative control. The secondary PCR product, 412 bp in size, was considered specific for Wolbachia and sequenced using Sanger’s technique. The Wolbachia 16S and Aedes ITS2 sequences obtained were checked for sequence quality and compared using the Bioedit Version 7.2 software [20]. The aligned nucleotide sequences were checked for matches and compared to pre-existing high-similarity sequences downloaded from the NCBI GenBank database. All sequences were aligned with Clustal W and exported to MEGA X software for further genetic analysis [21].

3. Results

The project collected a total of 6,229 adult Aedes mosquitoes from dengue-endemic areas in four different Northeast states. Details on the distribution of these mosquitoes can be found elsewhere [17]. In short, it was found that Ae. aegypti was the predominant Aedes species (63.3%) among all mosquitoes collected in the study. In Guwahati, Dimapur, and Tura, which are predominantly urban areas, Ae. aegypti was dominant, while in Pasighat, which is surrounded by forested areas, Ae. albopictus was predominant [17]. From a total of 515 pools, 163 representative pools from the four regions were randomly selected for the current study. Since Wolbachia infection in Ae. albopictus is already established in this region, a larger number of Ae. aegypti pools were selected for analysis (115 vs. 48). Of the 163 pools, a total of 85 pools were found positive for Wolbachia by nPCR (Table 1, Figure 2). Positivity rates observed in Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus were 38% (44 of 115) and 85% (41 of 48), respectively, and the difference was significant (chi-square = 28.3174, = 0.00000010). A total of 17 Wolbachia 16S PCR amplicons (8 from Ae. aegypti and 9 from Ae. albopictus pools) were sequenced in the current study using Sanger’s technique. The resulting sequences have been deposited in the NCBI GenBank database (accession numbers: OL477363.1-OL477379.1). The phylogenetic maximum likelihood tree was constructed using the Tamura–Nei model [22]. The tree with the highest log likelihood (−663.46) comprised 27 nucleotide sequences (295 positions each) (Figure 3). MEGA X was used to perform evolutionary analysis [21]. When compared to other known sequences from groups A and B, it was found that all isolates in the current study belonged to Wolbachia supergroup B. For the confirmation of the field-collected Aedes samples as Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus, an ITS2-PCR was performed with corresponding positive controls (Figure 4). A total of 8 ITS2-PCR amplicons (4 Ae. aegypti and 4 Ae. albopictus) were sequenced and submitted to the NCBI GenBank (ITS2 sequence accession numbers: OP327745 – OP327752). A total of 25 nucleotide sequences were used to construct the phylogenetic tree using the neighbour joining method and the Kimura-2 parameter in MEGA 11 [23, 24]. Analysis of the phylogenetic tree (Figure 5) showed good agreement of the study samples with Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus [18, 25].

4. Discussion

The current study has shown the prevalence of Wolbachia species in two important dengue vectors viz. Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus from four dengue endemic areas spread over four states in northeastern India. In both mosquito species, Wolbachia supergroup B was detected. The positivity rate was higher in Ae. albopictus compared to that of Ae. aegypti (85% vs. 38%), and the difference was significant. Although previous studies from Northeast India have reported Wolbachia in various mosquito vectors, there are no previous reports of Wolbachia infection in Ae. aegypti [15]. Traditionally, it was assumed that natural infection of Ae. aegypti with Wolbachia was not common [15, 26]. Previously, researchers used different sets of primers to detect natural infection of Wolbachia in mosquito vectors. Wolbachia surface protein (wsp)-based primers have been widely used to detect Wolbachia superinfections in many arthropods. A comparison between wsp primers and 16SrRNA-based primers in Ae. aegypti mosquitoes has shown that the highest detection rate was achieved with 16SrRNA primers in the US [27]. Malaria vectors such as Anopheles mosquitoes were also assumed not to be naturally infected with Wolbachia until a unique 16SrRNA-based PCR demonstrated that An. gambiae carry low-level natural Wolbachia infection [19].

