Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wbk2r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-11T01:39:10.641Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Laboratory Studies of Anopheles Atroparvus in Relation to Myxomatosis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

C. H. Andrewes ,
R. C. Muirhead-Thomson  and
J. P. Stevenson
C. H. Andrewes
Affiliation:
National Institute for Medical Research, Mill Hill, London, N.W.7 and the Infestation Control Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Tolworth, Surrey
R. C. Muirhead-Thomson
Affiliation:
National Institute for Medical Research, Mill Hill, London, N.W.7 and the Infestation Control Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Tolworth, Surrey
J. P. Stevenson*
Affiliation:
National Institute for Medical Research, Mill Hill, London, N.W.7 and the Infestation Control Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Tolworth, Surrey
*
In receipt of an expenses grant from the Agricultural Research Council.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Anopheles labranchiae atroparvus which have gorged on myxoma-infected rabbits may retain their infectivity for as long as 220 days in a period covering the winter months. Virus titres in infected mosquitoes may also remain stable for several weeks at summer temperatures; virus has been recovered after 36 days in summer.

Virus in these Anopheles is, in most instances, to be found only in the head and mouthparts. Survival on mouthparts of killed mosquitoes, on the other hand, has been only for a few days.

One strain of virus (Newhaven strain) isolated from wild A. atroparvus produces flat erythematous lesions on intradermal inoculation into rabbits, and deaths occur later than with typical strains.

The possible role of over-wintering atroparvus as a reservoir of infection of myxomatosis is discussed.

The possibility is considered that transmission of infection by Anopheles is not purely mechanical, but that limited multiplication occurs in the insects.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 54 , Issue 4 , December 1956 , pp. 478 - 486
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1956

References

Armour, C. J. & Thompson, H. V. (1955). Ann. appl. Biol. 43, 511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bos, A. (1934). Z. InfektKr. Haustiere, 46, 194.Google Scholar
Fenner, F., Day, M. F. & Woodroofe, G. M. (1952). Aust. J. exp. Biol. med. Sci. 30, 139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, J. R., Thompson, H. V. & Mansi, W. (1955). Nature, Lond., 176, 783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacotot, H., Toumanoff, C., Vallée, A. & Virat, B. (1954). Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 87, 477.Google ScholarPubMed
Kilham, L. & Dalmat, H. T. (1955). Amer. J. Hyg. 61, 45.Google Scholar
Kligler, I. J. & Ashner, M. (1931). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol., N.Y., 28, 463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattingly, P. F. (1950). Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects, vol. 9, part 2. London: Roy. Entom. Soe.Google Scholar
Muirhead-Thomson, R. C. (1956). J. Hyg., Camb., 54, 472.Google Scholar
Shute, P. G. (1936). J. Trop. med. Hyg. 39, 233.Google Scholar