Open Access

A genotypically distinct, melanic variant of Anopheles arabiensi s in Sudan is associated with arid environments

  • Mariam Aboud1Email author,
  • Abdelrafie Makhawi2,
  • Andrea Verardi3,
  • Fathi El Raba’a4,
  • Dia-Eldin Elnaiem5 and
  • Harold Townson3
Malaria Journal201413:492

https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-13-492

Received: 15 June 2014

Accepted: 6 December 2014

Published: 13 December 2014

Abstract

Background

Anopheles arabiensis, an important malaria vector in Sudan and other countries in sub-Saharan Africa, exhibits considerable ecological and behavioural plasticity allowing it to survive in the harsh conditions of arid regions. It has been shown that adult populations of An. arabiensis in the semi-desert habitat of western Khartoum State survive through the long dry season in a state of partial aestivation, characterized by limited feeding activity and a degree of arrested ovarian development. Anopheles arabiensis in these sites occurs in two phenotypic forms. One is large and heavily melanized, the other has the typical characteristics of An. arabiensis as found elsewhere in Africa. The extent of genetic variation in these forms was examined in widely separated locations in Sudan, including Kassala, Gedaref and the Northern States between 1998 and 1999 and 2004 and 2006.

Methods

Each mosquito specimen was identified using standard morphological keys and a species-specific PCR test. Sequence variation in a 660 bp fragment of the mtDNA ND5 coding region was examined and the extent of genetic divergence between the forms was estimated from FST values using DNASP version 4.9. TCS 1.13 software was used to determine the genealogical relationships and to reflect clustering among mtDNA haplotypes.

Results

The melanic and normal forms were found in sympatry in Kassala, Gedaref and Khartoum states, with the melanic form commonest in the hottest and most arid areas. Both forms were encountered in the periods of study: 1998–1999, and 2004–2006. Only ten specimens of An. arabiensis were collected from the Northern State in February 2006, all of which were of the normal form.

Based on the ND5 analysis, there was a marked subdivision between the normal and melanic forms (FST = 0.59). Furthermore, the melanic form showed more genetic variability, as measured by haplotype diversity (0.95) compared with the normal form (0.57), suggesting larger effective population.

Conclusions

This is the first demonstration of correspondent phenotypic and genetic structuring in An. arabiensis. The high level of genetic differentiation shown by the mtDNA ND5 locus suggests that the two forms may represent separate species. It is hypothesized that the melanic form is better adapted to hot and arid environments.

Keywords

Anopheles arabiensis ND5SudanMelanicMalariaArid environments

Background

The main groups of malaria vectors in Africa are Anopheles gambiae, Anopheles funestus, Anopheles nili and Anopheles moucheti. Each of these comprise a complex or group of genetically distinct species that are similar in morphology, but vary in traits that affect their role in transmission of malaria [13]. The most important of these groups is the An. gambiae complex, which comprises eight closely related species that are distributed through sub-Saharan Africa and its outer islands [47]. Within this complex, An. gambiae, Anopheles coluzzii and Anopheles arabiensis are the most efficient vectors of human malaria in Africa [5, 8, 9].

Anopheles arabiensis is a common malaria vector throughout sub-Saharan Africa [1012]. This species shows considerable ecological and behavioural plasticity that allows it to survive in the harsh conditions of some arid areas. Some studies have indicated that An. arabiensis may be replacing An. gambiae s.s. as the dominant malaria vector in areas of East Africa, where insecticide-impregnated nets are used intensively [13, 14]. Different geographical populations of An. arabiensis show marked variations in their anthropophilic, exophilic and exophagic behaviour; thus adding more complexity to malaria transmission, and ultimately malaria control [1519]. However, studies using a number of molecular markers, including partial mitochondrial gene sequences from the cytochrome b, ND1 and ND5 genes, microsatellite loci, chromosomal inversions and internal transcribed spacers 1 and 2 (ITS1 & ITS2) showed little population subdivision within An. arabiensis populations, as compared to An. gambiae s.s.[2035]. This low level of population differentiation across the range of An. arabiensis populations has been attributed to recent population range expansion [28, 29].

In contrast, strong genetic differentiation in mtDNA (ND5) was detected between allopatric populations of An. arabiensis from the island of Reunion and the African continent, which was attributed to the low effective population size (Ne) on the island [32]. Lee et al.[36] reported a fixed nucleotide on the X chromosome between populations in East-southern Africa and those in Central Africa.

Anopheles arabiensis is the primary malaria vector throughout much of Sudan [37]. Other Anopheles species, such as An. funestus, An. nili, Anopheles pharoensis, Anopheles rufipes and Anopheles dthali are also present in the country, but they play a negligible role in malaria transmission. Malaria transmitted by An. arabiensis, continues to be a major health problem in Sudan [38, 39]. It has long been postulated that populations of An. arabiensis undergo aestivation during the dry season [40, 41]. It has been suggested that adults of a local population of An. arabiensis, in semi-desert habitat in Khartoum state (Sudan) are highly adapted to survive through the harsh long dry season, in a state of partial aestivation “with limited feeding activities and a degree of arrested ovarian development”. Similar findings were recently reported for An. gambiae and An. coluzzii (formerly S and M molecular forms) in Mali [4246]. Interestingly, these studies showed that whereas aestivation is a dry season survival strategy used by the M form of An. gambiae, populations of An. arabiensis and the S form of An. gambiae from the same area are more likely to rely on migration from distant locations [43].

It is hypothesized that the persistence of An. arabiensis populations in the arid areas in Khartoum State may be reflected in the genetic structure of these populations. To test this hypothesis, a molecular study was conducted on adults of An. arabiensis collected from irrigated sites along the White Nile and from an arid region, West of Khartoum, where previous studies showed the presence of aestivating adults of this species [40]. In these regions adults of An. arabiensis occur in two phenotypic forms, distinguishable by their size and extent of melanization.

