Skip to main content
Elsevier Sponsored Documents logoLink to Elsevier Sponsored Documents
. 2014 Mar 28;182:43–49. doi: 10.1016/j.virusres.2013.12.009

Studying Culicoides vectors of BTV in the post-genomic era: Resources, bottlenecks to progress and future directions

Dana Nayduch a,, Lee W Cohnstaedt a, Christopher Saski b, Daniel Lawson c, Paul Kersey c, Mark Fife d, Simon Carpenter d
PMCID: PMC3979112  PMID: 24355835

Highlights

  • Culicoides sonorensis is the only colonized species of bluetongue virus vector.

  • The development of a fully annotated genome for this species is in progress.

  • Transcriptomic analyses are being employed to investigate functional elements of the genome, particularly genes involved in hematophagy, reproduction, development and vector competence.

Keywords: Ceratopogonidae, RNA-Seq, Transcriptome, Comparative genomics, Vector, Cell lines

Abstract

Culicoides biting midges (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) are a major vector group responsible for the biological transmission of a wide variety of globally significant arboviruses, including bluetongue virus (BTV). In this review we examine current biological resources for the study of this genus, with an emphasis on detailing the history of extant colonies and cell lines derived from C. sonorensis, the major vector of BTV in the USA. We then discuss the rapidly developing area of genomic and transcriptomic analyses of biological processes in vectors and introduce the newly formed Culicoides Genomics and Transcriptomics Alliance. Preliminary results from these fields are detailed and finally likely areas of future research are discussed from an entomological perspective describing limitations in our understanding of Culicoides biology that may impede progress in these areas.

1. Introduction

Culicoides biting midges (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) are among the smallest hematophagous vectors of arboviruses known, with some species of major economic importance possessing wing lengths of less than 1 mm. Over 1400 extant and extinct species have been described worldwide and the genus is represented on all major land masses with the exception of New Zealand, the Hawaiian Islands, Iceland and the extreme polar regions (Kettle, 1977, Mellor et al., 2000). While a diverse and ecologically important genus, the study of Culicoides has been driven primarily by the ability of certain species to act as competent biological vectors of arboviruses (Borkent, 2004, Mellor, 2000). The vast majority of these arboviruses are not pathogenic to humans (Carpenter et al., 2013), but may inflict disease in livestock species and/or wildlife (Mellor et al., 2000). The most economically-important livestock-associated arbovirus transmitted by Culicoides currently is bluetongue virus (BTV), which causes bluetongue (BT), a disease of ruminants. Since BT was initially identified in the Republic of South Africa during the 19th century (Erasmus and Potgieter, 2009, Spreull, 1905), it has caused vast losses in livestock revenue both through inflicting trade barriers between endemic and BTV-free regions (Tabachnick, 1996) and in direct clinical cases (Carpenter et al., 2009, Purse et al., 2005). Although other vectors and modes of transmission have been proposed, BTV distribution and persistence is thought to be almost entirely dependent upon the presence or absence of vector Culicoides adults.

In this review, we examine the current resources available for studying Culicoides with specific reference to the application of transcriptomics and genomics. Technological advances within these fields are currently revolutionizing our understanding of vector biology at a molecular level, particular in the family Culicidae (mosquitoes) where full genomes have already been sequenced, accurately annotated and released to the public domain for several major pathogen vectors (Severson and Behura, 2012). We report on similar projects that have been initiated to examine these areas in Culicoides and discuss their probable impact in the mid- to long-term. To inform these predictions we outline current biological resources for Culicoides in order to identify potential bottlenecks to progress in studying this genus that are imposed by their biology. We do not attempt to describe the process of biological transmission of BTV by Culicoides, or examine the distribution and identity of primary vector species worldwide, as these areas have already been addressed in other reviews (Mellor, 2000, Mellor et al., 2009, Tabachnick, 1996). There is also no attempt to summarize information regarding emergence of BTV strains in Europe, which has been addressed elsewhere in this volume and in previous reviews (Carpenter et al., 2009, Purse et al., 2005, Wilson et al., 2009b). Finally, several general reviews of the biology and ecology of Culicoides and are recommended to the reader (Borkent, 2004, Kettle, 1977, Mellor et al., 2000).

2. Culicoides colony and cell-line resources

The establishment of laboratory colonies of vectors allows researchers to address fundamental questions regarding the biology and ecology of model species by enabling a continual supply of insects of known physiological state and in large numbers (Jones, 1966). Historically, a key driver for colonization of hematophagous Diptera was to enable large-scale pathogen transmission experiments to be conducted under controlled conditions, following preliminary evidence of vector status in the field. Field surveys and transmission experiments with field-collected vectors conducted in the Republic of South Africa were integral in establishing a potential link between Culicoides and BTV transmission (Du Toit, 1944) and additionally discounted mosquitoes as primary vectors of the virus (Nieschulz et al., 1934a, Nieschulz et al., 1934b). The demonstration of BTV transmission under vector-proof conditions in the USA, however, for the first time provided unequivocal evidence of the role of Culicoides in the epidemiology of the BTV (Wilson et al., 2009a). These studies were enabled by laboratory colonization of the major Nearctic BTV vector species, C. sonorensis from 1955 at the Kerrville, Texas laboratory of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Foster et al., 1963, Jones, 1959).

While of clear utility, only a very small proportion of Culicoides possess lifecycle traits suitable for laboratory colonization (Table 1). In the case of C. sonorensis, initial attempts to produce colony lines were extremely challenging, with many failing due to poor production at 6–12 generations and full adaptation to the laboratory environment was considered to require more than 20 generations (Jones, 1960). In general, key parameters in determining the probability of successful colonization of vector species include the proportion of field collected individuals that can be consistently blood-fed (Campbell, 1974), the ability of the species to mate facultatively without the requirement for swarming behavior (Jones, 1966, Linley, 1968) and successful adaptation to the high constant temperature regimes required to provide sufficient turnover (Carpenter, 2001, Jones, 1966). In Culicoides, certain species also exhibit biased sex ratios of emerging adults in the F1 generation, which are hypothesized to be a consequence of variation in larval nutrition and can also disrupt colonization attempts (Boorman, 1985, Kitaoka, 1982, Veronesi et al., 2009). While most of these obstacles can in some way be overcome, any adaptation of methodology that requires either a high level of technical skill or substantial time commitment (e.g. artificial insemination or decapitation to produce egg batches) will contribute to colonies being unsustainable in the long term.

