Effects of Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus bacterial metabolites on the ovipositional activity of Aedes albopictus

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3424908/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Effects of Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus bacterial metabolites on the ovipositional activity of Aedes albopictus

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3424908/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 21 Mar, 2024

Read the published version in Journal of Pest Science →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Viral diseases like yellow fever, dengue, zika have an alarming impact on public health affecting millions of people around the globe. These diseases can be transmitted by Aedes albopictus – a species originally endemic to South Asia but now widely distributed in several countries outside Asia. Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus spp., are enteric Gram-negative bacterial symbionts of insect-preying nematodes and are known to produce an array of natural products (NP) with various activities including larvicidal activity. This study demonstrated that supernatants of different Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus bacteria effectively deterred Ae. albopictus mosquito oviposition in a concentration dependent manner. Xenorhabdus cabanillasii displayed deterrent effects at 50-5% concentrations with oviposition activity index values ranging between -0.87 and -0.35, whereas the index values for X. nematophila were between -0.82 and -0.52 at concentrations of 50-10%. The other bacteria (X. szentirmaii, X. doucetiae, and P. kayaii) were effective at concentrations ≥20%. Using promoter exchange mutants of selected biosynthetic gene clusters in a Δhfq background generated by the easyPACId approach, fabclavine from X. szentirmaii was identified as the bioactive compound with evident deterrent effects. Such compounds with deterrence effects could be useful in mosquito control programs as preventing breeding site in specific habitats can greatly influence mosquito species establishment, population densities, and dispersion in conducive areas.

Oviposition

deterrence

mosquito

Xenorhabdus

Photorhadus

Fabclavines

easyPACId method

Nematode-associated bacteria produce natural products with various biological activities
Mosquitoes abstained from laying eggs in containers with Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus metabolites
Fabclavines are peptide-polyketide-polyamines from Xenorhabdus sp. with oviposition deterrent effects
Such compounds could be useful in mosquito control programs

Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae), with characteristic white bands on its legs and body, is a synanthropic Aedes species originally endemic to tropical and sub-tropical regions of South Asia. Due to its invasive and highly adaptive nature, it is now widely distributed in at least 30 countries throughout the tropics, subtropics, and temperate regions of the world outside Asia (Benedict et al. 2007; Fonseca et al. 2013; Touray et al. 2023). This spread has been greatly facilitated by rising temperatures due to climate change and transport of its immature stages (diapausing eggs and larvae capable of withstanding cold conditions in temperate regions) in bamboo plants, used tires, and artificial containers during global shipping activities. Drastic deviations in global climate have also made its establishment in new habitats easier (Kraemer et al. 2015; Faraji and Unlu 2016; Beaty et al. 2016; Messina et al. 2019). Importantly, Ae. albopictus is a daytime-biting species that can take blood meals from a variety of host including humans, domestic and wild animals and a prominent vector of Zika, Chikungunya, Dengue, and Yellow Fever – viral diseases whose epidemic potential and incidence has increased globally since the 1950s (Godfray 2013; Messina et al. 2019; Romanello et al. 2021; Bursali and Simsek 2023). Foremost among these arthropod infections, dengue is a predominantly urban disease of tropical and sub-tropical climates that has an alarming impact on public health with more than 3 billion people living in endemic areas and around 100 million cases and at least 40.000 deaths occur annually in 195 countries. Symptoms include a characteristic skin rash, high fever, headache, muscle and joint pains. Severe cases may be possibly life-threatening by causing serious bleeding and even death (Gubler 2002; Vos et al. 2015; Zeng et al. 2021).

Aside from yellow fever, these Aedes-transmitted diseases have no vaccine or effective therapeutics (Smith et al. 2016; Huang et al. 2023) hence mosquito control professionals around the world monitor Aedes populations and evaluate novel control strategies to mitigate pathogen transmission. Control strategies include elimination of mosquito breeding sites or use of chemical larvicides in these breeding sites or insecticides against adult mosquitoes(Beaty et al. 2016; Weeratunga et al. 2017). Nevertheless, Ae. albopictus mosquitoes are not well-controlled by the above strategies as location and complete elimination of breeding sites especially artificial containers in urban and poorly developed areas is often a challenging task, and continuous use of chemical insecticides has resulted in development of resistance to insecticides in many countries and most insecticides have damaging impacts on the environment (Smith et al. 2016; Silva et al. 2020). These issues have encouraged the use of environmentally friendly biological alternatives like the fungus, Metarhizium anisopliae and the bacteria, Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis (Bti) and Lysinibacillus sphaericus as well as insect growth regulators (Lacey 2007; Scholte et al. 2007; Benelli et al. 2016) and much effort has been invested in the search for many more.

Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus (Fam: Morganellaceae) are enteric Gram-negative bacterial symbionts of soil-dwelling and insect-preying nematodes in genera Steinernema and Heterorhabditis, respectively (Hazir et al. 2022). These nematode-bacteria complexes are distributed nearly worldwide, and as biological control agents are applied to soil to control pestiferous arthropods that are a menace to agriculture and public health (Shapiro-Ilan et al. 2019). Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus bacteria are known to produce a starling array of enzymes and natural products (NP) that can suppress insect immunity, quickly kill host, and disintegrate tissue, as well as perform defense functions against competitors and natural enemies using polyketide synthases (PKSs) or non-ribosomal peptide synthetases (NRPS) (Bode 2009; Tobias et al. 2017; Cimen et al. 2022). So far, an important body of literature exists detailing the antimicrobial activities of these products from these bacteria against bacterial (Webster et al. 2002; Furgani et al. 2008), fungal (Fang et al. 2014; Shapiro-Ilan et al. 2014; Hazir et al. 2016; Chacón-Orozco et al. 2020; Cimen et al. 2021a; Otoya-Martinez et al. 2023), and protozoal pathogens (Antonello et al. 2018; Antonello et al. 2019; Gulsen et al. 2022) as well as insect and mite pests (Sergeant et al. 2006; Hinchliffe et al. 2010; Incedayi et al. 2021) of medical, veterinary and agricultural importance. For instance, several recent works (da Silva et al. 2013; Wagutu et al. 2017; Luiz Rosa da Silva et al. 2017; Vitta et al. 2018; Shah et al. 2021) have demonstrated the larvicidal efficacy of cell-free bacterial supernatants and/or bacterial cell suspensions of Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus on different mosquito species. Attempts to identify the bioactive natural product as potential larvicidal agents from these bacteria are ongoing. Besides larvicidal activity of compounds from these bacteria against mosquito larvae, it was observed that the calliphorid fly, Chrysomya albiceps did not lay eggs on treating lamb meat with P. luminescens supernatant (Gulcu et al. 2012) and Lobesia botrana laid 55–95% fewer eggs on grapes treated with X. nematophila and P. laumondii supernatants when compared with untreated grapes (Vicente-Díez et al. 2023).

Ovipositing mosquitoes are fastidious creatures. After digesting a blood meal, gravid females seek out suitable aquatic habitats rich with nutrients for her offspring and devoid of potential predators based on the myriad of olfactory, visual, gustatory, and tactile signals emanating from breeding sites as well as environmental factors that can influence ovipositional behavior (Bentley and Day 1989; Day 2016; Parker et al. 2020; Baik and Carlson 2020; Girard et al. 2021). The literature on mosquito oviposition behavior is vast and several studies have established that factors such as presence of con- and heterospecific immature stages, microbes, predators and chemical cues associated with these organisms attract, repel or deter gravid mosquitoes from depositing eggs (Eitam and Blaustein 2004; Afify and Galizia 2015; Russell et al. 2022). Application of potential deterrence compounds to breeding sites might influence the ovipositional behavior of mosquitoes. Numerous compounds obtained from plants have been reported to have oviposition deterrent activity against mosquitoes (Waliwitiya et al. 2009; Cheah et al. 2013; Dias and Moraes 2014). Development of compounds with deterrence effects could be useful in mosquito control programs. Such compounds can prevent breeding in certain habitats and as such help reduce mosquito population densities and dispersion in conducive areas.

This study investigated the effects of CFS of Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus on the ovipositional behavior of Ae. albopictus and identified bioactive deterrence compounds.

Maintenance of Aedes albopictus colony

Adult Ae. albopictus were reared in insect cages (40 × 40 × 40 cm) in a controlled insectary with a temperature of 30°C, 70 ± 10% relative humidity and a 12 h light: 12 h dark photoperiod. Mosquitoes were fed every 2–3 days on defibrinated sheep blood using an artificial blood feeder (Shah et al. 2021). Sugary water (10%) was available at all times. Mosquitoes laid eggs on filter papers in water filled cups. Eggs were hatched in tap water in small plastic containers (10 × 15 × 15 cm). Emerged larvae fed on crushed fish food and maintained at 24 ± 1°C. Newly emerged adults (~ 1 week old) were used in the experiments.

Preparation of Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus supernatants

Xenorhabdus cabanillasii JM26-1, X. doucetiae DSMZ 17909, X. nematophila ATCC 19061, X. szentirmaii DSMZ16338 and Photorhabus kayaii DSMZ 15194 were used in this study. Cell free supernatants of these bacteria were obtained as described in Hazir et al., (Hazir et al. 2017). Briefly, bacteria were cultured on Luria-Bertani (LB) agar for 24 h at 28°C and then a single colony was inoculated into a fresh LB culture to prepare an overnight culture. One ml of this overnight culture was then inoculated into a fresh 100 ml LB medium which was incubated at 28°C for 72 h. These cultures were then centrifuged at 10.000 rpm at 4°C for 10 min and the supernatants were separated into new Falcon tubes.

Generation of Xenorhabdus spp. Δhfq pCEP-KM promoter exchange supernatants

To identify bioactive ovipositional deterrent compound(s) in the bacterial supernatants, Δhfq promoter exchange mutants of Xenorhabdus bacteria were used (Table 1). These mutants were generated using the easyPACId approach (easy Promoter Activated Compound Identification) (Bode et al., 2019) and have been used in previous studies (Incedayi et al. 2021; Cimen et al. 2021b; Gulsen et al. 2022). Briefly, X. szentirmaii Δhfq mutants were generated which results in no NP production and subsequently, the native promoter regions of selected NP BGCs listed in Table 1 were replaced with a chemically inducible promoter P_BAD via the integration of the plasmid pCEP-KM; the biosynthesis of the selected BGC and subsequent selective (over) production of the associated single NP compound class can be activated by the addition of L-arabinose (Bode et al. 2015; Tobias et al. 2017; Bode et al. 2019; Bode et al. 2023).

