Abstract
Viral diseases like yellow fever, dengue, and Zika have an alarming impact on public health. These diseases can be transmitted by Aedes mosquito species, such as Ae. albopictus, which is now found in many countries outside its original range. Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus spp. are enteric bacterial symbionts of insect-preying nematodes and are known to produce an array of natural products with various activities including larvicidal activity. In this study, the effects of natural products produced by four Xenorhabdus and one Photorhabdus bacteria on the ovipositional behavior of Ae. albopictus mosquitoes were assessed. Utilizing a binary choice assay in insect cages, gravid female mosquitoes were presented with two oviposition cups containing water supplemented with varying concentrations of bacterial supernatants (50–1% concentrations) versus control medium. After 72 h, the eggs deposited on filter papers were counted. The oviposition attractant index (OAI) feature of the bacterial supernatant was evaluated using the number of eggs laid in the cups. Notably, all tested supernatants exhibited concentration-dependent deterrence of oviposition. Xenorhabdus cabanillasii displayed the strongest deterrent effect, inhibiting egg-laying at 50–5% concentrations (OAI: − 0.87 to − 0.35), followed by X. nematophila (50–10%, OAI: − 0.82 to − 0.52). Xenorhabdus szentirmaii, X. doucetiae, and P. kayaii showed significant deterrence at ≥ 20% concentrations. Using promoter exchange mutants generated by the easyPACId approach, fabclavine from X. szentirmaii was identified as the bioactive compound with evident deterrent effects. Such deterrents targeting egg-laying could be valuable for controlling populations by disrupting their breeding in suitable habitats.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Key message
-
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
Introduction
Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae), distinguished by white bands on its legs and body, is a synanthropic Aedes species originally endemic to tropical and sub-tropical regions of South Asia (Schaffner and Mathis 2014; Laporta et al. 2023). 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) which are capable of withstanding cold conditions in temperate regions. These stages are transported 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 animals and wildlife and along with Ae. aegypti, is 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 (Zeng et al. 2021; Ahebwa et al. 2023). Symptoms include a characteristic skin rash, high fever, headache, muscle and joint pains. Severe cases may be life-threatening by causing serious bleeding and even death (Gubler 2002; Vos et al. 2015; Zeng et al. 2021). The economic cost related to Aedes diseases, particularly dengue, is estimated to at least US $87.3 billion between 1975 and 2020 (Roiz et al. 2023) and funds dedicated to vector control and surveillance programs ranged from $5.62–73.5 million (Thompson et al. 2020).
Aside from yellow fever, these Aedes-transmitted diseases have no vaccine or effective therapeutics (Smith et al. 2016; Huang et al. 2023); therefore, mosquito control professionals around the world monitor Aedes populations and evaluate novel control strategies to mitigate pathogen transmission (Schwab et al. 2018; Caputo and Manica 2020). A well-organized monitoring program aims to assess the occurrence, dispersal, and abundance of the target populations and includes inspections of potential breeding sites, employing ovitraps and adult traps, and human-landing-collections (Lühken et al. 2023). 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). Chemical adulticides (e.g., organophosphates such as malathion and naled, and pyrethroids such as prallethrin, etofenprox, pyrethrins, permethrin, resmethrin) are used. They are applied in indoor residual spraying, impregnated into bed nets or ultralow-volume aerial sprays in open areas using truck-mounted sprayers (Ochomo et al. 2024). Use of numerous insecticides is banned or restricted in most developed countries in America, Asia and Europe due to health and environmental issues, with exceptions granted only under strict conditions (Damico 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 (Faraji and Unlu 2016). Also, the effects of chemical insecticides are short-termed 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). These issues have encouraged the use of environmentally friendly biological alternatives like the fungus, Metarhizium anisopliae (Aguilar-Durán et al. 2023; Perumal et al. 2023; Gomes et al. 2023) and the bacteria, Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis (Bti) and Lysinibacillus sphaericus as well as insect growth regulators (methoprene, diflubenzuron, pyriproxyfen) in breeding sites inspected for mosquito developing stages (Lacey 2007; Scholte et al. 2007; Benelli et al. 2016). These biocontrol agents are eco-friendly, prevent water pollution, and do not harm humans and other useful organisms in the aquatic habitats (Pathak et al. 2022; Barathi et al. 2024). They have had successes in implemented countries and despite been used extensively for many years, there are no or few reports of reports of field resistance (Tetreau et al., 2013; Ferreira and Silva-Filha 2013). Over the years, 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 have a near-global distribution, 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, rapidly kill host, and disintegrate tissue, as well as perform defense functions against competitors and natural enemies through the use of 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. 2021; Otoya-Martinez et al. 2023), and protozoal pathogens (Antonello et al. 2018, 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 JLR et al. 2013; Wagutu et al. 2017; da Silva JLR 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. Furthermore, the calliphorid fly, Chrysomya albiceps, did not lay eggs on treating lamb meat with P. luminescens supernatant (Gulcu et al. 2012). Additionally, 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 in 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 deterrent compounds could be a powerful tool in mosquito control programs. Such deterrents can prevent breeding in certain habitats and as such help reduce mosquito population densities and dispersion in conducive areas (Cimen 2023).