Table 1.

Colonization of Culicoides species worldwide.

Species Autogeny recorded? Wing length (mm) Facultative mating BTV vector status Status of colonies? References to colonization techniques
C. sonorensis No 1.2 Yes Proven Extant Boorman (1974), Hunt and Schmidtmann (2005), Jones, 1957, Jones, 1960, Jones, 1966 and Jones and Schmidtmann (1980)
C. nubeculosus No 2.4 Yes No Extant Boorman (1974) and Megahed (1956)
C. riethi Yes 1.8 Yes No Discontinued Boorman (1974)
C. furens Yes 0.9 No No Discontinued Koch and Axtell (1978) and Linley (1968)
C. guttipennis No 1.3 Yes No Discontinued Gazeau and Messersmith (1970) and Hair and Turner (1966)
C. arakawae No 1.1 Yes No Discontinued Sun (1974)
C. melleus Yes 1.1 Yes No Failed Koch and Axtell (1978)
C. hollensis Yes 1.4 Yes No Discontinued Koch and Axtell (1978)
C. oxystoma No 1.0 Yes Potential Discontinued Sun (1974)
C. wisconsinensis Yes 1.2 Yes No Discontinued Mullens and Schmidtmann (1981)
C. impunctatus Yes 1.3 Yes No Failed Carpenter (2001) and Hill (1947)
C. imicola No 0.9 Yes Proven Failed Veronesi et al. (2009)
C. obsoletus No 1.2 Unknown Proven Failed Boorman (1985)
C. insignis No 1.1 Unknown Proven Not attempted
C. brevitarsis No 0.8 No Proven Failed Campbell (1974)

The colonization of C. sonorensis (the founding line of which was designated ‘AA’ or ‘Sonora 000’), was a landmark advance, providing what remains the sole system for detailed studies of BTV infection, although recent studies of alternative insect models have been conducted (Shaw et al., 2012). Advances were greatly enhanced by a collaborative relationship between the USDA and what was then the Animal Virus Research Institute (now The Pirbright Institute), which culminated in a parallel daughter line of the AA colony being established in the United Kingdom during 1969 (Boorman, 1974). Studies carried out both in the USA and UK using C. sonorensis as a model vector included direct visualization of BTV dissemination (Chandler et al., 1985, Fu et al., 1999, Nunamaker et al., 1997, Sieburth et al., 1991), which almost entirely underpins our understanding of this process in the genus (Mellor et al., 2009). In addition, investigations of the genetic basis underlying competence for BTV have been based entirely on selective breeding of this species (Mellor et al., 2009, Tabachnick, 1991, Tabachnick, 1996), alongside preliminary physical mapping of the C. sonorensis genome (Nunamaker et al., 1999, Nunamaker et al., 1998).

Following development of the ‘AA’ colony in the USA, additional lines of C. sonorensis were developed, originating from Idaho (‘AK’: colonized in 1973), Nebraska (‘AX’: colonized in 1981), Colorado (‘Ausman’: colonized in 1986) and California (‘Van Ryn’: colonized in 1995) (Jones and Foster, 1978, Mullens et al., 1995, Tabachnick, 1990). At present, the AK, Van Ryn and Ausman lines are maintained by USDA and the daughter AA line remains extant at The Pirbright Institute (having been continuously produced for over 55 years and approximately 700 generations). The parental AA line was discontinued in the USA along with the AX lines due to low productivity in 2000, but the AK, Ausman and Van Ryn lines and the daughter AA line remain publically available from the USDA and The Pirbright Institute under material transfer agreement.

A second key resource generated following the successful colonization of C. sonorensis was the development of embryonic cell lines (Table 2). Initially, these cell lines (designated CuVa) were produced from two day old AA colony C. sonorensis eggs according to a protocol originally designed to initiate cell lines from Drosophila melanogaster (Wechsler et al., 1989). While initially containing diverse cell types, later passages became more uniform and fibroblast-like and increasingly lacked a visible cytopathic response to BTV infection. Following production, a picorna-like virus (termed CUV) was discovered in the CuVa line and its use was limited in subsequent studies, despite the demonstration that this infection did not have a pathogenic effect on either the CuVa cells or inoculated suckling mice (Wechsler et al., 1991). As a response to this, a secondary line was initiated using eggs from the AK colony and these cells did not contain detectable CUV infection when examined using electron microscopy (Wechsler et al., 1991). This latter line, designated CuVaK (and more commonly referred to as ‘KC’) has since been used by a large number of laboratories worldwide as a major research and diagnostic tool (Mertens et al., 1996, Nunamaker et al., 1999, Schnettler et al., 2013, Xu et al., 1997). A major advantage of the CuVaK line has been the fact that it allows replication of BTV to high titers in a comparatively natural environment. The degree of selection of cells that has occurred during passage, however, remains undetermined and has led to the production of further lines to better represent the diversity of C. sonorensis cell types (Table 2).

Table 2.

Culicoides sonorensis cell lines including colony of origin and maintenance conditions.

Name Colony of origin Tissue source Cell growth requirements (growth media, temperature) Virus susceptibility Comments Reference
CuVa AA colony (Original Jones colony) Embryo S; 20 °C; lightly adhesive BTV-11 Picorna-like virus contaminant Wechsler et al. (1989)
CuVaK (KC) AK colony Embryo S or MEM and L-15; 20 °C or 30–36 °C; lightly adhesive BTV-2, 10, 11, 13, 17; EHDV-1, 2 Bluetongue virus core particle contaminant Wechsler et al. (1991)
KC-E3 Clone of KC (AK colony) n/a MEM; 20 °C and 30 °C BTV-10, 17 No contamination detectable by EM Unpublished
KC-E3.1 Clone of KC-E3 (AK colony) n/a MEM; 20 °C No data on susceptibility No contamination detectable by EM.
KC-E3.2 Clone of KC-E3 (AK colony) n/a MEM; 20 °C No data on susceptibility No data on possible contamination.
CuVaX AX colony Embryo S; 20 °C; lightly adhesive No data on susceptibility Picorna-like viral contaminant
CuVaW3# Ausman farm Embryo S; 20 °C and 30 °C; mod. adhesive No data on susceptibility Epithelial-like McHolland and Mecham (2003)
CuVaW8A (W8A) and CuVaW8B (W8B) Ausman farm Embryo S and MEM; 20 °C and 30 °C; lightly adhesive BTV-2, 10, 11,13, 17; EHDV-1, 2 No contamination detected W8A by EM or PCR for BTV No contamination by EM for W8B
CuVaW16 (W16) Ausman farm Embryo S; 20 °C; mod. adhesive No data on susceptibility Myoblast-like. No contamination detected by EM.