Methods and study sites

Mosquito adult samples were collected from irrigated and non-irrigated habitats in Khartoum State (Central Sudan), Gedaref State (eastern Sudan), Kassala State (eastern Sudan) and Northern State. These locations are characterized by marked variations in rain precipitation and malaria endemicity (Figure 1 and Table 1). Whereas Gedaref and Kassala States are in the zone of hyper-endemic malaria, Khartoum and Northern states are considered to be hypo-, meso-endemic or zones free from malaria, respectively [39].
Figure 1

Map of Sudan showing sampling sites collection of Anopheles arabiensis . North State (sites 1,2 & 3); Khartoum (sites 4,5&6); Gedaref (sites 7,8&9) and Kassala (site 10).

Table 1

Sites, dates and sampling methods of adult mosquitoes used in study of genetic and morphometric differentiation of Anopheles arabiensis in Sudan 1998–2001 and 2004-2006

Location

Position

Malaria endemicity

Rainy season

Rain precipitate

Sampling date

Sampling methods

Khartoum

15° 3'– 15° 45' N 32° 15' - 32° 45' E

hypo-meso endemic

July -September

240 mm

Nov 1998 - Oct 1999, July 2001, Dec 2004 – Nov 2006

Pyrethrum spray collection, Landing collection, Active search

Gedaref

12° 54’N 35° 08' E

hyper-endemic

June -October

815 mm

Dec 2004 and Nov 2006

Pyrethrum spray collection, Landing collection, Active search

Kassala

15° 22 N' 36° 27' E

hyper-endemic

June -October

400 mm

March 2005 and April 2006

Pyrethrum spray collection, Landing collection, Active search

North

19 ° 16 N' 0° 27' E

free zones of malaria

September

1 mm

Feb 2006

Pyrethrum spray collection, Landing collection, Active search

Khartoum state

Located in central Sudan, at the confluence of the White Nile and the Blue Nile, (15°30' – 15°45' N and 32°15' - 32° 45' E), Khartoum State is characterized by a long dry and hot season between October – June followed by a short rainy season (July – September) with an average annual precipitation of 240 mm. Khartoum State has poor dry desert scrub vegetation, except along the riverbanks and in irrigated agricultural schemes. Sites used for collection of mosquitoes in Khartoum State were dry non-irrigated areas and irrigated areas close to the Nile, White Nile and the Blue Nile. Mosquito samples were collected between December 2004 and November 2006 in three villages in western Omdurman: El Mowailih (dry, 15° 34' N - 32° 23' E), El Rawakeeb (very dry 15°30' N - 32°15'E) and El Teris (irrigated 15°23' N - 32° 48' E).

Gedaref state

This State extends over large areas in the savannah region of Eastern Sudan. The climate is a tropical continental climate with two seasons; rainy season lasting from June-October and dry season between November to May with an average min-max temperature of 34-40°C. The average annual rainfall is 815 mm. Mosquito samples were collected during December 2004 and November 2006 in three villages in Rahad province: Batta (12°53' N - 35° 7' E), Kuka (13°06' N – 34°57' E) and Tabaldia (12°53' N -35°9' E). These villages lie along eastern bank of the El Rahad River, which is a seasonal watercourse that flows during and after the rainy season, June – December. Thereafter it fragments into small water pools during the dry hot season. Gedaref State is characterized with rich vegetation, especially during the rainy season. The main trees and bushes found in the study area are Balanites aegyptiaca, Acacia seyal, Acacia mellifera, Acacia nilotica, Acacia senegal, Combretum spp., Azadirachta indica and Ziziphus spina-christi. In the most of the places, the surface of the ground covered by Sorghum spp., Schoenfeldia ssp., Cynodon spp., Aristida spp., Cinchrus spp., and Brachiara spp. grass, which flourishes during the rainy and post-rainy season and dies out during the dry season.

Kassala state

Kassala State lies about 611 km East of Khartoum, at the edge of the semi-desert region of eastern Sudan, Gedaref State from the South and close to the border with Eritrea. The climate of the area is characterized by a hot dry season, which extends from March-June followed by a short rainy season (June – October) with an average annual rainfall of 400 mm. The vegetation of Kassala is similar to that found in Gadaref State, but with a lower vegetation density. Mosquito samples were collected during March 2005 and April 2006 from Wad Sherifi village (15°22’ N - 36°27’ E). The only source of water is well-water storage tank.

Northern state

Located in the northwest corner of Sudan bordering Egypt and Libya, the Northern State is an extremely dry desert, intercepted by a narrow stretch of seasonally flooded and irrigated areas around the Nile. Rainfall rarely exceeds an average of 1 mm per annum, in most years and the vegetation ranges from true desert to semi-desert scrub. Daily maximum temperatures are generally high reaching 47°C beween May and August, with desert temperatures cool at night, and a minimum temperature of c.25-29°C.

Morphological and molecular identification of mosquitoes

Mosquitoes were identified morphologically using standard taxonomic keys [47, 48].

Since the only An. gambiae s.l. species found in the study areas is An. arabiensis, these taxonomic keys provided a sufficient tool for species identification. In order to confirm the identification of the An. gambiae complex to species level, a molecular diagnostic test was performed using the rDNA species-diagnostic PCR protocol [49] protocol. DNA was extracted from individual mosquitoes using a previously described method [50].