The aim of this study was to assess the effects of metabolites of Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus on the ovipositional behavior of Ae. albopictus. We investigated the effects of cell-free supernatant (CFS) of Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus on mosquito ovipositional behavior and aimed to identify bioactive deterrence compounds.
Material and method
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 scales (TetraMin®) 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 Photorhabdus kayaii DSMZ 15194 were used in this study. Cell free supernatants of these bacteria were obtained as described in Hazir et al. (2017). Briefly, bacteria were cultured on Luria–Bertani (LB) (10 g peptone, 5 g yeast extract, 5 g NaCl) agar (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) for 24 h at 28 °C, and then, a single colony was inoculated into a fresh LB broth (20 ml) 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 (Eppendorf AG 22331, Germany) 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, 2023) and have been used in previous studies (Incedayi et al. 2021; Cimen et al. 2021; 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 PBAD via the integration of the plasmid pCEP-KM; the biosynthesis of the selected BGC and subsequent selective (over) production of the associated single natural product (NP) compound class can be activated by the addition of l-arabinose (Bode et al. 2015, 2019, 2023; Tobias et al. 2017). HPLC/MS analysis of mutant cultures shows higher production of the selected compounds as compared to wildtype cultures. Detailed information about this mutant generation technique can be found in Bode et al. (2023).
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 (OD600nm) was adjusted to 0.1. These newly inoculated cultures were incubated for 1 h at 30 °C and afterward 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 blood digestion and ovarian development was allowed for 4 days post-blood meal. Sugary water (10%) was available at all times. For the two choice experiments, two 100 ml-plastic cups with 40 ml distilled water containing CFS of wild-type X. szentirmaii, X. cabanillasii, X. nematophila, X. doucetiae or P. kayaii) or LB (control) were introduced into the cages. Bacterial supernatants were tested at 50, 20, 10, 5 and 1% concentrations. 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. The cages were placed in the insectarium at 27 ± 1 °C 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 (n = 12).
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 was Spinosad, Lysinibacillus sphaericus, or Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis (Table 2). These larvicides were added to distilled water at doses recommended by the manufacturer (Table 2), and then, 40 ml of prepared solution was added to oviposition cups used in the experiments. Field-collected water was also assessed against distilled water.
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.
And the 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. hominickii, X. cabanillasii, X. budapestensis, X. szentirmaii, X. bovienii, and X. stockiae) were also assessed using the binary choice method.
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 (a week old):
Choice experiment-1 (baseline experiment) cup A-Field collected water, cup B-clean water, cup C-distilled water with 10 larvae (3rd stage), and cup D-LB-water (control).
Choice experiment-2 cup A-Field collected water with supernatant (20%) from Fabclavine producing X. szentirmaii (Δhfq_pCEP_KM_fclC), cup B-clean water, cup C-distilled water with 10 larvae, and cup D-LB-water (control).
Choice experiment-3 cup A-Field collected water, cup B-clean water with supernatant (20%) from Fabclavine producing X. szentirmaii (Δhfq_pCEP_KM_fclC), cup C-distilled water with 10 larvae, and cup D-LB-water (control).