Growth media abbreviations: S = Schneiders, MEM = Minimal essential media.

3. Culicoides sonorensis transcriptome and genome projects

The advantages of C. sonorensis colonies and associated cell lines as models for transcriptomic and genomic analysis over field collections of vector species are substantial. Unlike field populations of other Culicoides BTV vectors, all physiological stages of development can be conveniently produced in substantial numbers, enabling production of consistent biological replicates or pooled samples. In addition, the levels of microbial and fungal contamination in individuals can be substantially minimized in production of adults for analyses and specific treatments to elicit physiological responses demarcated with certain knowledge of prior exposure (e.g. blood feeding). Massively parallel second generation DNA sequencing technologies are transforming de novo ‘omic sequencing by allowing the generation of billions of reads at relatively low costs with options of combining multiple samples and hybrid approaches with new analysis algorithms (Severson and Behura, 2012). Unlike many other important hematophagous insect vectors, such as mosquitoes, the genome and transcriptome(s) of C. sonorensis have not been an available as a resource for vector biologists, preventing the exploration of genetics and functional genomics of parameters such as BTV vector competence. However, recent combined efforts of several institutions including the Agricultural Research Service of the United States Department of Agriculture (ARS-USDA), Clemson University Genomics Institute (CUGI), The Pirbright Institute, and the European Bioinformatics Institute (part of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory; EBI-EMBL) have led to the first transcriptome and genome projects as part of the newly formed Culicoides Genome and Transcriptome Alliance (CGTA). The following sections describe progress in these two areas and provide suggestions of future areas of research.

3.1. The adult female Culicoides sonorensis transcriptome

The transcriptome of a cell is dynamic and in constant flux, as opposed to a static genome content, continuously changing in response to various stimuli to meet cellular needs. RNA-sequencing (RNAseq) is a technology that captures and measures the transcriptome in a spatial context at depths that reach even the rarest transcripts in a population and has transformed the way in which we view the extent and complexity of eukaryotic transcriptomes (Wang et al., 2009). This technique is now commonly used to catalog and explore the functional elements of the genome with wide applications across vector biology (Severson and Behura, 2012). In the first application of this technology to Culicoides, the adult Culicoides sonorensis transcriptome was investigated in response to feeding on blood.

Previously, Culicoides sonorensis tissue-specific transcriptomes were sequenced and annotated in the USA (Campbell et al., 2005, Campbell and Wilson, 2002). These studies generated the first mid-gut and salivary-gland expressed-sequence tag (EST) libraries for C. sonorensis, and several genes (i.e. cDNA sequences) involved in hematophagy, reproduction and defense were identified. Additional studies identified transcripts that were differentially expressed in C. sonorensis during EHDV-1 infection using both differential display and suppression subtractive hybridization (Campbell and Wilson, 2002). As a follow up to these studies, our aim was to use deep sequencing technologies to capture a comprehensive view of the transcriptome of adult female C. sonorensis and to examine differentially expressed genes across several conditions from a transcriptome-wide perspective. Our conditions included several feeding states (teneral/unfed, blood fed, and sucrose fed) as well as multiple time points after feeding (2, 6, 12 and 36 h), and we utilized female midges from our AK colony at USDA-ARS-ABADRU. RNAseq data for these transcriptomes were collected on an Illumina HiSeq2000 using paired-end reads.

A total of 257 million read pairs amounting to 52 gigabases of transcriptome sequence were produced. To construct a female C. sonorensis unigene for annotation and differential expression analysis, we performed a de novo assembly using all reads for each condition with the Trinity software package (Grabherr et al., 2011). In order to filter a large fraction of likely misassembled, chimeric, or artificial contigs from the unigene assembly, we applied a binning approach by first screening the unigene assembly for homology to the close relatives Aedes aegypti and Culex pipiens, and the non-redundant protein database at NCBI using putative open reading frames (ORFs) with BLASTX alignments and then filtering remaining unique unigenes that have internal stop codons or are unlikely genuine coding sequences using the TransDecoder supplement to the Trinity software package (Grabherr et al., 2011), which resulted in a ∼36% reduction in unigenes. Next, we clustered and filtered for redundancy using high stringency parameters (98%) and the cdHIT software (Li and Godzik, 2006) with a final round of manual inspection to further remove spurious contigs. The final female C. sonorensis unigene set is composed of 19,041 contigs with sizes ranging from 300 bp to ∼8 kb with a mean transcript size of 1.3 kb. The Culicoides sonorensis unigene aligned well with the Aedes aegypti and Culex quinquefasciatus transcriptomes covering ∼76% and ∼84% of the genes, respectively. Additionally, 76% of the unigene matched a protein sequence in the nr database, leaving ∼3000 unigenes unique to Culicoides.

With a robust unigene assembly and alignment of the Culicoides unigene to the Gene Ontology (Ashburner et al., 2000), a significant compliment of genes involved in immune response and defense, reproduction, hematophagy, digestion and transport, and many other important biological processes was identified. These genes were classed into functional sub-categories to determine candidate genes underlying physiological processes; for example, the immune response and defense genes were sub-categorized into components such as the humoral immune response, hemolymph coagulation, and regulation. Changes in these adaptive immune response processes during blood feeding were observed, and through category analysis, we identified a short list of candidate genes annotated with cytokine production and function that may in the future serve as targets for further functional analysis. Some key genes associated with antimicrobial defense response that were revealed in the transcriptome included the antimicrobial peptides defensin, cecropin and attacin which have been correlated with vector competence in other hematophagous arthropods (Carlsson et al., 1987, Carlsson et al., 1998, Chernysh et al., 1996, Hu et al., 2013, Lee and Brey, 1994, Nayduch and Aksoy, 2007, Nygaard et al., 2012, Sugiyama et al., 1995). As for these other vectors, we hypothesize that innate immune and apoptosis genes and pathways are of critical importance in vector competence of Culicoides for pathogens such as arboviruses.

The studies conducted also provide a glimpse into the genetic compliment involved with blood feeding, which includes secreted salivary proteins, catalytic and transport processes associated with digestion and egg production (vitellogenesis). As was found in the transcriptome analyses of the malaria vector Anopheles gambiae (Dana et al., 2005, Marinotti et al., 2006), characteristic genes were identified that are associated with hematophagy, including serine proteases, trypsins, cytochrome oxidases, anti-coagulation factors and vitellogenins which have recently been reported to play a major functional role in acquisition, processing and utilization of the blood meal and its components (Gulia et al., 2010, Kokoza et al., 2001, Prasad, 1987, Ramalho-Ortigao et al., 2003). The identification and expression profiles of genes associated with hematophagy as well as defense can be critical in understanding the biological functioning of Culicoides and may well provide a platform for the development of molecular targets for altering vector competence or controlling vector populations.

3.2. Transcriptome-level differential expression analysis in C. sonorensis

Coupled with the development of a novel unigene set for Culicoides, transcript abundance was determined through deep sequencing of the Culicoides transcriptome in response to teneral (newly-emerged, unfed), blood-fed, and sugar-fed states. The largest physiological response was observed during blood feeding conditions, when compared to teneral (not shown) or sugar feeding midges (Table 3). Since Culicoides sonorensis females are anautogenous, requiring a blood meal in order to produce eggs, it was not surprising that many of these unigenes were classified under reproduction and lipid metabolism, categories which include processes associated with vitellogenesis. Also as expected, a difference was observed in the transcription of genes associated with processing the blood meal including catalytic activity (e.g. digestive enzymes), transport, and interestingly, defense both compared to sugar feeding (within time) and across time in blood fed midges (Table 3). Intriguingly, many of the innate immune genes appear to be induced by blood feeding alone, in the absence of pathogens, which has previously been reported in other hemaophagous arthropods (Jochim et al., 2008, Lai et al., 2004, Munks et al., 2001, Nayduch and Aksoy, 2007).

Table 3.

Unigene sequences shared and differentially expressed in female Culicoides sonorensis transcriptomes. Culicoides sonorensis were fed blood or sugar diets and transcriptomes were generated from whole adult females at early (2, 6, 12 h pooled) and late (36 h) times post-ingestion. The number of genes that were significantly differentially expressed (DE) were determined by the Cufflinks statistical analysis package (Trapnell et al., 2010) (P < 0.01).

Number unigenes shared Number unigenes DE (%)
Effect of diet within time interval
Early sugar vs. Early blood 16,306 5712 (35%)
Late sugar vs. Late blood 16,665 3301 (20%)



Effect of time interval within diet
Early sugar vs. Late sugar 16,687 114 (0.7%)
Early blood vs. Late blood 16,297 7334 (45%)

3.3. Genomic studies of C. sonorensis

A high quality reference genome assembly and comprehensively annotated gene complement is critical for deciphering the biology of an organism and performing comparative genomics at the population or species level (Severson and Behura, 2012). Earlier attempts at de novo sequencing of the Culicoides genome were unsuccessful due to a very high level of bacterial and fungal contamination of genomic DNA samples. To mitigate this problem, genomic DNA is being used from the KC cell line (daughter AK line Table 2) maintained at The Pirbright Institute. While still at an early stage, the first full de novo sequencing project to be carried out for Culicoides has already yielded promising preliminary data. Once a draft genome sequence is available from this source, the genome assembly will be verified by resequencing vector competent and refractory individuals of C. sonorensis from the AA line. A stated aim of the project is to generate ∼150-fold coverage of the genome using paired-end reads using Illumina HiSeq2000 sequencing methodologies, supplemented with 50-fold coverage of two large insert libraries (3 kb and 8 kb) for higher level scaffolding.

High repeat content is often the major impediment to genome assembly from short reads. Promisingly, early estimates of genome size in C. sonorensis are in the order of 200 MB, similar to Anopheline species and considerably smaller than Aedes aegypti suggesting that the substantial transposable element content found in this species is not present (Nene et al., 2007). Once a draft reference genome is available, the task of annotation will commence utilizing similar approaches to those previously used to annotate dipteran vector species based on the integrating gene builder MAKER (Holt and Yandell, 2011). This process will be informed by available Culicoides transcriptome resources, proteomes from other arthropod species as well as ab initio approaches. The definition of a high quality, annotated reference sequence will provide researchers with a powerful resource for the elucidation of the mechanisms of the Culicoides vector/pathogen/host relationship, for use in comparative studies amongst Culicoides species and between these and other hematophagous vector groups, and a template that will enable the rapid assembly of individual genomes in population-level studies of species. The data will be hosted by the Ensembl Metazoa portal (http://metazoa.ensembl.org), which will provide access to genome sequence, functional annotation, alignments and evolutionary reconstructions of gene families, and facilitating integrated analysis with a wide range of arthropods through a common set of interactive and programmatic interfaces.

4. Impact, applications and ongoing projects

The parallel development of a high-quality transcriptome assembly and genome sequencing project for C. sonorensis has significant complimentary benefits in affording the opportunity to measure gene dynamics under response to particular conditions while providing a template of spliced coding sequences for annotation purposes. Analysis of the transcriptional landscape will decipher gene expression signatures associated with key biological events during feeding over time and allow investigation of vector competence. Our observation of an intense physiological response to feeding has underscored critical pathways and candidate genes for validation and potential functional intervention, using quantitative reverse-transcriptase PCR (qRT-PCR) and RNA interference (RNAi), respectively. While preliminary studies have been conducted in the KC cell line (Schnettler et al., 2013), it is abundantly clear that there is a fundamental gap in understanding the immune/defense response in Culicoides as whole organisms and our future studies stemming from our differential expression analyses will help us test hypothesis that mechanisms of vector competence can be unraveled with the appropriate sampling, depth and quality of sequencing, and proper statistical analysis. The collaborative efforts of the CGTA demonstrate the utility and potential for genome and transcriptome enablement for Culicoides, and our current efforts are being focused on enhancing the unigene set through additional extensive sampling of tissues during a series of development stages.

A potential bottleneck to progress in this area lies in understanding the degree to which the C. sonorensis lines used in these studies are representative of field populations and how the various fundamental processes investigated relate to other members of the genus. As has been stated for mosquitoes (Tabachnick, 2013), it is not currently known whether underlying drivers of vector competence vary at an inter-specific level and this has historically led to suggestions of regional incompatibility between species of Culicoides and circulating BTV strains (Wilson et al., 2009a). In this regard, an additional potential avenue of research would be to examine the extant colonies of C. nubeculosus, which are currently held at The Pirbright Institute and several other collaborating laboratories. While taxonomically closely related to C. sonorensis and placed within the same subgenus (Monoculicoides), rates of arbovirus competence in this line are far lower and the colony provides the same intrinsic advantages for study as the C. sonorensis lines (Boorman, 1974, Mellor, 2000). It is clear, also, that there may be value in re-establishing colonies of Culicoides that exhibit specific phenotypic traits and which can be maintained using existing systems, a possible example being C. riethi, which unlike C. sonorensis and C. nubeculosus exhibits autogeny (Boorman, 1974).

With the advantages of both a framework genome generated from C. sonorensis and concurrent advances in sequencing technologies, however, the targeting of field populations of species according to their importance as vectors of BTV and their behavior in the laboratory is also likely to become increasingly attainable, particularly for transcriptome-based analysis. An obvious candidate for future study is C. imicola, a proven BTV vector whose distribution spans a vast area across sub-Saharan Africa, the middle-east, southern Europe and southern Asia (Mellor et al., 2009). A limited degree of progress has been made in colonizing this species (Veronesi et al., 2009), but the definition of artificial means to allow consistent feeding and infection with arboviruses is a major advantage in study of this species (Venter et al., 1991). In contrast, both the vector status and potential for laboratory colonization of northern European Culicoides at the center of major recent arbovirus outbreaks remains poorly explored and the apparent involvement of several species in transmission complicates this picture further (Carpenter et al., 2009, Hoffmann et al., 2009).

In summary, genomic resources will be of future global significance in creating an entirely new area in Culicoides research. The C. sonorensis genome will provide not only a stand-alone resource for investigating fundamental genetic and immunological processes, but also inform arthropod phylogenetic relationships and allow comparative genomics between these and other available genomes to elucidate the genetic drivers of vector competence. While substantial difficulties remain to be resolved in producing biological material suitable for this process, the availability of C. sonorensis as a framework for future study is likely to alleviate this issue, at least in part. Further studies to correctly define the identity and behavioral malleability of major vector species worldwide, however, are of significant importance in targeting of future research.

Acknowledgements

DN and LWC would like to thank Mr. Jim Kempert and Mr. Kruger Bryant for help with C. sonorensis colony and cell line information. SC, MF, DL and PK were funded by BBSRC grant BB/J016721 and SC by BBS/E/I/00001445. The transcriptome project was funded by USDA-ARS National Program 104, Project number 5430-32000-003, and a Specific Cooperative Agreement with Clemson University, Agreement 58-5430-2-313.

Footnotes

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative Works License, which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

