|
|
Makarov, V. V., & Bakulov, I. A. (1975). [Zoopathogenic arboviruses, their systematics and ecology]. Veterinariia, (11), 39–41.
|
|
|
|
Giangaspero, A., Traversa, D., & Otranto, D. (2004). [Ecology of Thelazia spp. in cattle and their vectors in Italy]. Parassitologia, 46(1-2), 257–259.
Abstract: The genus Thelazia (Spirurida, Thelaziidae) includes a cosmopolitan group of eyeworm spirurids responsible for ocular infections in domestic and wild animals and transmitted by different species of muscids. Bovine thelaziosis is caused by Thelazia rhodesi Desmarest 1828, Thelazia gulosa Railliet & Henry 1910, and Thelazia skrjabini Erschow 1928, which occur in many countries; T. gulosa and T. skrjabini have been reported mainly in the New World, while T. rhodesi is particularly common in the Old World. In Italy, T. rhodesi was reported in southern regions a long time ago and, recently, T. gulosa and T. skrjabini have been identified in autochthonous cattle first in Apulia and then in Sardinia. Thirteen species of Musca are listed as intermediate hosts of eyeworms, but only Musca autumnalis and Musca larvipara have been demonstrated to act as vectors of Thelazia in the ex-URSS, North America, ex-Czechoslovakia and more recently in Sweden. In Italy, after the reports of T. gulosa and T. skrjabini in southern regions, the intermediate hosts of bovine eyeworms were initially only suspected as the predominant secretophagous Muscidae collected from the periocular region of cattle with thelaziosis were the face flies, M. autumnalis and M. larvipara, followed by Musca osiris, Musca tempestiva and Musca domestica. The well-known constraints in the identification of immature eyeworms to species by fly dissection and also the time-consuming techniques used constitute important obstacles to epidemiological field studies (i.e. vector identification and/or role, prevalence and pattern of infection in flies, etc.). Molecular studies have recently permitted to further investigations into this area. A PCR-RFLP analysis of the ribosomal ITS-1 sequence was developed to differentiate the 3 species of Thelazia (i.e. T. gulosa, T. rhodesi and T. skrjabini) found in Italy, then a molecular epidemiological survey has recently been carried out in field conditions throughout five seasons of fly activity and has identified the role of M. autumnalis, M. larvipara, M. osiris and M. domestica as vectors of T. gulosa and of M. autumnalis and M. larvipara of T. rhodesi. Moreover, M. osiris was described, for the first time, to act as a vector of T. gulosa and M. larvipara of T. gulosa and T. rhodesi. The mean prevalence in the fly population examined was found to be 2.86%. The molecular techniques have opened new perspectives for further research on the ecology and epidemiology not only of Thelazia in cattle but also of other autochthonous species of Thelazia which have been also recorded in Italy, such as Thelazia callipaeda, which is responsible for human and canid ocular infection and Thelazia lacrymalis, the horse eyeworm whose epidemiological molecular studies are in progress.
|
|
|
|
Bourdin, P., & Laurent, A. (1974). [Ecology of African horsesickness]. Rev Elev Med Vet Pays Trop, 27(2), 163–168.
|
|
|
|
No authors listed. (1995). Workshop on the geographic spread of Aedes albopictus in Europe and the concern among public health authorities. Proceedings of a workshop held at the Istituto Superiore di Sanita, Rome, Italy, 19-20 December 1994. In Parassitologia (Vol. 37, pp. 87–90).
|
|
|
|
Dauphin, G., Zientara, S., Zeller, H., & Murgue, B. (2004). West Nile: worldwide current situation in animals and humans. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis, 27(5), 343–355.
Abstract: West Nile (WN) virus is a mosquito-borne flavivirus that is native to Africa, Europe, and Western Asia. It mainly circulates among birds, but can infect many species of mammals, as well as amphibians and reptiles. Epidemics can occur in rural as well as urban areas. Transmission of WN virus, sometimes involving significant mortality in humans and horses, has been documented at erratic intervals in many countries, but never in the New World until it appeared in New York City in 1999. During the next four summers it spread with incredible speed to large portions of 46 US states, and to Canada, Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean. In many respects, WN virus is an outstanding example of a zoonotic pathogen that has leaped geographical barriers and can cause severe disease in human and equine. In Europe, in the past two decades there have been a number of significant outbreaks in several countries. However, very little is known of the ecology and natural history of WN virus transmission in Europe and most WN outbreaks in humans and animals remain unpredictable and difficult to control.
|
|
|
|
Komar, N. (2003). West Nile virus: epidemiology and ecology in North America. Adv Virus Res, 61, 185–234.
|
|
|
|
Valero, N. (2003). West Nile virus: a new challenge? Invest Clin, 44(3), 175–177.