Amplification and sequencing of a mitochondrial DNA fragment

To study molecular variation of An. arabiensis populations, a 655 bp fragment of the mitochondrial nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide dehydrogenase gene subunit 5 (NADH-ND5) coding region sequences of mitochondrial DNA was PCR amplified as previously described [20]. The PCR mix comprised 50 μl reaction volume containing 1 μL of 1:200 DNA dilution, 50 pmol primers, DMP3A = 5’-AGG ATG AGA TGG CTT AGG TT-3’; 19CL = 5’- CTT CCA CCA ATT ACT GCT ATA ACA G-3’. The PCR product was purified using QIAquick PCR purification Kit (QIAGEN). The purified PCR product and cycle sequencing was performed with the ABI PRISM Dye Terminator Cycle Sequencing Kit (Applied Biosystems). DNA sequences were assembled, and analysis of nucleotide sequences was performed using an ABI PRISM 377 (Applied Biosystems) automated sequencer following the manufacturer’s protocols. All sequences were deposited in NCBI GenBank (accession numbers KJ950294-KJ950360).

Mitochondrial ND5 DNA analysis

Prior to analysis, the 655 bp fragment of mtDNA (ND5) was confirmed by blasting against the corresponding An. gambiae sequence ([51]; GeneBank accession No. L20934). Subsequently, ND5 sequences from individual mosquitoes were aligned using the Clustal W programme and subjected to genetic variation analysis. The frequency of each haplotype, haplotype diversity (Hd), average number of pairwise nucleotide differences (π) and average number of nucleotides segregating per site (S), the population mutation rate (2NM) based on number of segregating sites (θ) were computed using the program DnaSP version 4.9 [52]. Sequences of ND5 were tested for neutral evolution, using Tajima’s D test [53] and Fu & Li’s F tests [54]. The extent of nucleotide differentiation between An. arabiensis populations was calculated by estimating FST values.

Gene genealogy network

TCS 1.13[55] was used to determine the genealogical relationships and inspect clustering among mtND5 haplotypes. This method is based on statistical parsimony network [56], and was chosen because it accepts the existence of ancestral haplotypes, which are assumed to be the most frequent haplotypes, according to coalescence theory [57].

Results

Although all specimens used in the study were morphologically and molecularly typed as An. arabiensis, two phenotypic forms of An. arabiensis were recognizable. One of these forms was larger, markedly darker and more metallic in colour than the other, which appeared as typical An. arabiensis. These forms are here labelled as the melanic (M) and normal (N) forms, respectively; all specimens were labelled accordingly.

Adult specimens of An. arabiensis were easily assigned to one of the two forms and no intermediate phenotypes were observed. The difference in body size was noticeable and measured. The body size of the adult melanic form was clearly larger than the normal form (mean body size and wing length =3.25 ± 0.22 mm and 2.68 ± 0.078 for the melanic form and 2.71 ± 0.19 mm and 2.37 ± 0.09 mm for the normal form, respectively). Both melanization and body size appeared to be inheritable characters. In colonization experiments, both forms produced corresponding adult offspring. The spatial distribution of normal and melanic forms in the different sites in Khartoum State is shown in Table 2. It is clear that the melanic form occurred more commonly in the hottest and most arid areas than in the irrigated areas (Tables 2 and 3, and Additional file 1).
Table 2

Spatial and season distribution of melanic and normal forms of An. arabiensis collected form Khartoum State (Sudan) in 1998–1999 and 2004-2006

Study area

Form

Dry season (Oct 1998-June 1999)

Rainy season (Jul-Sep 1998)

Dry season (Oct-2004-Jun-2005)

Rainy season (July-Sep 2005)

El Tries (Irrigated)

Normal

118 (92.9%)

241 (97.6%)

230 (94.3%)

67 (78.8%)

Melanic

9 (7.1%)

6 (2.4%)

14 (5.7%)

18 (21.2%)

Total

127

247

244

85

El Mowailih (Dry-irrigated)

Normal

49 (41.2)

312 (75.7%)

42 (16.1)

208 (66.5%)

Melanic

70 (57.8)

100 (24.3%

219 (83.9)

105 (33.5%)

Total

119

412

261

313

Elrawakeeb (Very dry)

Normal

-

-

-

2 (6.9%)

Melanic

-

-

-

27 (93.1%)

 

Total

-

-

-

29

Table 3

Site and habitat description of melanic and normal forms of An. arabiensis populations collected in different localities of Sudan in 1999–2000 and 2004-2006

Location

Habitat Type

Main water source

Breeding sites

Normal haplotype

Melanic haplotype

Khartoum

 El Mowailih

Dry

Well- pumped closed tanks

Water leaking from Well-water tanks

1(19),2,6,9,12

18(3),19,21,24,26(2)27(3),34(2),36(2),39(2),40,48,49,51,52(2),53(3), 54(2),57(3),60,61,65(2),66(3),67(4)

 El Rawakeeb

Very Dry

Old wells and Well-pumped closed tanks

No water pools due to Sandy soil, and high rate of evaporation, Probably breeding in old wells

1(5),7(5),12(2)

29,31,47,53(4),56,60,67(3)

 El Tries

Irrigated

White Nile

Flooded irrigated canals from White Nile

1(8),7,

20,28,30,38(2),50,52,53,

55,58,63,67(3)

 Others

Irrigated

Nile, White Nile and Blue Nile

Flooded irrigated canals from Nile, White Nile and Blue Nile

1(3),8,12(2),15(2),17(2),

23,25,30,

Gedaref

 Bata

Semi dry

River, River pools,

Rain pools and river pools

1(4)

33,66,67(2)

 Kuka

irrigated

River, River pools

Rain pools and river pools

1(3)

19,21,46, 67(2)

 Tabaldia

Semi dry

River, River pools

Rain pools and river pools

1(6),3,7,11,12(2),16

18(3),20,21,22,32,44,45(2),61(2),67(3)

Kassala

 WadSharefi

Dry

Wells and Well-pumped tanks

Water leaking from ell-water tanks

1(15)3,4,5,7,8,13,14,16(2),

20,21,22,29,35,36,37(2)41,42,43,46,57(4),59,61,62,64,66(3),67(9)

North

 Ardwan

Irrigated

Nile River

Flooded irrigated canals rom Nile

1(2), 7

No melanic haplotype

 ElSeleim

Irrigated

Nile River

Flooded irrigated canals from Nile

1(3),7(2)

No melanic haplotype

 Sadiac

Irrigated

Nile River

Flooded irrigated canals from Nile

1,7

No melanic haplotype

Haplotype diversity and genetic variation in the mtND5 of Anopheles arabiensis

Genetic variation in the populations of An. arabiensis was studied by examining variation in a 655 bp (position 6896–7550) fragment of the mtND5 gene of An. gambiae[51], for a total of 232 An. arabiensis samples spanning the four study areas. Reference sequences have been deposited in GeneBank (accession numbers KJ950294-KJ950360). All polymorphic sites were silent codon sites and the direct sequencing revealed no characteristics of heteroplasmy. No insertion and deletion differences were found within any mtDNA sequences, confirming that the sequenced segment of ND5 gene represented mtDNA rather than pseudo genes or nuclear–transposed copies.

The results of Tajima’s D test [51] and Fu & Li’s F tests [54] on ND5 gene sequences of all An. arabiensis individuals examined in this study are shown in Table 4. Significant departure from the neutral theory was noticeable in each population of the melanic and normal forms, except in Kassala area. The deviation was higher in the normal form, indicating higher selection pressure in the melanic form.
Table 4

Haplotypes and nucleotide diversity of mtND5 within melanic and normal forms of An. arabiensis populations collected from different sites in Sudan during 1998–2001 and 2004-2006

Location

Form

N

S

H

Hd

πnd

θs

θ

Taji ma D

Fu &Li

Khartoum

Normal

53

8

9

0.573 (0.076)

0.00127 (0.00024)

0.00303

-1.3213

-1.6101

-1.6681

Melanic

69

29

35

0.959 (0.028)

0.00514 (0.0003)

0.0099

-1.0686

-1.5263

-1.5681

All

122

33

44

0.907 (0.021)

0.0057 (0.00024)

0.0099

-2.6336*

-1.3054

-2.5164*

Gadaref

Normal

19

6

6

0.538 (0.133)

0.0011 (0.00036)

0.0026

-2.205

-1.8697*

-2.4356

Melanic

24

17

13

0.902

0.00547 (0.00056)

0.0069

-1.0686

-0.7632

-1.1399

0.046

All

43

21

19

0.883 (0.037)

0.00554

0.0078

-1.8960

-0.9456

-1.863

0.00041

Kassala

Normal

25

9

10

0.647 (0.110)

0.00133 (0.00032)

0.0040

-3.184**

-2.2181**

-3.738**

Melanic

32

24

18

0.907 (0.039)

0.00488 (0.0007)

0.0095

-2.277

-1.7072

-2.4653

All

57

32

28

0.905 (0.028)

0.0062 (0.00035)

0.00113

-2.908*

-1.4739

-2.8434*

North

Normal

10

1

2

0.556 (0.075)

0.00085 (0.00011)

0.0054

0.8042

0.8042

1.0688

Melanic

none

none

none

none

none

none

none

none

none

Overall

Normal

107

17

17

0.591 (0.054)

0.00126 (0.00017)

0.00524

-3.1767*

-2.1472*

-3.3358*

Melanic

125

39

50

0.943 (0.014)

0.0052 (0.0003)

0.0122

-2.1426

-1.7545

-2.3809*

 

All

232

50

67

0.897 (0.016)

0.0057 (0.00018)

0.00137

-3.1918*

-1.71937

-3.0457**

n, the number of sequences; S, the number of segregating sites; h, number of haplotypes; Hd, haplotypes diversity; π, the average number of pairwise nucleotide differences ((nucleotide diversity); θs the average number of nucleotides segregating per site, θ = Average number of mutation per sequence. Values in parentheses are SE. **P > 0.1; *0.10 > P > 0.05.

A total of 67 mtDNA haplotypes were found among 232 An. arabiensis individuals, 35 of which represented a single individual (see Additional file 1). The melanic form differed from the normal form by the presence of one or more of the substitutions A,C,T,G that consisted of four substitutions in positions 7240 (A substitute G), 7360 (C substitute T), 7486 (T substitute C) and 7627 (G substitute A). Of these four sites, the main substitution that differentiated all normal haplotypes from the melanic form was the first G/A substitution in position 7240. High levels of mtDNA ND5 haplotype diversity and nucleotide sequence divergence were encountered between allopatric and sympatric populations of the normal and melanic forms of An. arabiensis populations in Khartoum, Gedaref and Kassala States (Table 4).

It was clear that, in each location, the haplotype diversity within melanic populations of An. arabiensis was higher than within normal populations and almost equal to the overall haplotype diversity of the two forms. This result is consistent with a smaller effective population size of the normal form. In North State, where the analysis was restricted to a small number of the normal form (10 specimens), the haplotype and nucleotide diversity of A. arabiensis population were 0.56 (P ≤ 0.001) and 0.00085 (P ≤ 0.001), respectively.