References

  1. Ashburner M., Ball C.A., Blake J.A., Botstein D., Butler H., Cherry J.M., Davis A.P., Dolinski K., Dwight S.S., Eppig J.T., Harris M.A., Hill D.P., Issel-Tarver L., Kasarskis A., Lewis S., Matese J.C., Richardson J.E., Ringwald M., Rubin G.M., Sherlock G., Gene Ontology C. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nature Genetics. 2000;25(1):25–29. doi: 10.1038/75556. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Boorman J. The maintenance of laboratory colonies of Culicoides variipennis (Coq.), C. nubeculosus (Mg) and C. riethi Kieff. Bulletin of Entomological Research. 1974;64:371–377. [Google Scholar]
  3. Boorman J. Rearing Culicoides obsoletus (Diptera Ceratopogonidae) on agar cultures of nematodes. Progress in Clinical and Biological Research. 1985;178:229. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Borkent A. The biting midges, the Ceratopogonidae (Diptera) In: Marquardt W.C., editor. Biology of Disease Vectors. 2nd ed. Elsevier Academic Press; Burlington, MA: 2004. pp. 113–127. [Google Scholar]
  5. Campbell M.M. University of Queensland; 1974. The biology and behaviour of Culicoides brevitarsis Kieffer (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) with particular reference to those features essential to its laboratory colonisation. [Google Scholar]
  6. Campbell C.L., Wilson W.C. Differentially expressed midgut transcripts in Culicoides sonorensis (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) following Orbivirus (Reoviridae) oral feeding. Insect Molecular Biology. 2002;11(6):595–604. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2583.2002.00370.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Campbell C.L., Vandyke K.A., Letchworth G.J., Drolet B.S., Hanekamp T., Wilson W.C. Midgut and salivary gland transcriptomes of the arbovirus vector Culicoides sonorensis (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) Insect Molecular Biology. 2005;14(2):121–136. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2583.2004.00537.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Carlsson A., Engstrom P., Bennich H. Insect immunity – antibacterial effects of the inducible protein attacin in Hyalophora cecropia. Scandinavian Journal of Immunology. 1987;26(3):308. [Google Scholar]
  9. Carlsson A., Nystrom T., de Cock H., Bennich H. Attacin – an insect immune protein – binds LPS and triggers the specific inhibition of bacterial outer-membrane protein synthesis. Microbiology-UK. 1998;144:2179–2188. doi: 10.1099/00221287-144-8-2179. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Carpenter S. University of Aberdeen; 2001. Colonisation and dispersal studies of the Scottish biting midge, Culicoides impunctatus Goetghebuer. [Google Scholar]
  11. Carpenter S., Groschup M.H., Garros C., Felippe-Bauer M.L., Purse B.V. Culicoides biting midges, arboviruses and public health in Europe. Antiviral Research. 2013;100:102–113. doi: 10.1016/j.antiviral.2013.07.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Carpenter S., Wilson A., Mellor P.S. Culicoides and the emergence of bluetongue virus in northern Europe. Trends in Microbiology. 2009;17(4):172–178. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2009.01.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Chandler L.J., Ballinger M.E., Jones R.H., Beaty B.J. The virogenesis of bluetongue virus in Culicoides variipennis. Progress in Clinical and Biological Research. 1985;178:245–253. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Chernysh S., Cociancich S., Briand J.P., Hetru C., Bulet P. The inducible antibacterial peptides of the hemipteran insect Palomena prasina: identification of a unique family of proline-rich peptides and of a novel insect defensin. Journal of Insect Physiology. 1996;42(1):81–89. [Google Scholar]
  15. Dana A.N., Hong Y.S., Kern M.K., Hillenmeyer M.E., Harker B.W., Lobo N.F., Hogan J.R., Romans P., Collins F.H. Gene expression patterns associated with blood-feeding in the malaria mosquito Anopheles gambiae. BMC Genomics. 2005;6 doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-6-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Du Toit R.M. The transmission of blue-tongue and Horse-sickness by Culicoides. Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Science and Animal Industry. 1944;19:7–16. [Google Scholar]
  17. Erasmus B.J., Potgieter A.C. The history of bluetongue. In: Mellor P., Baylis M., Mertens P.P.C., editors. Bluetongue. 1st ed. Elsevier Academic Press; London, UK: 2009. pp. 7–14. [Google Scholar]
  18. Foster N.M., Jones R.H., McCrory D.V.M. Preliminary investigations on insect transmission of Bluetongue Virus in Sheep. American Journal of Veterinary Medicine. 1963;24:1195–1200. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Fu H., Leake C.J., Mertens P.P.C., Mellor P.S. The barriers to bluetongue virus infection, dissemination and transmission in the vector, Culicoides variipennis (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) Archives of Virology. 1999;144(4):747–761. doi: 10.1007/s007050050540. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Gazeau L.J., Messersmith D.H. Rearing and distribution of Maryland Culicoides (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) Mosquito News. 1970;30:30–34. [Google Scholar]
  21. Grabherr M.G., Haas B.J., Yassour M., Levin J.Z., Thompson D.A., Amit I., Adiconis X., Fan L., Raychowdhury R., Zeng Q.D., Chen Z.H., Mauceli E., Hacohen N., Gnirke A., Rhind N., di Palma F., Birren B.W., Nusbaum C., Lindblad-Toh K., Friedman N., Regev A. Full-length transcriptome assembly from RNA-Seq data without a reference genome. Nature Biotechnology. 2011;29(7) doi: 10.1038/nbt.1883. 644-U130. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Gulia M., Strand M.R., Brown M.R. Role of insulin signaling in blood meal nutrients storage and vitellogenesis in Aedes aegypti. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2010;83(5):226. [Google Scholar]
  23. Hair J.A., Turner E.C. Laboratory colonization and mass production procedures for Culicoides guttipennis. Mosquito News. 1966;26(3):429–433. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hill M.A. The life cycle and habits of Culicoides impunctatus Goetghebuer and Culicoides obsoletus Meigen, with some observations on the life cycle of Culicoides odibilis Austen, Culicoides pallidicornis Kieffer, Culicoides cubitalis Edwards and Culicoides chiopterus Meigen. Annals of Tropical Medical Parasitology. 1947;41:55–115. doi: 10.1080/00034983.1947.11685315. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Hoffmann B., Bauer B., Bauer C., Baetza H.-J., Beer M., Clausen P.-H., Geier M., Gethmann J.M., Kiel E., Liebisch G., Liebisch A., Mehlhorn H., Schaub G.A., Werner D., Conraths F.J. Monitoring of putative vectors of bluetongue virus serotype 8, Germany. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2009;15(9):1481–1484. doi: 10.3201/eid1509.090562. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Holt C., Yandell M. An annotation pipeline and genome-database management tool for second-generation genome projects. BMC Bioinfomatics. 2011;12:491. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-12-491. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Hu H., Wang C.M., Guo X.Z., Li W.T., Wang Y., He Q.G. Broad activity against porcine bacterial pathogens displayed by two insect antimicrobial peptides moricin and cecropin B. Molecules and Cells. 2013;35(2):106–114. doi: 10.1007/s10059-013-2132-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Hunt G.J., Schmidtmann E.T. Care, maintenance and experimental infection of biting midges. In: Marquardt W.C., editor. Biology of Disease Vectors. 2nd ed. Elsevier Academic Press; Burlington, MA: 2005. pp. 741–745. [Google Scholar]
