Aedes albopictus microbiota: Differences between wild and mass-reared immatures do not suggest negative impacts from a diet based on black soldier fly larvae and fish food
The "Sterile Insect Technique" (SIT), a promising method to control Aedes albopictus, the Asian tiger mosquito, is gaining increasing interest. Recently, the role of microbiota in mosquito fitness received attention, but the link between microbiota and larval diet in mass rearing programs for SIT remains largely unexplored. We characterized the microbiota of four larval instars, pupae and eggs of non-wild (NW) lab-reared Ae. albopictus fed with a diet based on Black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens) larvae powder and fish food KOI pellets. We compared it with wild (W) field-collected individuals and the bacterial community occurring in rearing water-diet (DIET). A total of 18 bacterial classes with > 0.10% abundance were found overall in the samples, with seven classes being especially abundant. Overall, the microbiota profile significantly differed among NW, W and DIET. Verrucomicrobiae were significantly more abundant in W and DIET, Bacteroidia were more abundant in NW and DIET, and Gammaproteobacteria were only more abundant in W than in DIET. W-eggs microbiota differed from all the other groups. Large differences also appeared at the bacterial genus-level, with the abundance of 14 genera differing among groups. Three ASVs of Acinetobacter, known to have positive effects on tiger mosquitoes, were more abundant in NW than in W, while Serratia, known to have negative or neutral effects on another Aedes species, was less abundant in NW than in W. The bacterial community of W-eggs was the richest in species, while dominance and diversity did not differ among groups. Our data show that the diet based on Black soldier fly powder and fish food KOI influences the microbiota of NW tiger mosquito immature stages, but not in a way that may suggest a negative impact on their quality in SIT programs.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 September 2023.
All research outputs
#19,943,424
of 24,510,033 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#171,772
of 211,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,180
of 161,243 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,531
of 2,644 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,510,033 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 211,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 161,243 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,644 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