The data provide clear evidence of corresponding morphological and genetic structuring in populations of An. arabiensis in sympatry. The average level of mtDNA ND5 sequence divergence within Sudanese An. arabiensis populations is 0.57% (±0.0002) (Table 4). This strong population subdivision within An. arabiensis populations was also supported by the FST value of 0.59 (P ≤ 0.0001) between normal and melanic forms. This provides strong evidence for limited gene exchange (Nm = 0.36) between melanic and normal forms of An. arabiensis, even though the forms are sympatric (Table 5).
Table 5

Genetic differentiation (F ST ) and Gene flow (N m ) between normal and melanic forms of sympatric and allopatric populations of An. arabiensis captured in different localities in Sudan in 1999–2000 and 2004-2006

State

Sympatric populations

Allopatric populations

State

Normal V melanic

Normal V Normal

Melanic v Melanic

 

Fst (N m)

Fst (N m)

Fst (N m)

Fst (N m)

Khartoum

0.58 (0.36)

Khartoum V Kassala

0.635 (0.29)

0.028(17.26)

0.0313 (15.62)

(0.0000)*

(0.0000)*

(0.0655)ns

(0.1454)ns

Kassala

0.65 (0.27)

Khartoum V Gedaref

0.597 (0.34)

0.0027 (185.5)

0.01095 (45.2)

(0.0006)*

(0.0000)*

(0.377)ns

(0.1921)ns

Gedaref

0.546 (0.42)

Kassala V Gedaref

0.55 (0.41)

0.0157 (32.4)

0.022 (22.1)

(0.0008)*

(0.0008)*

(0.6383)ns

(0.3355)ns

ns, not significant; *P ≤ 0.001.

Mitochondrial ND5 genealogy estimation

In the Templeton network (Figure 2), the sequence data of mtND5 for An. arabiensis populations segregated into two major groups in addition to the minor varieties. Those two major groups of haplotypes correspond closely to the phenotypic variation detected within An. arabiensis populations, i.e. melanic and normal forms.
Figure 2

Genealogical haplotype network analysis for a 655 bp fragment of ND5 of An. arabiensis in Sudan using the statistical parsimony method implemented in TCS (Clement et al. [55]). Localities where haplotypes were found are represented by different fill patterns, as shown in the legend. Haplotype with the highest outgroup probability is displayed as rectangle and are assumed to be ancestral; other haplotypes are displayed as ovals. Haplotype symbol sizes correspond to frequencies; nodes without haplotype numbers correspond to assumed intermediates. Haplotypes number 1–17 represent a normal form of An. arabiensis and haplotypes number 18–67 represent melanic form of An. arabiensis.

Discussion

The findings obtained in this study provide first evidence of correspondent morphological and genetic population structuring in An. arabiensis that exist in sympatry. These results contradict the current notion that An. arabiensis populations in sub-Saharan Africa are panmictic [19, 20, 24, 2631, 33, 34, 58]. Using relevant keys [47, 48] and species-diagnostic PCR method [49], all mosquitoes used in the study were morphologically and molecularly confirmed as An. arabiensis. However, two clearly distinguishable phenotypic forms were found: a typical normal colour-size form and a larger heavily melanized form. Furthermore, our observations lead us to hypothesize that the melanic form is more adapted to arid hot environment, as deduced from relative higher abundance and larger effective population size. This adaptation may have been conferred by the increased level of melanization, which is known to provide protection against desiccation [5963].

From a molecular viewpoint, the normal form is identical to An. arabiensis type form based on colour and mtND5 sequence. The mtND5 gene of the melanic form is different from An. arabiensis type form by up to four nucleotide substitutions (one apparently fixed and three other variable nucleotide substitutions), although these forms are sympatric in different collection sites. These nucleotide substitutions, which were found in melanic form, are similar to those found in An. arabiensis populations in Senegal [20].

The average level of mtDNA ND5 sequence divergence within Sudanese An. arabiensis populations (0.57%) is higher than the average level of mtND5 sequence divergence within An. gambiae (0.38%) and An. arabiensis (0.46%) populations across Africa [20]. Moreover, the average level of mtDNA ND5 divergence between species (An. gambiae and An. arabiensis) was only 0.46% per nucleotide.

The FST value between sympatric populations of melanic and normal forms of An. arabiensis is significantly higher than previous FST pairwise studies of the same gene in An. gambiae and An. arabiensis populations in Africa, and other pairs of sibling species of Anopheles [20, 32, 36, 64]. Moreover, intraspecific estimates of genetic differentiation (FST) within An. arabiensis populations were low (0.098) comparable to the interspecific FST estimates between An. arabiensis and An. gambiae, which were recorded as 0.07 and 0.12 for sympatric and allopatric populations, respectively [32].

The failure to find the melanic form in Northern State may be a consequence of the small sample size, or ecological separation due to the highly restrictive habitats of An. arabiensis in this area. Elsewhere in this study, the two forms were found in sympatry suggesting that there is a strong level of reproductive isolation between them. In this part of Sudan, where no rain may fall for several years, there is a sharp contrast between extreme desert conditions and irrigated areas along the Nile. The only suitable breeding and resting sites for An. arabiensis exist in agricultural schemes along the Nile or the ponds created by the seasonal flood in agricultural schemes. On the other hand away from the Nile there is no possibility of temporary mosquito breeding and resting sites due to lack of vegetation, extreme aridity and sandy soil topography of the area and in addition lack of well-pumped tanks. The few specimens of An. arabiensis collected in this study were captured during a short visit focusing on the irrigated area, where permanent breeding sites are present. Future studies should survey the area for possible presence of the habitat of the melanic form.

In dry areas of Khartoum and Kassala there is no surface water. The villagers obtain their water from a number of scattered water tanks which pumps water from capped wells. There are number of small scattered farms of sorghum around each water tank. Anopheles arabiensis populations breed in temporary breeding sites available from continuous leaking of water from these water tanks. The establishment of these well-pump tanks - which is the only available source of water for the villager’s uses - may serve as temporary breeding and resting sites for An. arabiensis in dry zone areas throughout the year. In Gedaref State, the study sites lie along eastern bank of El Rahad River, which is a seasonal watercourse that flows during and after the rainy season and then fragment into small water pools in the dry hot season that create temporary breeding sites.