Choice experiment-4 cup A-Field collected water, cup B-clean water, cup C-distilled water with larvae (10) treated with supernatant (20%) from Fabclavine producing X. szentirmaii (Δhfq_pCEP_KM_fclC), and cup D-LB-water (control).
The total liquid volume in each cup was 40 ml. The plastic cups insides lined with filter paper were placed in the four corners of the insect cages. Eggs were counted after 3 days, and the OAI was calculated as described previously. The position of the cups was rotated daily during the experiments. These experiments had 5 replicates, and the experiments were conducted twice. This multiple choice design allows mosquitoes to choose between options, reflecting natural behavior (choosing oviposition sites).
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).
Results
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 at concentrations 50–5%. Oviposition activity index values ranged between −0.87 and −0.35. Index values for X. nematophila were −0.82, −0.85, and −0.52 at 50, 20 and 10% concentrations, 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 effects of B. thuringiensis israelensis and Spinosad on egg laying. 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, 3).
The OAI of fabclavine derivatives obtained from X. hominickii, 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.
Discussion
Our data show 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 JLR et al. 2013; Wagutu et al. 2017; da Silva JLR et al. 2017; Vitta et al. 2018; Shah et al. 2021; Subkrasae et al. 2022; Yüksel et al. 2023). 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, a non-ribosomally synthesized peptide/polyketide with polyamine moieties and broad-spectrum bioactivities (Wenski et al. 2020; Duan et al. 2024). Studies have shown that derivatives from different species can differ greatly in structure and bioactivity, e.g., X. bovienii produces derivatives with only the polyamine part (Wenski et al. 2020, 2021). 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; Yuan et al. 2023), and protozoal organisms (Gulsen et al. 2022) of medical, veterinary, and agricultural importance. Fabclavines are produced 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, 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 using the sensilla in antennae, maxillary palps, proboscis, and taste organs including tarsal segments of the legs (Baik and Carlson 2020; Girard et al. 2021). Ovipositional behavior is also influenced by various environmental factors such as fluctuations in temperature, rainfall, relative humidity (Bentley and Day 1989; Day 2016; Parker et al. 2020; Girard et al. 2021). Mosquitoes generally seek out suitable aquatic habitats rich in nutrients for their offspring and devoid of potential predators (Bentley and Day 1989; Day 2016; Baik and Carlson 2020). These 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 influences 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 have not been 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. hominickii, X. cabanillasii, X. budapestensis, X. szentirmaii, X. bovienii, and X. stockiae had varied deterrent activities on Ae. albopictus. Fabclavine from X. szentirmaii even reduced the attractiveness of field collected water. Mosquitoes landing on the wet filter papers on the sides of treated containers likely sensed fabclavines, a highly polar and water-miscible compound, through sensilla in tarsal segments of their legs, prompting them to abstain from egg laying and move away. The mode of action of fabclavine on female mosquitoes needs to be elucidated.
Interestingly, despite lacking the biosynthesis gene cluster responsible for fabclavine production X. nematophila, X. doucetiae and P. kayaii bacteria still exhibit oviposition deterrence activity (Fig. 1) (Tobias et al. 2017). This suggests the presence of another, yet unidentified, deterrent compound.
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). Studies show that essential oils from Piper marginatum leaves, stems, and flowers exhibit moderate oviposition deterrence against Ae. Aegypti (OAI = −0.4) (Autran et al. 2009).
In conclusion, this study clearly demonstrated that bacterial metabolites from Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus species are potent deterrents for oviposition in Aedes albopictus. Specifically, supernatants from these bacteria, particularly X. cabanillasii and X. nematophila, exhibited strong concentration-dependent inhibition of egg-laying by the mosquitoes. Notably, fabclavine isolated from X. szentirmaii was identified as the key bioactive compound responsible for this deterrent effect. 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. Use of oviposition deterrent compounds in specific sites would make the mosquitoes find other oviposition sites; these attractive sites can be used for target killing, hence reducing the amount of pesticides used.