Table 1

*Xenorhabdus szentirmaii* Δhfq pCEP-KMxy mutants used in this study.
Bacteria species	Mutant name	Compound Name
X. szentirmaii	Wildtype DSM 16338	-
	Δhfq_pCEP_KM_3460	Szentiamid
	Δhfq_pCEP_KM_3680	Xenobactin
	Δhfq_pCEP_KM_3942	Rhabduscin
	Δhfq_pCEP_KM_fclC	Fabclavine
	∆hfq pCEP-KM-0377	PAX-short
	Δhfq PCEP 3663	Xenoamicin
	Δhfq Pcep-KM-5118	Pyrollizixenamide
X. cabanillasii	Δhfq_128–129	Fabclavine
X. hominickii	Δhfq_130–131	Fabclavine
X. budapestensis	Δhfq_pCEP_fclC	Fabclavine
X. stockiae	Δhfq_pCEP_fclC	Fabclavine

Generated mutants were first cultured in LB agar + kanamycin (50 µg/ml final concentration) and incubated at 30°C for 48 h according to Cimen et al. (2021). Then a single colony was transferred into 10 ml LB medium + kanamycin (50 µg/ml final concentration) and incubated at 150 rpm and 30°C to obtain an overnight culture which was transferred into 100 ml fresh LBs and the final optical density (OD₆₀₀) was adjusted to 0.1. These newly inoculated cultures were incubated for 1 h at 30°C and afterwards induced with 0.2% L-arabinose (Wenski et al. 2020). These induced cultures were incubated for 72 h at 150 rpm and 30°C and then CFS was obtained and used in the oviposition experiments.

Effects of wild-type and mutant bacterial supernatants on the ovipositional activity of Aedes albopictus

Experimental design was based on (Kramer and Mulla 1979)) using a binary choice design with 10 newly blood-fed female mosquitoes in insect cages. After blood feeding, females were transferred to new cages from stock colonies using an aspirator and allowed 4 days to digest blood. Sugary water (10%) was available at all times. Two plastic cups (100 ml) were introduced into the cages (two-choice test): one had CFS of wild-type X. szentirmaii, X. cabanillasii, X. nematophila, X. doucetiae or P. kayaii diluted (50, 20, 10, 5 and 1% concentrations) in 40 ml distilled water and the other had LB diluted in distilled water (control). Besides, commercial larvicidal compounds were compared with distilled water to determine if they have any ovipositional deterrent activity. The active ingredient in the larvicides used were Spinosad, Lysinibacillus sphaericus, or Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis (Table 2). These products were used at doses recommended by the manufacturer. Field-collected water was also assessed against distilled water.

Table 2

Commercial larvicidal products used in the study. SC; Suspension Concentrate, WDG; Water-dispersible granule.
Larvicide	Commercial product	Recommended concentration	Formulation
Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis	Vectobac® 12AS	0.19 ml/L	SC
Spinosad	Moskill 120SC	3.3 ml/L	SC
Lysinibacillus sphaericus	Vectolex WDG	5 g/L	WDG

Edges of the cups were lined with Whatman No. 2 filter papers as a substrate for collection of deposited eggs. These plastic cups were placed equidistant from each other at the corner of the cages and their positions were alternated between replicates to nullify any position biases. The cages were placed in the insectarium at 27 ± 1 ℃ temperature, 70% relative humidity and 12 h photoperiod. After 72 h, the filter papers in each plastic cup were collected, and the eggs deposited on filter papers were counted under a stereomicroscope. Each treatment had four replicates and the experiments were conducted three times. The oviposition attractant/deterrence feature of the bacterial supernatant was evaluated by calculating the oviposition activity index (OAI) using the number of eggs laid in the cups (Kramer and Mulla 1979; Hwang et al. 1982). The OAI was determined using the formula \(OAI=\frac{\left(Number of eggs in treated water -number of eggs in control \right)}{\left(Number of eggs in treated water + number of eggs in control\right)}\) and scores were used for analysis of variance (p = 0.05). An OAI score close to − 1 shows a high deterrence, between + 0.3 and − 0.3 shows neutrality, and + 1 shows a strong attraction (Hwang et al. 1982).

The same method was used with cell-free supernatants obtained from promoter exchange mutants shown in Table 1 to identify the compound responsible for the attractant/deterrence activity. Different derivatives of the bioactive compound obtained from different bacteria (i.e., X. hominckii, X. cabanillasii, X. budapestensis, X. szentirmaii, X. bovienii, and X. stockiae) were also assessed.

Performance of bioactive oviposition deterrent compounds

After identifying the bioactive compound/s, multiple choice experiments were also conducted. In this case, four plastic cups (100 ml) with the components below were added to cages with 10 female mosquitoes:

Choice experiment-1

Field collected water, clean water, water with 10 larvae (3rd -4th stage), and LB-water (control).

Choice experiment-2

Field collected water treated with Fabclavine (20%), clean water, water with 10 larvae, and LB-water (control).

Choice experiment-3

Field collected water, clean water with Fabclavine (20%), water with 10 larvae, and LB-water (control).

Choice experiment-4

Field collected water, clean water, water with larvae (10) treated with Fabclavine (20%), and LB-water (control).

The total liquid volume in each cup was 40 ml. The plastic cups were placed in the corners of the insect cages. Eggs were counted after 3 days and the OAI was calculated as described previously. These experiments had 5 replicates and the experiments were conducted twice.

Statistical analyses

Analysis of variance with Tukey’s test (p = 0.05) was used to compared OAI as well as a number of eggs laid in multiple choice experiments in the statistical analysis using SPSS program (version 23).

Effects of wild-type and mutant strain bacterial supernatants on the ovipositional activity of Aedes albopictus

The oviposition deterrence activity of CFS from different wild-type Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus bacteria against Ae. albopictus is presented in Fig. 1. All bacteria supernatants effectively deter oviposition of female mosquitoes in a concentration-dependent manner with significant difference between all treatments (F = 9.328; df = 29,303; P < 0.001). Supernatant from X. cabanillasii displayed deterrent effects between 50 and 5% concentrations with oviposition activity index values ranging between − 0.87 and − 0.35. Index values for X. nematophila were − 0.82, -0.85, and − 0.52 at concentrations of 50, 20 and 10%, respectively. Xenorhabdus szentirmaii, X. doucetiae, and P. kayaii were effective at concentrations ≥ 20%. Among the controls, the mosquitoes only abstained from treatments with L. sphaericus with an OAI of -0.47. Aedes albopictus females were neutral to the effects of B. thuringensis israelensis and spinosad. Field collected water was significantly more attractive than distilled water (Fig. 1).

Various mutants generated from X. szentirmaii were used to identify the respective deterrent compounds present in supernatants. Fabclavine (OAI= -0.72) as the only compound with evident deterrent effects in X. szentirmaii (Figs. 2 and 3).

The OAI of fabclavine derivatives obtained from X. hominckii, X. cabanillasii, X. budapestensis, X. szentirmaii, X. bovienii, and X. stockiae on Ae. albopictus were − 0.89, -0.88, -0.86, -0.75, -0.57 and − 0.53, respectively. There was a statistical difference only in the deterrent effects between X. hominickii and X. stockiae (F = 3.266; df = 5, 46; P = 0.14) (Fig. 4).

Performance of bioactive ovipositional deterrent compounds

There was a statistically significant difference in the number of eggs laid by Ae. albopictus females in the multiple-choice experiments with 4 different containers that had either field collected water, supernatant (treated), water with larvae (10), LB-water (control) or clean water (Fig. 5). In the first combination (choice experiment-1), which served as a control, field water was found to be the most attractive breeding site for the female with at least 140 eggs laid here. In choice experiments 2 and 4, females were observed to abstain from containers where fabclavine had been added (Fig. 5), even reducing the attractiveness of field collected water. The number of eggs laid in the containers with field collected water and fabclavine in the choice experiment-3 was nearly halved (73 eggs) compared to the other combinations.

Our data shows that Ae. albopictus abstained from laying eggs in containers with supernatants of Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus. All bacteria supernatants effectively deterred oviposition of female mosquitoes in a concentration-dependent manner.

Several reports have highlighted the importance of the bioactive natural product of Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus as potential larvicidal agents on different mosquito species (da Silva et al. 2013; Wagutu et al. 2017; Luiz Rosa da Silva et al. 2017; Vitta et al. 2018; Shah et al. 2021). Our study, as a first, demonstrates that Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus spp. produce highly effective ovipositional deterrent compounds against mosquito Ae albopictus. The easyPACId method showed clearly that the bioactive deterrent compound was fabclavine. These non-ribosomally synthesized peptide/polyketide with polyamine moieties has broad-spectrum bioactivities. An important body of literature exists detailing the possible application of fabclavines against various bacterial (Donmez Ozkan et al. 2019), fungal (Cimen et al., 2021), and protozoal organisms (Gulsen et al. 2022) of medical, veterinary, and agricultural importance. These compounds are produced by certain Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus bacteria to kill adversaries of the EPN-bacteria complex and help maintain a monoxenic environment within the infected host (Fuchs et al. 2014; Wenski et al. 2020; Wenski et al. 2021).

Female mosquitoes are highly sensitive to environmental factors. They can sense the myriad of olfactory, visual, gustatory, and tactile signals emanating from breeding sites as well as various environmental factors such as fluctuations in temperature, rainfall, relative humidity that can influence ovipositional behavior using the sensilla in antennae, maxillary palps, proboscis, and taste organs including tarsal segments of the legs, and cibarium (Bentley and Day 1989; Day 2016; Baik and Carlson 2020; Parker et al. 2020; Girard et al. 2021). They generally seek out suitable aquatic habitats rich with nutrients for her offspring and devoid of potential predators (Bentley and Day, 1989; Day, 2016; Baik and Carlson, 2020). The flies can even sense the presence of con- and heterospecific immature stages and predators and chemical cues associated with these organisms, and they are attracted, repelled or deterred from depositing eggs in such sites (Afify and Galizia 2015; Russell et al. 2022). Our study demonstrates that the application of fabclavine and L. sphaericus influence the ovipositional behavior of mosquitoes. The effects of B. thuringiensis israelensis and spinosad were neutral. Likewise, Nazni et al. (2009) showed that Ae. albopictus females were not repelled from Bti treated containers. However, we detected that the females did not lay eggs or laid a few in containers where fabclavine had been added. Fabclavine derivatives obtained from X. hominckii, X. cabanillasii, X. budapestensis, X. szentirmaii, X. bovienii, and X. stockiae had deterrent activities on Ae. albopictus with OAI that ranged between − 0.53 and − 0.89. Fabclavine from X. szentirmaii even reduced the attractiveness of field collected water. We observed that the mosquitoes landed on the wet filter papers on the sides of treated containers at which point they sensed fabclavine, which are highly polar compounds that are miscible in water, through sensilla in tarsal segments of their legs before abstaining from egg laying and moving away. The mode of action of fabclavine on female mosquitoes needs to be elucidated.

Xenorhabdus nematophila, X. doucetie and P. kayaii do not produce fabclavines hence a different compound/s is responsible for the deterrence effects.

Interestingly, the oviposition deterrence activity of CFS from X. nematophila, X. doucetiae and P. kayaii (Fig. 1) that all do not encode a biosynthesis gene cluster responsible for fabclavine production (Tobias et al. 2017), suggests another compound to display the deterrence activity that has not been identified yet.

As far as we are aware this is the first report of the oviposition deterrent effects of bacterial secondary metabolite on mosquitoes. Poonam et al. (2002) investigated the effects of CFS of Azospirillum brasilense, B. cereus, B. megaterium, Pseudomonas fluorescens, B. thuringiensis var. israelensis and B. sphaericus, on the oviposition activity of Culex quinquefasciatus females. They observed that depending on concentration CSF of these bacteria exhibited attractancy comparable to p-cresol, a known oviposition attractant. On the other hand, numerous compounds mainly from plants have been reported to have ovipositional deterrent activity against mosquitoes (Waliwitiya et al. 2009; Cheah et al. 2013; Dias and Moraes 2014). Waliwitiya et al. (2009) reported that Ae. aegypti laid fewer eggs in cups with eugenol, pulegone, thymol, trans-anithole or citronellal extracted from rosemary (OAI ranged between − 0.5 and − 0.8). Essential oils from Piper marginatum leaves, stems, and flowers have been observed to exhibit moderate oviposition deterrent effects (OAI= -0.4) against Ae. aegypti (Autran et al. 2009).

Development of compounds with deterrence effects could be useful in mosquito control programs as such compounds can prevent gravid mosquito females from breeding in certain habitats. Choice of breeding site can greatly influence mosquito species establishment, population densities and dispersion in conducive areas.

Acknowledgements

Work in Hazir lab was funded by Aydin Adnan Menderes University (project no. FEF-22014) and TUBITAK-116Z074. Work in Bode lab was supported by LOEWE TBG funded by the state of Hesse and an ERC Advanced Grant (835108).

Afify A, Galizia CG (2015) Chemosensory Cues for Mosquito Oviposition Site Selection. J Med Entomol 52:120–130. https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tju024
Antonello AM, Sartori T, Folmer Correa AP, Brandelli A, Heermann R, Rodrigues Júnior LC, Peres A, Romão PRT, Da Silva OS (2018) Entomopathogenic bacteria Photorhabdus luminescens as drug source against Leishmania amazonensis. Parasitology 145:1065–1074. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031182017002001
Antonello AM, Sartori T, Silva MB, Prophiro JS, Pinge-Filho P, Heermann R, da Silva OS, Romão PRT (2019) Anti-Trypanosoma activity of bioactive metabolites from Photorhabdus luminescens and Xenorhabdus nematophila. Exp Parasitol 204:107724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exppara.2019.107724
Autran ES, Neves IA, da Silva CSB, Santos GKN, da Câmara CAG, Navarro DMF (2009) Chemical composition, oviposition deterrent and larvicidal activities against Aedes aegypti of essential oils from Piper marginatum Jacq. (Piperaceae). Bioresour Technol 100:2284–2288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.10.055
Baik LS, Carlson JR (2020) The mosquito taste system and disease control. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 117:32848–32856. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2013076117
Beaty BJ, William C. Black IV, Eisen L, Flores AE, García-Rejón JE, Loroño-Pino M, Saavedra-Rodriguez K (2016) THE INTENSIFYING STORM: DOMESTICATION OF AEDES AEGYPTI, URBANIZATION OF ARBOVIRUSES, AND EMERGING INSECTICIDE RESISTANCE. In: Global Health Impacts of Vector-Borne Diseases: Workshop Summary. National Academies Press (US)
Benedict MQ, Levine RS, Hawley WA, Lounibos LP (2007) Spread of the Tiger: Global Risk of Invasion by the Mosquito Aedes albopictus. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 7:76–85. https://doi.org/10.1089/vbz.2006.0562
Benelli G, Jeffries C, Walker T (2016) Biological Control of Mosquito Vectors: Past, Present, and Future. Insects 7:52. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects7040052
Bentley MD, Day JF (1989) Chemical ecology and behavioral aspects of mosquito oviposition. Annu Rev Entomol 34:401–421. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.34.010189.002153
Bode E, Assmann D, Happel P, Meyer E, Münch K, Rössel N, Bode HB (2023) easyPACId, a Simple Method for Induced Production, Isolation, Identification, and Testing of Natural Products from Proteobacteria. Bio Protoc 13:e4709. https://doi.org/10.21769/BioProtoc.4709
Bode E, Brachmann AO, Kegler C, Simsek R, Dauth C, Zhou Q, Kaiser M, Klemmt P, Bode HB (2015) Simple “On-Demand” Production of Bioactive Natural Products. ChemBioChem 16:1115–1119. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbic.201500094
Bode E, Heinrich AK, Hirschmann M, Abebew D, Shi Y-N, Vo TD, Wesche F, Shi Y-M, Grün P, Simonyi S, Keller N, Engel Y, Wenski S, Bennet R, Beyer S, Bischoff I, Buaya A, Brandt S, Cakmak I, Çimen H, Eckstein S, Frank D, Fürst R, Gand M, Geisslinger G, Hazir S, Henke M, Heermann R, Lecaudey V, Schäfer W, Schiffmann S, Schüffler A, Schwenk R, Skaljac M, Thines E, Thines M, Ulshöfer T, Vilcinskas A, Wichelhaus TA, Bode HB (2019) Promoter Activation in Δhfq Mutants as an Efficient Tool for Specialized Metabolite Production Enabling Direct Bioactivity Testing. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 58:18957–18963. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201910563
Bode HB (2009) Entomopathogenic bacteria as a source of secondary metabolites. Curr Opin Chem Biol 13:224–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2009.02.037
Bursali F, Simsek FM (2023) Effects of different feeding methods and hosts on the fecundity and blood-feeding behavior of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae). Biologia. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11756-023-01514-3
Chacón-Orozco JG, Bueno CJ, Shapiro-Ilan DI, Hazir S, Leite LG, Harakava R (2020) Antifungal activity of Xenorhabdus spp. and Photorhabdus spp. against the soybean pathogenic Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Sci Rep 10:20649. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-77472-6
Cheah S-X, Tay J-W, Chan L-K, Jaal Z (2013) Larvicidal, oviposition, and ovicidal effects of Artemisia annua (Asterales: Asteraceae) against Aedes aegypti, Anopheles sinensis, and Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae). Parasitol Res 112:3275–3282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-013-3506-0
Cimen H, Touray M, Gulsen SH, Erincik O, Wenski SL, Bode HB, Shapiro-Ilan D, Hazir S (2021a) Antifungal activity of different Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus species against various fungal phytopathogens and identification of the antifungal compounds from X. szentirmaii. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 105:5517–5528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-021-11435-3
Cimen H, Touray M, Gulsen SH, Erincik O, Wenski SL, Bode HB, Shapiro-Ilan D, Hazir S (2021b) Antifungal activity of different Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus species against various fungal phytopathogens and identification of the antifungal compounds from X. szentirmaii. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 105:5517–5528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-021-11435-3
Cimen H, Touray M, Gulsen SH, Hazir S (2022) Natural products from Photorhabdus and Xenorhabdus: mechanisms and impacts. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 106:4387–4399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-022-12023-9
da Silva OS, Prado GR, da Silva JLR, Silva CE, da Costa M, Heermann R (2013) Oral toxicity of Photorhabdus luminescens and Xenorhabdus nematophila (Enterobacteriaceae) against Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). Parasitol Res 112:2891–2896. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-013-3460-x
Day JF (2016) Mosquito Oviposition Behavior and Vector Control. Insects 7:65. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects7040065
Dias CN, Moraes DFC (2014) Essential oils and their compounds as Aedes aegypti L. (Diptera: Culicidae) larvicides: review. Parasitol Res 113:565–592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-013-3687-6
Donmez Ozkan H, Cimen H, Ulug D, Wenski S, Yigit Ozer S, Telli M, Aydin N, Bode HB, Hazir S (2019) Nematode-Associated Bacteria: Production of Antimicrobial Agent as a Presumptive Nominee for Curing Endodontic Infections Caused by Enterococcus faecalis. Front Microbiol 10:2672. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.02672
Eitam A, Blaustein L (2004) Oviposition habitat selection by mosquitoes in response to predator (Notonecta maculata) density. Physiological Entomology 29:188–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0307-6962.2004.0372.x
Fang X, Zhang M, Tang Q, Wang Y, Zhang X (2014) Inhibitory effect of Xenorhabdus nematophila TB on plant pathogens Phytophthora capsici and Botrytis cinerea in vitro and in planta. Sci Rep 4:4300. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep04300
Faraji A, Unlu I (2016) The Eye of the Tiger, the Thrill of the Fight: Effective Larval and Adult Control Measures Against the Asian Tiger Mosquito, Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae), in North America. J Med Entomol 53:1029–1047. https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tjw096
Fonseca DM, Unlu I, Crepeau T, Farajollahi A, Healy SP, Bartlett-Healy K, Strickman D, Gaugler R, Hamilton G, Kline D, Clark GG (2013) Area-wide management of Aedes albopictus. Part 2: gauging the efficacy of traditional integrated pest control measures against urban container mosquitoes. Pest Manag Sci 69:1351–1361. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.3511
Fuchs SW, Grundmann F, Kurz M, Kaiser M, Bode HB (2014) Fabclavines: bioactive peptide-polyketide-polyamino hybrids from Xenorhabdus. Chembiochem 15:512–516. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbic.201300802
Furgani G, Böszörményi E, Fodor A, Máthé-Fodor A, Forst S, Hogan JS, Katona Z, Klein MG, Stackebrandt E, Szentirmai A, Sztaricskai F, Wolf SL (2008) Xenorhabdus antibiotics: a comparative analysis and potential utility for controlling mastitis caused by bacteria. J Appl Microbiol 104:745–758. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2007.03613.x
Girard M, Martin E, Vallon L, Raquin V, Bellet C, Rozier Y, Desouhant E, Hay A-E, Luis P, Valiente Moro C, Minard G (2021) Microorganisms Associated with Mosquito Oviposition Sites: Implications for Habitat Selection and Insect Life Histories. Microorganisms 9:1589. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9081589
Godfray HCJ (2013) Mosquito ecology and control of malaria. Journal of Animal Ecology 82:15–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12003
Gubler DJ (2002) Epidemic dengue/dengue hemorrhagic fever as a public health, social and economic problem in the 21st century. Trends Microbiol 10:100–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0966-842x(01)02288-0
Gulcu B, Hazir S, Kaya HK (2012) Scavenger deterrent factor (SDF) from symbiotic bacteria of entomopathogenic nematodes. J Invertebr Pathol 110:326–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2012.03.014
Gulsen SH, Tileklioglu E, Bode E, Cimen H, Ertabaklar H, Ulug D, Ertug S, Wenski SL, Touray M, Hazir C, Bilecenoglu DK, Yildiz I, Bode HB, Hazir S (2022) Antiprotozoal activity of different Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus bacterial secondary metabolites and identification of bioactive compounds using the easyPACId approach. Sci Rep 12:10779. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-13722-z
Hazir S, Kaya H, Touray M, Cimen H, ILAN DS (2022) Basic laboratory and field manual for conducting research with the entomopathogenic nematodes, Steinernema and Heterorhabditis, and their bacterial symbionts. Turkish Journal of Zoology 46:305–350
Hazir S, Shapiro-Ilan DI, Bock CH, Leite LG (2017) Trans-cinnamic acid and Xenorhabdus szentirmaii metabolites synergize the potency of some commercial fungicides. J Invertebr Pathol 145:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2017.03.007
Hazir S, Shapiro-Ilan DI, Hazir C, Leite LG, Cakmak I, Olson D (2016) Multifaceted effects of host plants on entomopathogenic nematodes. J Invertebr Pathol 135:53–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2016.02.004
Hinchliffe SJ, Hares MC, Dowling AJ, ffrench-Constant RH (2010) Insecticidal Toxins from the Photorhabdus and Xenorhabdus Bacteria. The Open Toxinology Journal 3
Huang Z, Zhang Y, Li H, Zhu J, Song W, Chen K, Zhang Y, Lou Y (2023) Vaccine development for mosquito-borne viral diseases. Front Immunol 14:1161149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2023.1161149
Hwang Y-S, Schultz GW, Axelrod H, Kramer WL, Mulla MS (1982) Ovipositional Repellency of Fatty Acids and Their Derivatives Against Culex1 and Aedes1 Mosquitoes. Environmental Entomology 11:223–226. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/11.1.223
Incedayi G, Cimen H, Ulug D, Touray M, Bode E, Bode HB, Orenlili Yaylagul E, Hazir S, Cakmak I (2021) Relative potency of a novel acaricidal compound from Xenorhabdus, a bacterial genus mutualistically associated with entomopathogenic nematodes. Sci Rep 11:11253. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-90726-1
Kraemer MUG, Sinka ME, Duda KA, Mylne AQN, Shearer FM, Barker CM, Moore CG, Carvalho RG, Coelho GE, Van Bortel W, Hendrickx G, Schaffner F, Elyazar IRF, Teng H-J, Brady OJ, Messina JP, Pigott DM, Scott TW, Smith DL, Wint GRW, Golding N, Hay SI (2015) The global distribution of the arbovirus vectors Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus. Elife 4:e08347. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08347
Kramer WL, Mulla MS (1979) Oviposition Attractants and Repellents of Mosquitoes: Oviposition Responses of Culex1 Mosquitoes to Organic Infusions 2. Environmental Entomology 8:1111–1117. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/8.6.1111
Lacey LA (2007) Bacillus thuringiensis serovariety israelensis and Bacillus sphaericus for mosquito control. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 23:133–163. https://doi.org/10.2987/8756-971X(2007)23[133:BTSIAB]2.0.CO;2
Luiz Rosa da Silva J, Undurraga Schwalm F, Eugênio Silva C, da Costa M, Heermann R, Santos da Silva O (2017) Larvicidal and Growth-Inhibitory Activity of Entomopathogenic Bacteria Culture Fluids Against Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). J Econ Entomol 110:378–385. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/tow224
Messina JP, Brady OJ, Golding N, Kraemer MUG, Wint GRW, Ray SE, Pigott DM, Shearer FM, Johnson K, Earl L, Marczak LB, Shirude S, Davis Weaver N, Gilbert M, Velayudhan R, Jones P, Jaenisch T, Scott TW, Reiner RC, Hay SI (2019) The current and future global distribution and population at risk of dengue. Nat Microbiol 4:1508–1515. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-019-0476-8
Otoya-Martinez N, Leite LG, Harakava R, Touray M, Hazir S, Chacon-Orozco J, Bueno CJ (2023) Disease caused by Neofusicoccum parvum in pruning wounds of grapevine shoots and its control by Trichoderma spp. and Xenorhabdus szentirmaii. Fungal Biol 127:865–871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.funbio.2022.12.002
Parker AT, McGill K, Allan BF (2020) Container Type Affects Mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae) Oviposition Choice. J Med Entomol 57:1459–1467. https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tjaa045
Poonam S, Paily KP, Balaraman K (2002) Oviposition attractancy of bacterial culture filtrates: response of Culex quinquefasciatus. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 97:359–362. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0074-02762002000300015
Romanello M, McGushin A, Di Napoli C, Drummond P, Hughes N, Jamart L, Kennard H, Lampard P, Solano Rodriguez B, Arnell N, Ayeb-Karlsson S, Belesova K, Cai W, Campbell-Lendrum D, Capstick S, Chambers J, Chu L, Ciampi L, Dalin C, Dasandi N, Dasgupta S, Davies M, Dominguez-Salas P, Dubrow R, Ebi KL, Eckelman M, Ekins P, Escobar LE, Georgeson L, Grace D, Graham H, Gunther SH, Hartinger S, He K, Heaviside C, Hess J, Hsu S-C, Jankin S, Jimenez MP, Kelman I, Kiesewetter G, Kinney PL, Kjellstrom T, Kniveton D, Lee JKW, Lemke B, Liu Y, Liu Z, Lott M, Lowe R, Martinez-Urtaza J, Maslin M, McAllister L, McMichael C, Mi Z, Milner J, Minor K, Mohajeri N, Moradi-Lakeh M, Morrissey K, Munzert S, Murray KA, Neville T, Nilsson M, Obradovich N, Sewe MO, Oreszczyn T, Otto M, Owfi F, Pearman O, Pencheon D, Rabbaniha M, Robinson E, Rocklöv J, Salas RN, Semenza JC, Sherman J, Shi L, Springmann M, Tabatabaei M, Taylor J, Trinanes J, Shumake-Guillemot J, Vu B, Wagner F, Wilkinson P, Winning M, Yglesias M, Zhang S, Gong P, Montgomery H, Costello A, Hamilton I (2021) The 2021 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: code red for a healthy future. Lancet 398:1619–1662. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01787-6
Russell MC, Herzog CM, Gajewski Z, Ramsay C, El Moustaid F, Evans MV, Desai T, Gottdenker NL, Hermann SL, Power AG, McCall AC (2022) Both consumptive and non-consumptive effects of predators impact mosquito populations and have implications for disease transmission. Elife 11:e71503. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.71503
Scholte E-J, Takken W, Knols BGJ (2007) Infection of adult Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus mosquitoes with the entomopathogenic fungus Metarhizium anisopliae. Acta Trop 102:151–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actatropica.2007.04.011
Sergeant M, Baxter L, Jarrett P, Shaw E, Ousley M, Winstanley C, Morgan JAW (2006) Identification, typing, and insecticidal activity of Xenorhabdus isolates from entomopathogenic nematodes in United Kingdom soil and characterization of the xpt toxin loci. Appl Environ Microbiol 72:5895–5907. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00217-06
Shah FA, Abdoarrahem MM, Berry C, Touray M, Hazir S, Butt TM (2021) Indiscriminate ingestion of entomopathogenic nematodes and their symbiotic bacteria by Aedes aegypti larvae: a novel strategy to control the vector of Chikungunya, Dengue and Yellow Fever. Turkish Journal of Zoology 45:372–383
Shapiro-Ilan D, Hazir S, Glazer I (2019) Advances in use of entomopathogenic nematodes in integrated pest management. In: Integrated management of insect pests. Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing
Shapiro-Ilan DI, Bock CH, Hotchkiss MW (2014) Suppression of pecan and peach pathogens on different substrates using Xenorhabdus bovienii and Photorhabdus luminescens. Biological Control 77:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2014.05.010
Smith LB, Kasai S, Scott JG (2016) Pyrethroid resistance in Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus: Important mosquito vectors of human diseases. Pestic Biochem Physiol 133:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pestbp.2016.03.005
Tobias NJ, Wolff H, Djahanschiri B, Grundmann F, Kronenwerth M, Shi Y-M, Simonyi S, Grün P, Shapiro-Ilan D, Pidot SJ, Stinear TP, Ebersberger I, Bode HB (2017) Natural product diversity associated with the nematode symbionts Photorhabdus and Xenorhabdus. Nat Microbiol 2:1676–1685. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-017-0039-9
Touray M, Bakirci S, Ulug D, Gulsen SH, Cimen H, Yavasoglu SI, Simsek FM, Ertabaklar H, Ozbel Y, Hazir S (2023) Arthropod vectors of disease agents: their role in public and veterinary health in Turkiye and their control measures. Acta Tropica 106893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actatropica.2023.106893
Vicente-Díez I, Pou A, Campos-Herrera R (2023) The deterrent ability of Xenorhabdus nematophila and Photorhabdus laumondii compounds as a potential novel tool for Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) management. J Invertebr Pathol 107911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2023.107911
Vitta A, Thimpoo P, Meesil W, Yimthin T, Fukruksa C, Polseela R, Mangkit B, Tandhavanant S, Thanwisai A (2018) Larvicidal activity of Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus bacteria against Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus. Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Biomedicine 8:31. https://doi.org/10.4103/2221-1691.221134
Vos T, Barber RM, Bell B, Bertozzi-Villa A, Biryukov S, Bolliger I, Charlson F, Davis A, Erskine H, Feigin VL, (2015) Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 301 acute and chronic diseases and injuries in 188 countries, 1990-2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet 386:743–800. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60692-4
Wagutu GK, Mwangi W, Waturu CN (2017) Entomopathogenic Bacteria: Xenorhabdus Spp and Photorhabdus Spp From Steinernema Karii and Heterorhabditis Indica for the Control of Mosquito Larvae. Journal of Agriculture, Science and Technology 18:21–38. https://doi.org/10.4314/jagst.v18i2
Waliwitiya R, Kennedy CJ, Lowenberger CA (2009) Larvicidal and oviposition-altering activity of monoterpenoids, trans -anithole and rosemary oil to the yellow fever mosquito Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). Pest Manag Sci 65:241–248. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.1675
Webster J, Chen G, Hu K, Li J (2002) Bacterial metabolites. In: Entomopathogenic nematology. CABI International, London, pp 99–114
Weeratunga P, Rodrigo C, Fernando SD, Rajapakse S (2017) Control methods for Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012759
Wenski SL, Berghaus N, Keller N, Bode HB (2021) Structure and biosynthesis of deoxy-polyamine in Xenorhabdus bovienii. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 48:kuab006. https://doi.org/10.1093/jimb/kuab006
Wenski SL, Cimen H, Berghaus N, Fuchs SW, Hazir S, Bode HB (2020) Fabclavine diversity in Xenorhabdus bacteria. Beilstein J Org Chem 16:956–965. https://doi.org/10.3762/bjoc.16.84
Zeng Z, Zhan J, Chen L, Chen H, Cheng S (2021) Global, regional, and national dengue burden from 1990 to 2017: A systematic analysis based on the global burden of disease study 2017. EClinicalMedicine 32:100712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100712

No competing interests reported.

GraphicalAbstract.png

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 21 Mar, 2024

Read the published version in Journal of Pest Science →

Editorial decision: Revision requested
23 Jan, 2024
Reviews received at journal
18 Jan, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
09 Jan, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
14 Nov, 2023
Reviews received at journal
06 Nov, 2023
Reviewers agreed at journal
16 Oct, 2023
Reviewers agreed at journal
16 Oct, 2023
Reviewers invited by journal
16 Oct, 2023
Editor assigned by journal
16 Oct, 2023
Submission checks completed at journal
12 Oct, 2023
First submitted to journal
09 Oct, 2023

You are reading this latest preprint version

Effects of Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus bacterial metabolites on the ovipositional activity of Aedes albopictus

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Key Message

Introduction

Material and Method

Performance of bioactive oviposition deterrent compounds

Statistical analyses

Results

Performance of bioactive ovipositional deterrent compounds

Discussion

Declarations

Acknowledgements

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1