The results of this study indicate that the melanic An. arabiensis are likely to be the mosquitoes said to have adapted to survive as adults through nine months of severe drought and heat [41]. This suggestion is based on the exclusive presence of this form during the hottest and driest parts of the year, its relatively larger size and its heavy melanization. Larger individuals should have smaller surface/volume ratio and, therefore, have higher resistance for desiccation. Larger individuals should also have higher accumulation of glycogen and lipids and, therefore, are more likely to increase their metabolic body water during dry conditions [59]. Furthermore, a number of recent studies demonstrated that melanization plays a major role in insect desiccation resistance by decreasing the permeability of the cuticle to water [5962].

In Drosophila melanogaster, body melanization is a quantitative trait and shows significant levels of both within- and between-population variation [63]. Geographical populations of D. melanogaster from Africa, India and Australia exhibit clinal variation in melanization, which suggest adaptations to local climatic conditions [61]. Increased melanization has been associated with higher fitness under thermal as well as aridity stresses in D. melanogaster, i.e. a darker cuticle may improve thermoregulation as well as reduce cuticlar water loss [59, 61, 63]. The extreme dry zone areas appear to form barriers to gene flow between and among permanent wet irrigated and temporary breeding sites of dry areas An. arabiensis populations.

This study provides the first evidence of a high level of phenotypic and genetic sub-structuring of An. arabiensis in Sudan. This finding may have important implications for the ecology of An. arabiensis and the epidemiology and control of malaria in Sudan and other dry lands in Africa. In future studies, it will be important to examine other molecular markers and conduct mating studies to determine the degree of speciation between the two forms. Furthermore it would be interesting to compare the vector competence of the two forms and examine their role in malaria transmission. An understanding of the mechanisms and genes related to physiological adaptation in An. arabiensis may help explain how these mosquitoes survive through the dry season, and this in turn may help improve the control of malaria transmission in Sudan.

Conclusions

This study provides the first evidence of a high level of phenotypic and genetic sub-structuring of An. arabiensis populations in Sudan. Whether this genetic differentiation is an indication of recent speciation process or the presence of two species is unclear. Judging from the higher level of genetic variability in the melanic mosquitoes, it may be inferred that they experience less selection pressure and, therefore are better adapted to dry hot conditions of the collection sites, a phenomenon that has recently been recognized in other insect species. The marked difference between the two forms may have significant consequences for malaria transmission and its control in the region.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to staff of Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, El-Neelain Medical Centre, ElNeelain University, University of Khartoum, for their help and support throughout this study. Many thanks are due to Dr. David Weatman whose comments helped improve the manuscript. The study was supported by a grant from the UNDP/World Bank/WHO Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases for PhD study of Mariam Aboud at Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and TDR/WHO Rentary grant (T16/181/635-A30894) for Mariam Aboud.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Biology, Faculty of Science and Technology, Al-Neelain University
(2)
Department of Biotechnology, College of Applied and Industrial Sciences, University of Bahri
(3)
Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine
(4)
Department of Zoology, University of Khartoum
(5)
Department of Natural Sciences, University of Maryland Eastern Shore