  29. Jochim R.C., Teixeira C.R., Laughinghouse A., Mu J.B., Oliveira F., Gomes R.B., Elnaiem D.E., Valenzuela J.G. The midgut transcriptome of Lutzomyia longipalpis: comparative analysis of cDNA libraries from sugar-fed, blood-fed, post-digested and Leishmania infantum chagasi-infected sand flies. BMC Genomics. 2008;9 doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-9-15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Jones R.H. The laboratory colonization of Culicoides variipennis (Coq.) Journal of Economic Entomology. 1957;50:107–108. [Google Scholar]
  31. Jones R.H. Culicoides breeding in human sewage sites of dwellings in Texas. Mosquito News. 1959;19:164–167. [Google Scholar]
  32. Jones R.H. Mass-production methods for the colonization of Culicoides variipennis sonorensis. Journal of Economic Entomology. 1960;53(5):731–735. [Google Scholar]
  33. Jones R.H. Culicoides biting midges. In: Smith C.N., editor. Insect Colonization and Mass Production. Academic Press; New York: 1966. pp. 115–124. [Google Scholar]
  34. Jones R.H., Foster N.M. Relevence of laboratory colonies of vectors in arbovirus research – Culicoides variipennis and bluetongue. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 1978;27(1):168–177. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.1978.27.168. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Jones R.H., Schmidtmann E.T. Colonization of Culicoides variipennis variipennis from New York. Mosquito News. 1980;40:191–193. [Google Scholar]
  36. Kettle D.S. Biology and bionomics of bloodsucking Ceratopogonids. Annual Review of Entomology. 1977;22:33–51. doi: 10.1146/annurev.en.22.010177.000341. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Kitaoka S. Effects of rearing temperature on length of larval period and size of adults in Culicoides arakawae and Culicoides maculatus (Diptera Ceratopogonidae) National Institute of Animal Health Quarterly. 1982;22(4):159–162. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Koch H.G., Axtell R.C. Autogeny and rearing of Culicoides furens, C. hollensis and C. melleus (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) from coastal North Carolina. Mosquito News. 1978;38(2):240–245. [Google Scholar]
  39. Kokoza V.A., Martin D., Mienaltowski M.J., Ahmed A., Morton C.M., Raikhel A.S. Transcriptional regulation of the mosquito vitellogenin gene via a blood meal-triggered cascade. Gene. 2001;274(1–2):47–65. doi: 10.1016/s0378-1119(01)00602-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Lai R., Lomas L.O., Jonczy J., Turner P.C., Rees H.H. Two novel non-cationic defensin-like antimicrobial peptides from haemolymph of the female tick, Amblyomma hebraeum. Biochemical Journal. 2004;379:681–685. doi: 10.1042/BJ20031429. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Lee W.J., Brey P.T. Isolation and identification of cecropin antibacterial peptides from the extracellular matrix of the insect integument. Analytical Biochemistry. 1994;217(2):231–235. doi: 10.1006/abio.1994.1113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Li W.Z., Godzik A. Cd-hit: a fast program for clustering and comparing large sets of protein or nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics. 2006;22(13):1658–1659. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl158. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Linley J.R. Colonization of Culicoides furens. Annals of the Entomological Society of America. 1968;61(6):1486. doi: 10.1093/aesa/61.6.1486. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Marinotti O., Calvo E., Nguyen Q.K., Dissanayake S., Ribeiro J.M.C., James A.A. Genome-wide analysis of gene expression in adult Anopheles gambiae. Insect Molecular Biology. 2006;15(1):1–12. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2583.2006.00610.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. McHolland L.E., Mecham J.O. Characterization of cell lines developed from field populations of Culicoides sonorensis (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) Journal of Medical Entomology. 2003;40:348–351. doi: 10.1603/0022-2585-40.3.348. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Megahed M.M. A culture method for Culicoides nubeculosus (Meigen) (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) in the laboratory, with notes on the biology. Bulletin of Entomological Research. 1956;47:107–114. [Google Scholar]
  47. Mellor P.S. Replication of arboviruses in insect vectors. Journal of Comparative Pathology. 2000;123(4):231–247. doi: 10.1053/jcpa.2000.0434. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Mellor P.S., Boorman J., Baylis M. Culicoides biting midges: their role as arbovirus vectors. Annual Review of Entomology. 2000;45:307–340. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ento.45.1.307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Mellor P.S., Carpenter S., White D.M. Bluetongue virus in the insect host. In: Mellor P.S., Baylis M., Mertens P.P.C., editors. Bluetongue. Elsevier; Oxford: 2009. pp. 296–320. [Google Scholar]
  50. Mertens P.P.C., Burroughs J.N., Walton A., Wellby M.P., Fu H., Ohara R.S., Brookes S.M., Mellor P.S. Enhanced infectivity of modified bluetongue virus particles for two insect cell lines and for two Culicoides vector species. Virology. 1996;217(2):582–593. doi: 10.1006/viro.1996.0153. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Mullens B.A., Schmidtmann E.T. Colonization of Culicoides wisconsinensis Jones (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) Mosquito News. 1981;41:564–566. [Google Scholar]
  52. Mullens B.A., Tabachnick W.J., Holbrook F.R., Thompson L.H. Effects of temperature on virogenesis of bluetongue virus serotype 11 in Culicoides variipennis-sonorensis. Medical and Veterinary Entomology. 1995;9(1):71–76. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2915.1995.tb00119.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Munks R.J.L., Hamilton J.V., Lehane S.M., Lehane M.J. Regulation of midgut defensin production in the blood-sucking insect Stomoxys calcitrans. Insect Molecular Biology. 2001;10(6):561–571. doi: 10.1046/j.0962-1075.2001.00296.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Nayduch D., Aksoy S. Refractoriness in tsetse flies (Diptera: Glossinidae) may be a matter of timing. Journal of Medical Entomology. 2007;44(4):660–665. doi: 10.1603/0022-2585(2007)44[660:ritfdg]2.0.co;2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Nene V., Wortman J.R., Lawson D., Haas B., Kodira C., Tu Z.J., Loftus B., Xi Z.Y., Megy K., Grabherr M., Ren Q.H., Zdobnov E.M., Lobo N.F., Campbell K.S., Brown S.E., Bonaldo M.F., Zhu J.S., Sinkins S.P., Hogenkamp D.G., Amedeo P., Arensburger P., Atkinson P.W., Bidwell S., Biedler J., Birney E., Bruggner R.V., Costas J., Coy M.R., Crabtree J., Crawford M., deBruyn B., DeCaprio D., Eiglmeier K., Eisenstadt E., El-Dorry H., Gelbart W.M., Gomes S.L., Hammond M., Hannick L.I., Hogan J.R., Holmes M.H., Jaffe D., Johnston J.S., Kennedy R.C., Koo H., Kravitz S., Kriventseva E.V., Kulp D., LaButti K., Lee E., Li S., Lovin D.D., Mao C.H., Mauceli E., Menck C.F.M., Miller J.R., Montgomery P., Mori A., Nascimento A.L., Naveira H.F., Nusbaum C., O’Leary S., Orvis J., Pertea M., Quesneville H., Reidenbach K.R., Rogers Y.H., Roth C.W., Schneider J.R., Schatz M., Shumway M., Stanke M., Stinson E.O., Tubio J.M.C., VanZee J.P., Verjovski-Almeida S., Werner D., White O., Wyder S., Zeng Q.D., Zhao Q., Zhao Y.M., Hill C.A., Raikhel A.S., Soares M.B., Knudson D.L., Lee N.H., Galagan J., Salzberg S.L., Paulsen I.T., Dimopoulos G., Collins F.H., Birren B., Fraser-Liggett C.M., Severson D.W. Genome sequence of Aedes aegypti, a major arbovirus vector. Science. 2007;316(5832):1718–1723. doi: 10.1126/science.1138878. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Nieschulz O., Bedford G.A.H., Du Toit R.M. Investigations into the transmission of Blue-tongue in Sheep during the season 1931/1932. Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Science and Animal Industry. 1934;2(2):509–562. [Google Scholar]