Subsequently, researchers from Malaysia (25%), the Philippines (16.8%), and the USA (44.8%) have reported natural Wolbachia infection in Ae. aegypti using Wolbachia 16SrRNA primers [27–29]. In 2019, the natural infection of Ae. aegypti with Wolbachia supergroup B was detected using 16SrRNA-based primers from Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India [5]. The reported strain showed 99% homology with the strain in Ae. albopictus [5]. This is similar to the homology levels observed in our study (98%–99%) compared to published sequences in the NCBI database. The abovementioned studies from Malaysia, Philippines, USA, and India observed Wolbachia infection in Ae. aegypti mosquitoes by screening individual mosquitoes. However, Wolbachia infection in screened pools of Ae. aegypti has also been described previously [30, 31]. Coon et al. reported two Wolbachia 16S rDNA OTUs (operational taxonomic units) in a pool of 30 Ae. aegypti larvae collected in Florida in 2014 [30]. Similarly, Wolbachia 16S OTUs have been detected in pooled Ae. aegypti mosquitoes in Thailand [31].

In most countries, including India, Ae. albopictus mosquitoes have traditionally been subjected to Wolbachia detection using primers based on Wolbachia surface protein (wsp). In a study conducted in Orissa, India, 1291 male and female Ae. albopictus mosquitoes collected from 15 districts across the state were tested for Wolbachia infection using wsp primer-based PCR. Among these, 1281 (99.2%) mosquitoes tested positive for Wolbachia infection; most were individually infected with supergroups B and A, and some had mixed infection with A and B [12]. Another study from Orissa found that 5% of Ae. albopictus were monoinfected with , 10% with and 80% with both and [32]. Similarly, Ravikumar H et al. also reported Wolbachia infection in eight of twenty mosquito species using wsp primer sets, with Wolbachia A and B observed in Ae. albopictus mosquitoes [33]. From Assam, NE India, Soni et al. showed superinfection with Wolbachia A and B from Dibrugarh, Tinsukia, and Sibsagar districts; whereas from Tezpur, in Ae. albopictus, only the Wolbachia supergroup A was detected. [15]. In the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, a total of 57 Ae. albopictus mosquitoes (100%) were found to be infected with Wolbachia supergroups A and B by wsp primer-based PCR [13].

The strain has been shown to confer protection against arboviruses in mosquito vectors. However, the route of infection seems to play a crucial role. Whether a particular mosquito species is infected with this strain naturally, through transient or stable transfection, has a major impact on resistance to arboviruses such as dengue and chikungunya [34, 35]. While natural infection of Ae. albopictus with A and showed no antiviral activity, stable transinfection with the wMel strain has been reported to reduce transmission of DENV and CHIKV [34, 35]. Likewise in the case of Ae. aegypti, stable transinfection with wMelPop, , and wMel strains all showed reduced infection rate, viral load, and transmission rates for DENV and CHIKV compared to Wolbachia-free mosquitoes [34, 36]. However, such studies on natural populations are scarce and large-scale studies across different geographic locations are needed to obtain conclusive evidence for the potential antiviral role of wild-caught, naturally infected Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus. Different types of Wolbachia strains provide different survival benefits to host mosquitoes and may also entail fitness costs. One variety can also complement or compete with the other. Experimenting with Ae. albopictus triple infections with wMel, , and has shown that the introduction of new Wolbachia strains can sometimes lead to unexpected complications in uninfected or naturally infected mosquito vectors [36–38]. Our observation on the molecular detection of Wolbachia using 16SrRNA primer-based PCR and sequencing in Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus could have important implications for future intervention strategies based on the transfection of Wolbachia strains on Aedes mosquitoes. It may or may not play an important role in reducing arbovirus transmission under natural conditions. However, further validation of the definitive presence of natural infection in these mosquito hosts requires additional molecular tests such as the detection of bacteria in the host tissue and their removal after antibiotic treatment and whole genome sequencing [39]. We propose that natural infection of Wolbachia in mosquito vectors needs to be delineated, preferably based on multiple lines of evidence in different geographic regions, before initiating vector control measures based on Wolbachia-infected mosquitoes.

Data Availability

All the sequences generated in this study have been submitted to the NCBI GenBank and can be obtained from the database. The relevant Accession Numbers are mentioned in the text.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

N.P.K., S.J.P., and D.R.B. contributed to conceptualization of the study. S.V., T.N., S.C., S.J.P., D.R.B., P.S., I.P.B., K.S., and N.P.K. contributed equally to conducting the study, analysis, and validation of the results and drafting and critically reviewing the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the help and cooperation of the respective district administrations of Assam, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, and Nagaland, where the study was carried out and all the project staff involved in the study. The current study was funded by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) through Grant no. VIR/9/2017/ECD-1 dated 21.08.17.

References

S. A. Khan, P. Dutta, R. Topno, M. Soni, and J. Mahanta, “Dengue outbreak in a hilly state of Arunachal Pradesh in Northeast India,” The Scientific World Journal, vol. 2014, Article ID 584093, 6 pages, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Borkakoty, M. Das, K. Sarma et al., “Molecular characterisation and phylogenetic analysis of dengue outbreak in Pasighat, Arunachal Pradesh, Northeast India,” Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 37–42, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Chetry, S. A. Khan, B. Apum, and P. Dutta, “Circulation of dengue virus-1 Genotype III during 2015 dengue outbreak in Arunachal Pradesh: a maiden report from Northeast India,” International Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 45, pp. 433-434, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. K. Sarma, P. K. Mohapatra, D. R. Bhattacharyya et al., “Malaria in north-East India: importance and implications in the era of elimination,” Microorganisms, vol. 7, no. 12, p. 673, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Balaji, S. Jayachandran, and S. R. Prabagaran, “Evidence for the natural occurrence of Wolbachia in Aedes aegypti mosquitoes,” FEMS Microbiology Letters, vol. 366, no. 6, Article ID fnz055, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. B. Kushwah, C. L. Dykes, N. Kapoor, T. Adak, and O. P. Singh, “Pyrethroid-resistance and presence of two knockdown resistance (kdr) mutations, F1534C and a novel mutation T1520I, in Indian Aedes aegypti,” PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, vol. 9, no. 1, p. e3332, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. B. Kushwah, P. K. Mallick, H. Ravikumar et al., “Status of DDT and pyrethroid resistance in Indian Aedes albopictus and absence of knockdown resistance (kdr) mutation,” Journal of Vector Borne Diseases, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 95–98, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar
P. K. Jangir and A. Prasad, “Spatial distribution of insecticide resistance and susceptibility in Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus in India,” International Journal of Tropical Insect Science, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 1019–1044, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Glowska, A. Dragun-Damian, M. Dabert, and M. Gerth, “New Wolbachia supergroups detected in quill mites (Acari: syringophilidae),” Infection, Genetics and Evolution, vol. 30, pp. 140–146, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G.-H. Wang, L.-Y. Jia, J.-H. Xiao, and D.-W. Huang, “Discovery of a new Wolbachia supergroup in cave spider species and the lateral transfer of phage WO among distant hosts,” Infection, Genetics and Evolution, vol. 41, pp. 1–7, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Lefoulon, T. Clark, F. Borveto et al., “Pseudoscorpion Wolbachia symbionts: diversity and evidence for a new supergroup S,” BMC Microbiology, vol. 20, no. 1, p. 188, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Das, T. Satapathy, S. K. Kar, and R. K. Hazra, “Genetic structure and Wolbachia genotyping in naturally occurring populations of Aedes albopictus across contiguous landscapes of Orissa, India,” PLoS One, vol. 9, no. 4, Article ID e94094, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Sivan, A. N. Shriram, D. Bhattacharya, and P. Vijayachari, “Wolbachia endobacterium in wild population of Aedes albopictus (skuse) (Diptera: Culicidae) and phylogeny from andaman and nicobar Islands, India,” Journal of Vector Borne Diseases, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 235–238, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
S. G. Sankar, T. M. Sundari, and A. A. P. Anand, “Low prevalence of natural Wolbachia in major malarial vectors Anopheles culicifacies s.l., and Anopheles stephensi: a first report,” bioRxiv, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Soni, C. Bhattacharya, J. Sharma, S. A. Khan, and P. Dutta, “Molecular typing and phylogeny of Wolbachia: a study from Assam, North-Eastern part of India,” Acta Tropica, vol. 176, pp. 421–426, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. P. Kumar, A. Kumar, D. Panneer et al., “Nation-wide vector surveillance on Zika and Dengue did not indicate transmission of the American lineage-pandemic Zika virus in India,” International Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 113, pp. 119–124, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Chetry, S. J. Patgiri, D. R. Bhattacharyya, P. Dutta, and N. P. Kumar, “Incrimination of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus as vectors of dengue virus serotypes 1, 2 and 3 from four states of Northeast India,” Access Microbiology, vol. 2, no. 4, p. acmi000101, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Gupta, R. Dhawan, M. Kajla et al., “Molecular identification of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes from Pilani region of Rajasthan, India,” Journal of Vector Borne Diseases, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 149–155, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
W. R. Shaw, P. Marcenac, L. M. Childs et al., “Wolbachia infections in natural Anopheles populations affect egg laying and negatively correlate with Plasmodium development,” Nature Communications, vol. 7, no. 1, Article ID 11772, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. A. Hall, “BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT,” Nucleic Acids Symposium Series, vol. 41, pp. 95–98, 1999.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Kumar, G. Stecher, M. Li, C. Knyaz, and K. Tamura, “Mega X: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis across computing platforms,” Molecular Biology and Evolution, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 1547–1549, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Tamura, “Estimation of the number of nucleotide substitutions when there are strong transition-transversion and G+C-content biases,” Molecular Biology and Evolution, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 678–687, 1992.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Nei and S. Kumar, Molecular Evolution and Phylogenetics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2000.
K. Tamura, G. Stecher, and S. Kumar, “MEGA11: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 11,” Molecular Biology and Evolution, vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 3022–3027, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Minard, V. Tran Van, F. H. Tran et al., “Identification of sympatric cryptic species of Aedes albopictus subgroup in Vietnam: new perspectives in phylosymbiosis of insect vector,” Parasites & Vectors, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 276, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Gloria-Soria, T. G. Chiodo, and J. R. Powell, “Lack of evidence for natural Wolbachia infections in Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae),” Journal of Medical Entomology, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 1354–1356, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Kulkarni, W. Yu, J. Jiang et al., “Wolbachia pipientis occurs in Aedes aegypti populations in New Mexico and Florida, USA,” Ecology and Evolution, vol. 9, no. 10, pp. 6148–6156, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. H. J. Teo, P. K. C. Lim, K. Voon, and J. W. Mak, “Detection of dengue viruses and Wolbachia in Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus larvae from four urban localities in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,” Tropical Biomedicine, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 583–597, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
T. M. Carvajal, K. Hashimoto, R. K. Harnandika, D. M. Amalin, and K. Watanabe, “Detection of Wolbachia in field-collected Aedes aegypti mosquitoes in metropolitan Manila, Philippines,” Parasites & Vectors, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 361, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. L. Coon, M. R. Brown, and M. R. Strand, “Mosquitoes host communities of bacteria that are essential for development but vary greatly between local habitats,” Molecular Ecology, vol. 25, no. 22, pp. 5806–5826, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Thongsripong, J. A. Chandler, A. B. Green et al., “Mosquito vector-associated microbiota: metabarcoding bacteria and eukaryotic symbionts across habitat types in Thailand endemic for dengue and other arthropod-borne diseases,” Ecology and Evolution, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 1352–1368, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Mohanty, A. Rath, S. P. Swain, N. Pradhan, and R. K. Hazra, “Wolbachia population in vectors and non-vectors: a sustainable approach towards dengue control,” Current Microbiology, vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 133–143, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Ravikumar, N. Ramachandraswamy, and H. P. Puttaraju, “Molecular strain typing of Wolbachia infection from Indian mosquitoes using wsp gene,” Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Disease, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 106–109, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. N. Johnson, “The impact of Wolbachia on virus infection in mosquitoes,” Viruses, vol. 7, no. 11, pp. 5705–5717, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. T. Ogunlade, M. T. Meehan, A. I. Adekunle, D. P. Rojas, O. A. Adegboye, and E. S. McBryde, “A review: aedes-borne arboviral infections, controls and wolbachia-based strategies,” Vaccines, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 32, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. A. Ross, K. L. Robinson, Q. Yang et al., “A decade of stability for wMel Wolbachia in natural Aedes aegypti populations,” PLoS Pathogens, vol. 18, no. 2, Article ID e1010256, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Liang, J. Liu, G. Bian, and Z. Xi, “Wolbachia inter-strain competition and inhibition of expression of cytoplasmic incompatibility in mosquito,” Frontiers in Microbiology, vol. 11, p. 1638, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. P. Caragata, H. L. C. Dutra, P. H. F. Sucupira, A. G. A. Ferreira, and L. A. Moreira, “Wolbachia as translational science: controlling mosquito-borne pathogens,” Trends in Parasitology, vol. 37, no. 12, pp. 1050–1067, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Chrostek and M. Gerth, “Is Anopheles gambiae a natural host of Wolbachia?” mBio, vol. 10, no. 3, Article ID e00784-19, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2023 Sathishkumar Vinayagam et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

530

Downloads

315

Citations