References

  1. Harbach RE: The classification of genus Anopheles (Diptera: Culicidae): aworking hypothesis of phylogenetic relationships. Bull Entomol Res. 2004, 94: 537-553.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Sinka ME, Bangs MJ, Manguin S, Rubio-Palis Y, Chareonviriyaphap T, Coetzee M, Mbogo CM, Hemingway J, Patil AP, Temperley WH, Gething PW, Kabaria CW, Burkot TR, Harbach RE, Hay SI: A global map of dominant malaria vectors. Parasit Vectors. 2012, 5: 1-11. 10.1186/1756-3305-5-1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Harbach RE: Mosquito Taxonomic Inventory. 2013, http://mosquito-taxonomic-inventory.info/. accessed on 11 August 2014Google Scholar
  4. Davidson G: Anopheles gambiae: a complex of species. Bull World Health Organ. 1964, 31: 625-634.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Coetzee M, Hunt RH, Wilkerson R, Torre AD, Coullibaly M, Besansky NJ: Anopheles coluzzii and Anopheles amharicus, new members of the Anopheles gambiae complex. Zootaxa. 2013, 3: 246-274.Google Scholar
  6. White GB: Anopheles bwambae sp. n., a malaria vector in the Semliki Valley, Uganda, and its relationship with other sibling species of the An. gambiae complex (Diptera: Culicidae). Syst Entomol. 1985, 10: 501-522. 10.1111/j.1365-3113.1985.tb00155.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Hunt RH, Coetzee M, Fettene M: The Anopheles gambiae complex: a new species from Ethiopia. Trans R SocTrop Med Hyg. 1998, 92: 231-235. 10.1016/S0035-9203(98)90761-1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Coluzzi M, Sabatini A, Petrarca V, Di Deco MA: Chromosomal differentiation and adaptation to human environments in the Anopheles gambiae complex. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1979, 73: 483-497. 10.1016/0035-9203(79)90036-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Service M: Anopheles gambiae: Africa's principal malaria vector. Bull Entomol Soc Am. 1985, 31: 8-12.Google Scholar
  10. Fontenille D, Lochouarn L, Diatta M, Sokhna C, Dia I, Diagne N, Lemasson JJ, Ba K, Tall A, Rogier C, Trape JF: Four years' entomological study of the transmission of seasonal malaria in Senegal and the bionomics of Anopheles gambiae and Anopheles arabiensis. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1997, 91: 647-652. 10.1016/S0035-9203(97)90506-X.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Coetzee M, Craig M, le Sueur D: Distribution of African malaria mosquitoes belonging to the Anopheles gambiae complex. Parasitol Today. 2000, 16: 74-77. 10.1016/S0169-4758(99)01563-X.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Okello PE, Van Bortel W, Byaruhanga AM, Correwyn A, Roelants P, Talisuna A, D'Alessandro U, Coosemans M: Variation in malaria transmission intensity in seven sites throughout Uganda. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2006, 75: 219-225.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Lindblade KA, Gimnig JE, Kamau L, Hawley WA, Odhiambo F, Olang G, Ter Kuile FO, Vulule JM, Slutsker L: Impact of sustained use of insecticide treated bed nets on malaria vector species distribution and culicine mosquitoes. J Med Entomol. 2006, 43: 428-432. 10.1603/0022-2585(2006)043[0428:IOSUOI]2.0.CO;2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Bayoh MN, Mathias DK, Odiere MR, Mutuku FM, Kamau L, Gimnig JE, Vulule JM, Hawley WA, Hamel MJ, Walker ED: Anopheles gambiae: historical population decline associated with regional distribution of insecticide-treated bed nets in western Nyanza Province, Kenya. Malar J. 2010, 9: 62-10.1186/1475-2875-9-62.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. White GB: Anopheles gambiae complex and disease transmission in Africa. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1974, 68: 278-301. 10.1016/0035-9203(74)90035-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Service MW, Joshi GP, Radhan GD: A survey of Anopheles gambiae (species A) and An. arabiensis (species B) of the An. gambiae Giles complex in the Kisumu area of Kenya following insecticidal spraying with OMS-43 (Fenitrothion). Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 1978, 72: 377-386.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Mnzava AE, Mutinga MJ, Staak C: Host blood meals and chromosomal inversion polymorphism in Anopheles arabiensis in the Baringo District of Kenya. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 1994, 10: 507-510.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Charlwood JD, Gassim M, Elnsur EI, Donnelly M, Petrarca V, Billingsley PF, Pinto J, Smith T: The impact of indoor residual spraying with Malathion on malaria in refugee camps in eastern Sudan. Acta Trop. 2001, 80: 1-8. 10.1016/S0001-706X(01)00152-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Kent RJ, Mharakurwa S, Norris DE: Spatial and temporal genetic structure of Anopheles arabiensis in Southern Zambia over consecutive wet and drought years. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2007, 77: 316-323.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Besansky NJ, Lehmann T, Fahey GT, Fontenille D, Lawrence E, Braack O, Hawley WA, Collins FH: Patterns of mitochondrial variation within and between African malaria vectors, Anopheles gambiae and Anopheles arabiensis, suggest extensive gene flow. Genetics. 1997, 147: 1817-1828.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Toure YT, Petrarca V, Traore SF, Coulibaly A, Maiga HM, Sankare O, Sow M, Di Deco MA, Coluzzi M: The distribution and inversion polymorphism of chromosomally recognized taxa of the Anopheles gambiae complex in Mali, West Africa. Parassitologia. 1998, 40: 477-511.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Donnelly MJ, Cuamba N, Charlwood JD, Collins FH, Townson H: Population structure in the malaria vector, Anopheles arabiensis Patton, in East Africa. Heredity. 1999, 83: 408-417. 10.1038/sj.hdy.6885930.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kamau L, Mukabana WR, Hawley WA: Analysis of genetic variability in Anopheles arabiensis and Anopheles gambiae using microsatellite loci. Insect Mol Biol. 1999, 8: 287-297. 10.1046/j.1365-2583.1999.820287.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Petrarca V, Nugud AD, Elkarim AM, Haridi AM, Dideco AM, Coluzzi M: Cytogenetic of the Anopheles gambiae complex in Sudan, with special reference to An. arabiensis: relationships with East and West African populations. Med Vet Entomol. 2000, 14: 149-164. 10.1046/j.1365-2915.2000.00231.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Simard F, Fontenille D, Lehmann T, Girod R, Brutus L, Gopaul R, Dournon C, Collins FH: High amounts of genetic differentiation between populations of the malaria vector Anopheles arabiensis from West Africa and Eastern outer Islands. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1999, 60: 1000-1009.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Simard F, Lehmann T, Lemasson JJ, Diatta M, Didier F: Persistence of Anopheles arabiensis during the severe dry season conditions in Senegal: an in direct approach using microsatellite loci. Insect Mol Biol. 2000, 9: 467-479. 10.1046/j.1365-2583.2000.00210.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Gentile G, della Torre A, Maegga B, Powell JR, Caccone A: Genetic differentiation in the African malaria Vector, Anopheles gambiae s.s., and the problem of taxonomic status. Genetics. 