Author contributions
MT and SH designed the experiments, analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript; MT and HC conducted the experiments; HBB and EB generated the mutants strains; and all authors reviewed the manuscript.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, [MT], upon reasonable request.
References
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
Aguilar-Durán JA, Villarreal-Treviño C, Fernández-Santos NA, Hamer GL, Rodríguez-Pérez MA (2023) Virulence of entomopathogenic fungi isolated from wild mosquitoes against Aedes aegypti. Entomol Res 53:158–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-5967.12640
Ahebwa A, Hii J, Neoh K-B, Chareonviriyaphap T (2023) Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) ecology, biology, behaviour, and implications on arbovirus transmission in Thailand: review. One Health 16:100555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2023.100555
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 C, a. G, Navarro DM a. F, (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
Barathi S, Sabapathi N, Kandasamy S, Lee J (2024) Present status of insecticide impacts and eco-friendly approaches for remediation-a review. Environ Res 240:117432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2023.117432
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. http://dx.crossref.org/10.17226/21792 (US)http://dx.crossref.org/10.17226/21792
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 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
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 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
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
Caputo B, Manica M (2020) Mosquito surveillance and disease outbreak risk models to inform mosquito-control operations in Europe. Curr Opin Insect Sci 39:101–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2020.03.009
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 (2023) Mosquito oviposition deterring and larvicidal effect of cinnamaldehyde and eugenol. J Anatol Environ Anim Sci 8:322–325. https://doi.org/10.35229/jaes.1313226
Cimen H, Touray M, Gulsen SH, Erincik O, Wenski SL, Bode HB, Shapiro-Ilan D, Hazir S (2021) 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
da Silva JRL, 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
Damico T (2017) Biopesticides are in high demand in today’s pest management programs
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
Duan J, Yuan B, Jia F, Li X, Chen C, Li G (2024) Development of an efficient and seamless genetic manipulation method for Xenorhabdus and its application for enhancing the production of Fabclavines. J Agric Food Chem 72:274–283. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.3c04136
Eitam A, Blaustein L (2004) Oviposition habitat selection by mosquitoes in response to predator (Notonecta maculata) density. Physiol Entomol 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
Ferreira LM, Silva-Filha MHNL (2013) Bacterial larvicides for vector control: mode of action of toxins and implications for resistance. Biocontrol Sci Technol 23(10):1137–1168. https://doi.org/10.1080/09583157.2013.822472
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. J Anim Ecol 82:15–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12003
Gomes SA, Carolino AT, Teodoro TBP, Silva GA, de Bitencourt R, Silva CP, Alkhaibari AM, Butt TM, Samuels RI (2023) The potential of Metarhizium anisopliae blastospores to control Aedes aegypti larvae in the field. J Fungi 9:759. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof9070759
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 J Zool 46:305–350. https://doi.org/10.55730/1300-0179.3085
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
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
Hinchliffe SJ, Hares MC, Dowling AJ, ffrench-Constant RH (2010) Insecticidal toxins from the Photorhabdus and Xenorhabdus bacteria. Open Toxinol J. https://doi.org/10.2174/1875414701003010083
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. Environ Entomol 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. Environ Entomol 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
Laporta GZ, Potter AM, Oliveira JFA, Bourke BP, Pecor DB, Linton Y-M (2023) Global distribution of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus in a climate change scenario of regional rivalry. InSects 14:49. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14010049
Lühken R, Brattig N, Becker N (2023) Introduction of invasive mosquito species into Europe and prospects for arbovirus transmission and vector control in an era of globalization. Infect Dis Poverty 12:109. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40249-023-01167-z
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
Nazni WA, Lee HL, Wan Rozita WM, Lian AC, Chen CD, Azahari AH, Sadiyah I, Sadiyah I (2009) Oviposition behaviour of Aedes albopictus in temephos and Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis-treated ovitraps. WHO Regional Office for South-East Asia. https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/170958
Ochomo E, Rund SSC, Mthawanji RS, Antonio-Nkondjio C, Machani M, Samake S, Wolie RZ, Nsango S, Lown LA, Matoke-Muhia D, Kamau L, Lukyamuzi E, Njeri J, Chabi J, Akrofi OO, Ntege C, Mero V, Mwalimu C, Kiware S, Bilgo E, Traoré MM, Afrane Y, Hakizimana E, Muleba M, Orefuwa E, Chaki P, Juma EO (2024) Mosquito control by abatement programmes in the United States: perspectives and lessons for countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Malar J 23:8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-023-04829-3
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
Pathak VM, Verma VK, Rawat BS, Kaur B, Babu N, Sharma A, Dewali S, Yadav M, Kumari R, Singh S, Mohapatra A, Pandey V, Rana N, Cunill JM (2022) Current status of pesticide effects on environment, human health and it’s eco-friendly management as bioremediation: A comprehensive review. Front Microbiol 13:962619. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.962619
Perumal V, Kannan S, Alford L, Pittarate S, Mekchay S, Reddy GVP, Elangovan D, Marimuthu R, Krutmuang P (2023) Biocontrol effect of entomopathogenic fungi Metarhizium anisopliae ethyl acetate-derived chemical molecules: An eco-friendly anti-malarial drug and insecticide. Arch Insect Biochem Physiol 114:e22037. https://doi.org/10.1002/arch.22037
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
Roiz D, Pontifes P, Jourdain F, Diagne C, Leroy B, Vaissière A-C, Tolsá MJ, Salles J-M, Simard F, Courchamp F (2023) The rising global economic costs of Aedes and Aedes-borne diseases. In Review. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2679030/v1
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
Schaffner F, Mathis A (2014) Dengue and dengue vectors in the WHO European region: past, present, and scenarios for the future. Lancet Infect Dis 14:1271–1280. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(14)70834-5
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
Schwab SR, Stone CM, Fonseca DM, Fefferman NH (2018) The importance of being urgent: the impact of surveillance target and scale on mosquito-borne disease control. Epidemics 23:55–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epidem.2017.12.004
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 J Zool 45:372. https://doi.org/10.3906/zoo-2107-2383
Shapiro-Ilan DI, Bock CH, Hotchkiss MW (2014) Suppression of pecan and peach pathogens on different substrates using Xenorhabdus bovienii and Photorhabdus luminescens. Biol Control 77:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2014.05.010
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
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
Subkrasae C, Ardpairin J, Dumidae A, Janthu P, Muangpat P, Polseela R, Tandhavanant S, Thanwisai A, Vitta A (2022) Larvicidal activity of Photorhabdus and Xenorhabdus bacteria isolated from insect parasitic nematodes against Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus. Acta Trop 235:106668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actatropica.2022.106668
Tetreau G, Stalinski R, David JP, Després L (2013) Monitoring resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis in the field by performing bioassays with each Cry toxin separately. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 108(7):894–900. https://doi.org/10.1590/0074-0276130155
Thompson R, Martin Del Campo J, Constenla D (2020) A review of the economic evidence of Aedes-borne arboviruses and Aedes-borne arboviral disease prevention and control strategies. Expert Rev Vaccines 19:143–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/14760584.2020.1733419
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 Trop. 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. 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 Pac J Trop Biomed 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. J Agric Sci Technol 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. 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 Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012759
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
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
Yuan B, Li B, Shen H, Duan J, Jia F, Maimaiti Y, Li Y, Li G (2023) Identification of fabclavine derivatives, Fcl-7 and Fcl-8, from Xenorhabdus budapestensis as major antifungal natural products against Rhizoctonia solani. J Appl Microbiol 134:lxad190. https://doi.org/10.1093/jambio/lxad190
Yüksel E, Yıldırım A, İmren M, Canhilal R, Dababat AA (2023) Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus bacteria as potential candidates for the control of Culex pipiens L. (Diptera: Culicidae), the principal vector of west nile virus and lymphatic filariasis. Pathogens 12:1095. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12091095
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
Funding
Open access funding provided by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye (TÜBİTAK). 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).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Communicated by Andre Wilke.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Touray, M., Cimen, H., Bode, E. et al. Effects of Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus bacterial metabolites on the ovipositional activity of Aedes albopictus. J Pest Sci (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-024-01760-7
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-024-01760-7