  57. Nieschulz O., Bedford G.A.H., Du Toit R.M. Results of a Mosquito survey at Onderstepoort during the summer 1931–1932 in connection with the transmission of Horsesickness. Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Science and Animal Industry. 1934;3(1):275–335. [Google Scholar]
  58. Nunamaker R.A., Brown S.E., McHolland L.E., Tabachnick W.J., Knudson D.L. First-generation physical map of the Culicoides variipennis (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) genome. Journal of Medical Entomology. 1999;36(6):771–775. doi: 10.1093/jmedent/36.6.771. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Nunamaker R.A., Brown S.E., Murphy K.E., Tabachnick W.J., Knudson D.L. Physical mapping of the genome of the biting midge, Culicoides variipennis. Molecular Biology of the Cell. 1998;9:452A. [Google Scholar]
  60. Nunamaker R.A., Mecham J.O., Wigington J.G., Ellis J.A. Bluetongue virus in laboratory-reared Culicoides variipennis sonorensis: applications of dot-blot, ELISA, and immunoelectron microscopy. Journal of Medical Entomology. 1997;34(1):18–23. doi: 10.1093/jmedent/34.1.18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Nygaard M.K.E., Andersen A.S., Kristensen H.H., Krogfelt K.A., Fojan P., Wimmer R. The insect defensin lucifensin from Lucilia sericata. Journal of Biomolecular NMR. 2012;52(3):277–282. doi: 10.1007/s10858-012-9608-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Prasad R.S. Nutrition and reproduction in hematophagous arthropods. Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences-Animal Sciences. 1987;96(3):253–273. [Google Scholar]
  63. Purse B.V., Mellor P.S., Rogers D.J., Samuel A.R., Mertens P.P.C., Baylis M. Climate change and the recent emergence of bluetongue in Europe. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2005;3(2):171–181. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro1090. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Ramalho-Ortigao J.M., Kamhawi S., Rowton E.D., Ribeiro J.M.C., Valenzuela J.G. Cloning and characterization of trypsin- and chymotrypsin-like proteases from the midgut of the sand fly vector Phlebotomus papatasi. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. 2003;33(2):163–171. doi: 10.1016/s0965-1748(02)00187-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Schnettler E., Ratinier M., Watson M., Shaw A.E., McFarlane M., Varela M., Elliott R.M., Palmarini M., Kohl A. RNA interference targets Arbovirus replication in Culicoides cells. Journal of Virology. 2013;87(5):2441–2454. doi: 10.1128/JVI.02848-12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Severson D.W., Behura S.K. Mosquito genomics: progress and challenges. Annual Review of Entomology. 2012;57:143–166. doi: 10.1146/annurev-ento-120710-100651. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Shaw A.E., Veronesi E., Maurin G., Ftaich N., Guiguen F., Rixon F., Ratinier M., Mertens P., Carpenter S., Palmarini M., Terzian C., Arnaud F. Drosophila melanogaster as a model organism for bluetongue virus replication and tropism. Journal of Virology. 2012;86(17):9015–9024. doi: 10.1128/JVI.00131-12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Sieburth P.J., Nunamaker C.E., Ellis J., Nunamaker R.A. Infection of the midgut of Culicoides variipennis (Diptera, Ceratopogonidae) with bluetongue virus. Journal of Medical Entomology. 1991;28(1):74–85. doi: 10.1093/jmedent/28.1.74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Spreull J. Malarial catarrhal fever (bluetongue) of sheep in South Africa. Journal of Comparative Pathology. 1905;18:321–337. [Google Scholar]
  70. Sugiyama M., Kuniyoshi H., Kotani E., Taniai K., Kadonookuda K., Kato Y., Yamamoto M., Shimabukuro M., Chowdhury S., Xu J.H., Choi S.K., Kataoka H., Suzuki A., Yamakawa M. Characterization of a Bombyx mori cDNA encoding a novel member of the attacin family of insect antibacterial proteins. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. 1995;25(3):385–392. doi: 10.1016/0965-1748(94)00080-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Sun W.K.C. Laboratory colonization of biting midges (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) Journal of Medical Entomology. 1974;11(1):71–73. doi: 10.1093/jmedent/11.1.71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Tabachnick W.J. Genetic variation in laboratory and field populations of the vector of bluetongue virus, Culicoides variipennis (Diptera, Ceratopogonidae) Journal of Medical Entomology. 1990;27(1):24–30. doi: 10.1093/jmedent/27.1.24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Tabachnick W.J. Genetic control of oral susceptibility to infection of Culicoides variipennis with bluetongue virus. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 1991;45(6):666–671. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.1991.45.666. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Tabachnick W.J. Culicoides variipennis and bluetongue-virus epidemiology in the United States. Annual Review of Entomology. 1996;41:23–43. doi: 10.1146/annurev.en.41.010196.000323. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Tabachnick W.J. Nature, nurture and evolution of intra-species variation in mosquito arbovirus transmission competence. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2013;10(1):249–277. doi: 10.3390/ijerph10010249. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Trapnell C., Williams B.A., Pertea G., Mortazavi A., Kwan G., van Baren M.J., Salzberg S.L., Wold B.J., Pachter L. Transcript assembly and quantification by RNA-Seq reveals unannotated transcripts and isoform switching during cell differentiation. Nature Biotechnology. 2010;28:511–515. doi: 10.1038/nbt.1621. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Venter G.J., Hill E., Pajor I.T.P., Nevill E.M. The use of a membrane feeding technique to determine the infection rate of Culicoides imicola (Diptera Ceratopogonidae) for 2 bluetongue virus serotypes in South Africa. Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research. 1991;58(1):5–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Veronesi E., Venter G.J., Labuschagne K., Mellor P.S., Carpenter S. Life-history parameters of Culicoides (Avaritia) imicola Kieffer in the laboratory at different rearing temperatures. Veterinary Parasitology. 2009;163(4):370–373. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2009.04.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Wang Z., Gerstein M., Snyder M. RNA-Seq: a revolutionary tool for transcriptomics. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2009;10(1):57–63. doi: 10.1038/nrg2484. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Wechsler S.J., McHolland L.E., Tabachnick W.J. Cell-lines from Culicoides variipennis (Diptera, Ceratopogonidae) support replication of bluetongue virus. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 1989;54(3):385–393. doi: 10.1016/0022-2011(89)90123-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Wechsler S.J., McHolland L.E., Wilson W.C. A RNA virus in cells from Culicoides variipennis. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 1991;57(2):200–205. doi: 10.1016/0022-2011(91)90117-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Wilson W.C., Mecham J.O., Schmidtmann E., Sanchez C.J., Herrero M., Lager I. Current status of bluetongue virus in the Americas. In: Mellor P.S., Baylis M., Mertens P.P.C., editors. Bluetongue. Elsevier; Oxford: 2009. [Google Scholar]
  83. Wilson W.C., Mecham J.O., Schmidtmann E.T., Sanchez C.J., Herrero M., Lager I. Current status of bluetongue virus in the Americas. In: Mellor P., Baylis M., Mertens P.P.C., editors. Bluetongue. 1st ed. Elsevier Academic Press; London, UK: 2009. pp. 197–212. [Google Scholar]
  84. Xu G., Wilson W., Mecham J., Murphy K., Zhou E.M., Tabachnick W. VP7: an attachment protein of bluetongue virus for cellular receptors in Culicoides variipennis. Journal of General Virology. 1997;78:1617–1623. doi: 10.1099/0022-1317-78-7-1617. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES