Advertisement

Transgenic Research

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 47–57 | Cite as

Mating compatibility and competitiveness of transgenic and wild type Aedes aegypti (L.) under contained semi-field conditions

  • H. L. Lee
  • Seshadri Vasan
  • Nazni Wasi Ahmad
  • Iswarti Idris
  • Norhaida Hanum
  • S. Selvi
  • Luke Alphey
  • Shahnaz Murad
Original Paper

Abstract

We conducted the world’s first experiments under semi-field conditions (ACL-2 field house) to assess the mating competitiveness of genetically sterile RIDL male mosquitoes (513A strain). The field house is a state-of-the-art, fully-contained trial facility, simulating the living space for a household of 2–4 people in Peninsular Malaysia. Ten genetically sterile RIDL male A. aegypti mosquitoes competed with ten wild type males inside this field house to mate with ten wild type females. Hatched larvae from mated females were screened under a fluorescent microscope for genetic markers to determine if they were fathered by RIDL male or wild type male, and all results were cross-checked by PCR. Two such experiments were conducted, each repeated sufficient number of times. All strains were on a Malaysian lab strain background for the first experiment, while the RIDL males alone were on a recently-colonised Mexican strain background for the second experiment. A total of 52 % of the matings were with RIDL males in the first experiment, while 45 % of the matings were with RIDL (Mexican) males in the second experiment. Statistically, this is not significantly different from 50 % of the matings expected to take place with RIDL males if the latter were as competitive as that of the wild type males. This shows that A. aegypti RIDL-513A has excellent mating competitiveness under semi-field conditions, verifying earlier trends obtained in small lab cages. We also observed high mating compatibility between recently-colonised Mexican RIDL males and lab-reared Malaysian wild type females.

Keywords

RIDL Transgenic Aedes aegypti Mating competitiveness Genetic control 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the Director-General of Health, Malaysia for permission to publish. One of us (SV) thanks the Akademi Sains Malaysia for an Associateship. We acknowledge all staff members of the Unit of Medical Entomology, IMR-Oxitec Collaborative Project, IMR and CEBAR-University of Malaya for their support. This project was supported by a research grant (06-053) from the National Institutes of Health, Malaysia.

References

  1. Alphey L, Nimmo D, O’Connell S, Alphey N (2007) Insect population suppression using engineered insects. In: Aksoy S (ed) Transgenesis and the management of vector-borne disease. Landes Bioscience, Austin, pp 93–103Google Scholar
  2. Benedict M, Robinson A (2003) The first releases of transgenic mosquitoes: an argument for the sterile insect technique. Trends Parasitol 19:349–355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Catteruccia F, Godfray H, Crisanti A (2003) Impact of genetic manipulation on the fitness of Anopheles stephensi mosquitoes. Science 299:1225–1227PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dyck VA, Hendrichs J, Robinson AS (eds) (2005) Sterile insect technique: principles and practice in area-wide integrated pest management. Springer, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  5. FAO/IAEA/USDA (2003) Manual for product quality control and shipping procedures for sterile mass-reared tephritid fruit flies v5.0Google Scholar
  6. Getis A, Morrison AC, Gray K, Scott TW (2003) Characteristics of the spatial pattern of the dengue vector, Aedes aegypti, in Iquitos, Peru. Am J Trop Med Hyg 69(5):494–505PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Harmis LD (1983) Increased adult size correlated with parity in Aedes triseriatus. Mosq News 43:77Google Scholar
  8. Irvin N, Hoddle M, O’Brochta D, Carey B, Atkinson P (2004) Assessing fitness costs for transgenic Aedes aegypti expressing the GFP marker and transposase genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:891–896PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Marrelli MT, Moreira CK, Kelly D, Alphey L, Jacobs-Lorena M (2006) Mosquito transgenesis: what is the fitness cost? Trends Parasitol 22:197–202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McCombs SD (1980) Effect of different nutrition of larvae on adult fitness of Aedes triseriatus, Masters Thesis, University of Notre DameGoogle Scholar
  11. Phuc HK, Andreasen MH, Burton RS, Vass C, Epton MJ, Pape G, Fu G, Condon KC, Scaife S, Donnelly CA, Coleman PG, White-Cooper H, Alphey L (2007) Late-acting dominant lethal genetic systems and mosquito control. BMC Biol 5:11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Scott TW, et al (2006) Fitness studies: developing a consensus methodology. In: Knols BGJ, Louis C (eds) Bridging laboratory and field research for genetic control of disease vectors. Springer ISBN: 1-4020-3800-3Google Scholar
  13. Thomas DD, Donnelly CA, Wood RJ, Alphey LS (2000) Insect population control using a dominant, repressible, lethal genetic system. Science 287:2474–2476PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Vythilingam I, Chiang GL, Lee HL, Singh K (1992) Bionomics of important mosquito vectors in Malaysia. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Pub Hlth 23:587–603Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. L. Lee
    • 1
  • Seshadri Vasan
    • 2
    • 3
  • Nazni Wasi Ahmad
    • 1
  • Iswarti Idris
    • 1
  • Norhaida Hanum
    • 1
  • S. Selvi
    • 1
  • Luke Alphey
    • 4
  • Shahnaz Murad
    • 5
  1. 1.Medical Entomology Unit/WHO Collaborating Centre for Ecology, Taxonomy and Control of Vectors of Malaria, Filariasis and DengueInstitute for Medical ResearchKuala LumpurMalaysia
  2. 2.Oxitec LimitedOxfordUK
  3. 3.CEBAR, University of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia
  4. 4.Department of ZoologyUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  5. 5.Institute for Medical ResearchKuala LumpurMalaysia

Personalised recommendations