Abstract: West Nile Virus (WNV), a member of the family Flaviviridae, was first isolated in 1937. Since the original isolation of the WNV outbreaks have occurred with increase in frequency of cases in humans and horses, apparent increase in severe human disease and high avian death rates. In 1999, 2000 and 2002 outbreaks of the WNV encephalitis were reported in horses, birds and humans from New York and Canada. Ornithophilic mosquitoes are the principal vectors of the WNV and birds of several species chiefly migrants appear to be the major introductory or amplifying host. The pattern of outbreaks in the old and new world suggests that viremic migratory birds may also contribute to movement of the virus. If so, Central America, Caribbean Islands and countries of South America including Venezuela, are in potential risk for suffering a severe outbreak for WNV, since several species of birds have populations that pass trough New York and cross the western north Atlantic or Caribbean Sea. It is important the knowledge of the ecology of WNV as well of the efficacy of control efforts in order to minimize the public health impact in these countries, where all population is susceptible to this infection.
|
|
|
|
Davies, R. B., & Clark, G. G. (1974). Trypanosomes from elk and horse flies in New Mexico. J Wildl Dis, 10(1), 63–65.
|
|
|
|
Mitchell, C. J., Darsie, R. F. J., Monath, T. P., Sabattini, M. S., & Daffner, J. (1985). The use of an animal-baited net trap for collecting mosquitoes during western equine encephalitis investigations in Argentina. J Am Mosq Control Assoc, 1(1), 43–47.
Abstract: A large net trap was used to sample mosquito populations attracted to horses at three sites each in Santa Fe and Rio Negro Provinces, Argentina, during the austral summer of 1984. These provinces, as well as others in Argentina, were affected by a severe epizootic of western equine encephalitis (WEE) during 1982-83. Totals of 2,752 and 6,929 mosquitoes were collected in Santa Fe and Rio Negro Provinces during five and three trap nights, respectively. Culex mosquitoes of the subgenus Culex were predominant (45.8% of total) in the Santa Fe collections, although Aedes albifasciatus also was prevalent (21.7%). The latter species was predominant (95.7% of total) in the Rio Negro collections. The mosquito fauna was less complex (minimum of 6 species) in Rio Negro Province as compared to Santa Fe Province (minimum of 18 species). The advantages of the net trap indicate that this trap can become a useful tool in arbovirus ecology studies in other areas.
|
|
|
|
Hardy, J. L. (1987). The ecology of western equine encephalomyelitis virus in the Central Valley of California, 1945-1985. Am J Trop Med Hyg, 37(3 Suppl), 18s–32s.
Abstract: Reeves' concept of the summer transmission cycle of western equine encephalomyelitis virus in 1945 was that the virus was amplified in a silent transmission cycle involving mosquitoes, domestic chickens, and possibly wild birds, from which it could be transmitted tangentially to and cause disease in human and equine populations. Extensive field and laboratory studies done since 1945 in the Central Valley of California have more clearly defined the specific invertebrate and vertebrate hosts involved in the basic virus transmission cycle, but the overall concept remains unchanged. The basic transmission cycle involves Culex tarsalis as the primary vector mosquito species and house finches and house sparrows as the primary amplifying hosts. Secondary amplifying hosts, upon which Cx. tarsalis frequently feeds, include other passerine species, chickens, and possibly pheasants in areas where they are abundant. Another transmission cycle that most likely is initiated from the Cx. tarsalis-wild bird cycle involves Aedes melanimon and the blacktail jackrabbit. Like humans and horses, California ground squirrels, western tree squirrels, and a few other wild mammal species become infected tangentially with the virus but do not contribute significantly to virus amplification.
|
|
