Culex Tarsalis Mosquitoes as Vectors of Highlands J Virus

An electropenetrography waveform library for the probing and ingestion behaviors of Culex tarsalis on human hands

Culex tarsalis Coquillett (Diptera: Culicidae) mosquitoes are capable of vectoring numerous pathogens affecting public and animal health. Unfortunately, the probing behaviors of mosquitoes are poorly understood because they occur in opaque tissues. Electropenetrography (EPG) has the potential to elucidate these behaviors by recording the electrical signals generated during probing. We used an AC-DC EPG with variable input resistors (Ri levels) to construct a waveform library for Cx. tarsalis feeding on human hands. Biological events associated with mosquito probing were used to characterize waveforms at four Ri levels and with two electrical current types. The optimal settings for EPG recordings of Cx. tarsalis probing on human hands was an Ri level of 107 Ohms using an applied signal of 150 millivolts alternating current. Waveforms for Cx. tarsalis included those previously observed and associated with probing behaviors in Aedes aegypti L. (Diptera: Culicidae): waveform families J (surface salivation), K (stylet penetration through the skin), L (types 1 and 2, search for a blood vessel/ingestion site), M (types 1 and 2, ingestion), N (type 1, an unknown behavior which may be a resting and digestion phase), and W (withdrawal). However, we also observed variations in the waveforms not described in Ae. aegypti, which we named types L3, M3, M4, and N2. This investigation enhances our understanding of mosquito probing behaviors. It also provides a new tool for the automated calculation of peak frequency. This work will facilitate future pathogen acquisition and transmission studies and help identify new pest and disease management targets.

Identification of salivary gland escape barriers to western equine encephalitis virus in the natural vector, Culex tarsalis

Herein we describe a previously uninvestigated salivary gland escape barrier (SEB) in Culex tarsalis mosquitoes infected with two different strains of Western equine encephalitis virus (WEEV). The WEEV strains were originally isolated either from mosquitoes (IMP181) or a human patient (McMillan). Both IMP181 and McMillan viruses were fully able to infect the salivary glands of Culex tarsalis after intrathoracic injection as determined by expression of mCherry fluorescent protein. IMP181, however, was better adapted to transmission as measured by virus titer in saliva as well as transmission rates in infected mosquitoes. We used chimeric recombinant WEEV strains to show that inclusion of IMP181-derived structural genes partially circumvents the SEB.

Equine viral encephalitis: prevalence, impact, and management strategies

Members of several different virus families cause equine viral encephalitis, the majority of which are arthropod-borne viruses (arboviruses) with zoonotic potential. The clinical signs caused are rarely pathognomonic; therefore, a clinical diagnosis is usually presumptive according to the geographical region. However, recent decades have seen expansion of the geographical range and emergence in new regions of numerous viral diseases. In this context, this review presents an overview of the prevalence and distribution of the main viral causes of equine encephalitis and discusses their impact and potential approaches to limit their spread.

Continued Evidence of Decline in the Enzootic Activity of Western Equine Encephalitis Virus in Colorado

Western equine encephalitis (WEE) was once prevalent and routinely isolated from mosquitoes in Colorado; however, isolations of Western equine encephalitis virus (WEEV) have not been reported from mosquito pools since the early 1990s. The objective of the present study was to test pools of Culex tarsalis (Coquillett) mosquitoes sampled from Weld County, CO, in 2016 for evidence of WEEV infection. Over 7,000 mosquitoes were tested, but none were positive for WEEV RNA. These data indicate that WEEV either was not circulating enzootically in Northern Colorado, was very rare, and would require much more extensive mosquito sampling to detect, or was heterogeneously distributed spatially and temporally and happened to not be present in the area sampled during 2016. Even though the reported incidence of WEE remains null, screening for WEEV viral RNA in mosquito vectors offers forewarning toward the detection and prevention of future outbreaks.

The challenges posed by equine arboviruses

Equine populations worldwide are at increasing risk of infection by viruses transmitted by biting arthropods, including mosquitoes, biting midges (Culicoides), sandflies and ticks. These include the flaviviruses (Japanese encephalitis, West Nile and Murray Valley encephalitis), alphaviruses (eastern, western and Venezuelan encephalitis) and the orbiviruses (African horse sickness and equine encephalosis). This review provides an overview of the challenges faced in the surveillance, prevention and control of the major equine arboviruses, particularly in the context of these viruses emerging in new regions of the world.

Vector-borne diseases

After a request from the European Commission, EFSA's Panel on Animal Health and Welfare summarised the main characteristics of 36 vector‐borne diseases (VBDs) in https://efsa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/PublicGallery/index.html?appid=dfbeac92aea944599ed1eb754aa5e6d1. The risk of introduction in the EU through movement of livestock or pets was assessed for each of the 36 VBDs individually, using a semiquantitative Method to INTegrate all relevant RISK aspects (MINTRISK model), which was further modified to a European scale into the http://www3.lei.wur.nl/mintrisk/ModelMgt.aspx. Only eight of the 36 VBD‐agents had an overall rate of introduction in the EU (being the combination of the rate of entry, vector transmission and establishment) which was estimated to be above 0.001 introductions per year. These were Crimean‐Congo haemorrhagic fever virus, bluetongue virus, West Nile virus, Schmallenberg virus, Hepatozoon canis, Leishmania infantum, Bunyamwera virus and Highlands J. virus. For these eight diseases, the annual extent of spread was assessed, assuming the implementation of available, authorised prevention and control measures in the EU. Further, the probability of overwintering was assessed, as well as the possible impact of the VBDs on public health, animal health and farm production. For the other 28 VBD‐agents for which the rate of introduction was estimated to be very low, no further assessments were made. Due to the uncertainty related to some parameters used for the risk assessment or the instable or unpredictability disease situation in some of the source regions, it is recommended to update the assessment when new information becomes available. Since this risk assessment was carried out for large regions in the EU for many VBD‐agents, it should be considered as a first screening. If a more detailed risk assessment for a specific VBD is wished for on a national or subnational level, the EFSA‐VBD‐RISK‐model is freely available for this purpose.