Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T19:30:15.784Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Diagnostic allozymes for routine identification of adults of the Anopheles gambiae complex (Diptera, Culicidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

R. J. Mahon
Affiliation:
Blair Research Laboratory, P.O. Box 8105, Causeway, Salisbury, Rhodesia
C. A. Green
Affiliation:
Blair Research Laboratory, P.O. Box 8105, Causeway, Salisbury, Rhodesia
R. H. Hunt
Affiliation:
Blair Research Laboratory, P.O. Box 8105, Causeway, Salisbury, Rhodesia

Abstract

Natural populations of four species of the Anopheles gambiae complex occurring in southern Africa were sampled and individuals identified using ovarian polytene chromosomes (19 species A, 190 species B, 140 species C and 54 A. merus Dön.). The genotypes of these same insects were scored for three loci coding for non-specific esterases, and one locus coding for tetrazolium oxidase, after electrophoresis. There is no intra-specific variation at the tetrazolium oxidase locus; species A, B and C share a common allozyme and A. merus is unique. The relative gene frequencies for the 16 allozymes of the three esterase loci for each species give a minimum probability of correct identification of 0·9533 under the worst conditions of sampling, i.e., where samples consist of equal mixtures of species. In practice, resort to such probabilities is necessary only in the discrimination between species A and C. This system of identification is superior to the chromosome method because all adults, whether male or female, and at whatever stage of the gono-tropic cycle, are identifiable.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ayala, F. J. & Powell, J. R. (1972). Allozymes as diagnostic characters of sibling species of Drosophila.—Proc. natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 69, 10941096.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barlow, J. & Ridgway, G. J. (1971). Polymorphisms of esterase isozymes in the American lobster (Homarus americanus).—J. Fish. Res. Bd Can. 28, 1521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahon, R. J. (1974). A study of rock crabs of the genus Leptograpsus Milne Edwards.—Ph.D. Thesis, University of Western Australia.Google Scholar
Manwell, C. & Baker, C. M. A. (1963). A sibling species of sea cucumber discovered by starch gel electrophoresis.—Camp. Biochem. Physiol. 10, 3953.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muirhead Thomson, R. C. (1948). Studies on Anopheles gambiae and A. melas in and around Lagos.—Bull. ent. Res. 38, 527558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muirhead Thomson, R. C. (1951). Studies on salt-water and fresh-water Anopheles gambiae on the East African Coast.—Bull. ent. Res. 41, 487502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paterson, H. E. (1963). The species, species control and anti-malarial spraying campaigns. Implications of recent work on the Anopheles gambiae complex.—S. Afr. J. med. Sci. 28, 3344.Google Scholar
Paterson, H. E., Paterson, J. S. & Van Eeden, G. J. (1964). Records of the breeding of ‘saltwater Anopheles gambiae’ at inland localities in Southern Africa.—Nature, Lond. 201, 524525.Google ScholarPubMed
Prakash, S. & Lewontin, R. C. (1971). A molecular approach to the study of genic heterozygosity in natural populations. V. Further direct evidence of coadaptation in inversions of Drosophila.—Genetics 69, 405408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selander, R. K., Johnson, W. E. & Avise, J. C. (1971). Biochemical population genetics of fiddler crabs (Uca).—Biol. Bull. mar. biol. Lab., Woods Hole 141, 402.Google Scholar
Smithies, O. (1955). Zone electrophoresis in starch gels: group variations in the serum proteins of normal human adults.—Biochem. J. 61, 629641.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, G. B. (1974). Anopheles gambiae complex and disease transmission in Africa.—Trans. R. Soc. trop. Med. Hyg. 68, 278301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed