In 2009–2011, Monroe County in southern Florida experienced locally acquired and traveler-imported focal dengue outbreaks. Aedes aegypti (L.) is the

Culex pipiens quinquefasciatus were fed blood meals from a live chicken (LC), chicken blood in Alsever's (AC) solution, defibrinated bovine blood (DB), or bovine blood in citrate (CB) and incubated at 28° C. The effects of different blood meal sources were evaluated with respect to rates of blood feeding and reproduction (i.e., fecundity and fertility) over two gonotrophic cycles. Mosquitoes that fed on the first blood meal were subjected to a second blood meal as follows (first blood meal / second blood meal): LC/LC, LC/DB, DB/DB, CB/CB, AC/AC. Fecundity and fertility of Cx. p. quinquefasciatus were significantly (P < 0.05) greater in mosquitoes fed LC blood; however, fecundity and fertility in different treatment groups varied by gonotrophic cycle. These results contribute to our understanding of the impact of blood meal source on feeding and reproduction in Cx. p. quinquefasciatus. The potential impacts of blood meal source on virus transmission experiments are discussed.

Mosquito insecticide resistance (IR) is a growing global issue that must be addressed to protect public health. Vector control programs (VCPs) should regularly monitor local mosquito populations for IR and plan control measures accordingly. In some cases, state/federal resources financially support this testing with expertise and/or training programs. Standardization of methods (eg, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention bottle bioassay, World Health Organization tube testing, dose-mortality bioassay) for monitoring IR must be prioritized. One solution is regional hubs of IR monitoring at the state or other level. Training programs on methodology and interpretation of results should be developed and routinely offered to local VCPs conducting IR testing in mosquitoes. Here, current methods for assessing mosquito IR are discussed and insights into a variety of questions from VCPs are considered. It is critical that methods for IR monitoring and data interpretation are standardized through routine training, with the goal of evidence-driven decision making to improve control of mosquitoes and mosquito-borne disease.

Mosquitoes exposed to sublethal doses of insecticides may be selected for resistance to insecticide active ingredients (AIs). Mosquitoes are exposed to AIs through agricultural, public/private mosquito control programs, homeowners, and other sources. Hence, mosquito control programs should routinely measure the resistance/susceptibility status of mosquito populations of public health concern. The objectives here were to determine resistance status for six AIs used in adult mosquito control in the United States to assess how resistance/susceptibility differs between AI, mosquito species (states where > 1 species collected), and between years (some populations sampled for 2 yr). Field-collected eggs from 21 mosquito populations of six different species or hybrid species (Aedes albopictus Skuse [Diptera: Culicidae], Aedes aegypti L. [Diptera: Culicidae], Culex nigripalpus Theobald, Culex pipiens L. [Diptera: Culicidae], Culex quinquefasciatus Say [Diptera: Culicidae], Cx. pipiens/quinquefasciatus) were obtained. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention bottle bioassays were used to assess the resistance/susceptibility status for six AIs (bifenthrin, deltamethrin, etofenprox, malathion, permethrin, and phenothrin). World Health Organization guidelines were used to classify mosquitoes as susceptible (98–100% mortality at diagnostic time [DT]), possibly resistant (80–97% mortality at DT), or resistant (<80% mortality at DT). Significant differences were observed in mosquito susceptibility/resistance between species and AIs. In states where both Aedes and Culex were collected, the odds of exhibiting resistance in Culex were 68–69 times higher than Aedes (Texas odds ratio: 69.30; 95% confidence interval: 5.86, 819.44; P = 0.001; North Carolina odds ratio: 67.99; 95% confidence interval: 15.21, 303.94; P < 0.0001). Some level of resistance was detected against all tested AIs in several mosquito populations and some varied between 2015 and 2016.

Culex pipiens quinquefasciatus Say fed blood containing 6.8 ± 0.3 logs (mean ± SE) plaque-forming units of West Nile virus (WNV)/ml were maintained a

Improvements to risk assessments are needed to enhance our understanding of tick-borne disease epidemiology. We review tick vectors and duration of tick attachment required for pathogen transmission for the following pathogens/toxins and diseases: (1) Anaplasma phagocytophilum (anaplasmosis); (2) Babesia microti (babesiosis); (3) Borrelia burgdorferi (Lyme disease); (4) Southern tick-associated rash illness; (5) Borrelia hermsii (tick-borne relapsing fever); (6) Borrelia parkeri (tick-borne relapsing fever); (7) Borrelia turicatae (tick-borne relapsing fever); (8) Borrelia mayonii; (9) Borrelia miyamotoi; (10) Coxiella burnetii (Query fever); (11) Ehrlichia chaffeensis (ehrlichiosis); (12) Ehrlichia ewingii (ehrlichiosis); (13) Ehrlichia muris; (14) Francisella tularensis (tularemia); (15) Rickettsia 364D; (16) Rickettsia montanensis; (17) Rickettsia parkeri (American boutonneuse fever, American tick bite fever); (18) Rickettsia ricketsii (Rocky Mountain spotted fever); (19) Colorado tick fever virus (Colorado tick fever); (20) Heartland virus; (21) Powassan virus (Powassan disease); (22) tick paralysis neurotoxin; and (23) Galactose-α-1,3-galactose (Mammalian Meat Allergy-alpha-gal syndrome). Published studies for 12 of the 23 pathogens/diseases showed tick attachment times. Reported tick attachment times varied (<1 h to seven days) between pathogen/toxin type and tick vector. Not all studies were designed to detect the duration of attachment required for transmission. Knowledge of this important aspect of vector competence is lacking and impairs risk assessment for some tick-borne pathogens.