2002, 161: 1561-1578.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Donnelly MJ, Townson H: Evidence for extensive genetic differentiation among populations of the malaria vector Anopheles arabiensis in Eastern Africa. Insect Mol Biol. 2000, 9: 357-367. 10.1046/j.1365-2583.2000.00197.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Donnelly MJ, Monica CL, Lehmann T: Evidence for recent population expansion in the evolutionary history of the malaria vectors Anopheles arabiensis and Anopheles gambiae. Mol Biol Evol. 2001, 18: 1353-1364. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a003919.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Onyabe DY, Conn JE: Population genetic structure of the malaria mosquito An. arabiensis across Nigeria suggests range expansion. Mol Ecol. 2001, 10: 2577-2591. 10.1046/j.0962-1083.2001.01387.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Nyanjom SR, Chen H, Gebre-Michael T, Bekele E, Shililu J, Githure J, Beier JC, Yan G: Population genetic structure of Anopheles arabiensis mosquitoes in Ethiopia and Eritrea. Heredity J. 2013, 94: 457-463.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Donnelly MJ, Pinto J, Girod R, Besansky NJ, Lehmann T: Revisiting the role of introgression vs shared ancestral polymorphisms as key processes shaping genetic diversity in the recently separated sibling species of the Anopheles gambiae complex. Heredity. 2004, 92: 61-68. 10.1038/sj.hdy.6800377.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Morlais I, Girod R, Hunt R, Simard F, Fontenille D: Population structure of Anopheles arabiensis on La Reunion Island, Indian Ocean. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2005, 73: 1077-1082.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Temu EA, Yan G: Microsatellite and mitochondrial genetic differentiation of Anopheles arabiensis (Diptera: Culicidae) from western Kenya, the Great Rift Valley, and coastal Kenya. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2005, 73: 726-733.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Tripet F, Dolo G, Lanzaro GC: Multilevel analyses of genetic differentiation in Anopheles gambiae s.s. reveal patterns of gene flow important for malaria-fighting mosquito projects. Genetics. 2005, 169: 313-324.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Lee Y, Seifert SN, Fornadel M, Norris DE, Lanzaro GC: Single-nucleotide polymorphisms for high-throughput genotyping of Anopheles arabiensis in East and Southern Africa. J Med Entomol. 2012, 49: 307-315. 10.1603/ME11113.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Abuelmaali SA, Elaagip AH, Basheer MA, Frah EA, Ahmed FT, Elhaj HF, Seidahmed OM, Weetman D, Mahdi Abdel Hamid M: Impacts of agricultural practices on insecticide resistance in the malaria vector Anopheles arabiensis in Khartoum State. Sudan PLoS One. 2013, 8: e80549-10.1371/journal.pone.0080549.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Musa MI, Shohaimi S, Hashim NR, Krishnarajah I: A climate distribution model of malaria transmission in Sudan. Geospat Health. 2012, 7: 27-36.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Noor AM, ElMardi KA, Abdelgader TM, Patil AP, Amine AA, Bakhiet S, Mukhtar MM, Snow RW: Malaria Risk Mapping for Control in the Republic of Sudan. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2012, 87: 1012-1021. 10.4269/ajtmh.2012.12-0390.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Omer SM, Cloudsley-Thompson JL: Dry season biology of Anopheles gambiae Giles in the Sudan. Nature. 1968, 217: 879-880.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Omer SM, Cloudsley-Thompson JL: Survival of female Anopheles gambiae Giles through a 9-month dry season in Sudan. Bull World Health Organ. 1970, 42: 319-330.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Lehmann T, Dao A, Yaro AS, Adamou A, Kassogué Y, Diallo M, Sékou T, Coscaron-Arias C: Aestivation of the African malaria mosquito, Anopheles gambiae in the Sahel. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2010, 83: 601-606. 10.4269/ajtmh.2010.09-0779.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Adamou A, Dao A, Timbine S, Kassogué Y, Yaro AS, Diallo M, Traoré SF, Huestis DL, Lehmann T: The contribution of aestivating mosquitoes to the persistence of Anopheles gambiae in the Sahel. Malar J. 2011, 10: 151-10.1186/1475-2875-10-151.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Yaro AS, Traoré AI, Huestis DL, Adamou A, Timbiné S, Kassogué Y, Diallo M, Dao A, Traoré SF, Lehmann T: Dry season reproductive depression of Anopheles gambiae in the Sahel. J Insect Physiol. 2012, 58: 1050-1059. 10.1016/j.jinsphys.2012.04.002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Huestis DL, Yaro AS, Traoré AI, Dieter KL, Nwagbara JI, Bowie AC, Adamou A, Kassogué Y, Diallo M, Timbiné S, Dao A, Lehmann T: Seasonal variation in metabolic rate, flight activity and body size of Anopheles gambiae in the Sahel. J Exp Biol. 2013, 215: 2013-2021.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Lehmann T, Dao A, Yaro AS, Diallo M, Timbiné S, Huestis DL, Adamou A, Kassogué Y, Traoré AI: Seasonal variation in spatial distributions of Anopheles gambiae in a Sahelian village: evidence for aestivation. J Med Entomol. 2014, 51: 27-38. 10.1603/ME13094.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Gillies MT, De Meillon B: The Anophelinae of Africa south of the Sahara (Ethiopian Zoogeographical Region). Publications of The South African Institute for Medical Research, no.54. 1968, Johannesburg: South African Institute for Medical Research, 2Google Scholar
  48. Gillies MT, Cotezee M: A supplement to the Anophelinae of Africa South of the Sahara. Publications of The South African Institute for Medical Research, no.55. 1987, Johannesburg: (Afrotropical Region). South African Institute for Medical ResearchGoogle Scholar
  49. Scott JA, Brogdon WG, Collins FH: Identification of single specimens of the Anopheles gambiae complex by the polymerase chain reaction. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1993, 49: 520-529.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Ballinger-Crabtree ME, Black WCV, Miller BR: Use of genetic polymorphism detected by the Random-Amplified Polymorphic DNA Polymerase Chain Reaction (RAPD-PCR) for differentiation and identification of Aedes aegypti subspecies and populations. Am J of Trop Med Hyg. 1992, 47: 893-901.Google Scholar
  51. Beard CB, Hamm DM, Collins FH: The mitochondrial genome of the mosquito Anopheles gambiae: DNA sequence, genome organization, and comparisons with mitochondrial sequences of other insects. Insect Mol Biol. 1993, 2: 103-124. 10.1111/j.1365-2583.1993.tb00131.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Rozas J, Rozas R: DnaSP version 3.5: an integrated program for molecular population genetics and molecular evolution analysis. Bioinformatics. 1999, 15: 174-175. 10.1093/bioinformatics/15.2.174.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Tajima F: Statistical method for testing the neutral mutation hypothesis by DNA polymorphism. Genetics. 1989, 123: 585-595.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Fu YX, Li WH: Statistical tests of neutrality of mutations. Genetics. 1993, 143: 1313-1320.Google Scholar
  55. Clement M, Posada D, Crandall KA: TCS: a computer program to estimate gene genealogies. Mol Ecol. 2000, 9: 1657-1659. 10.1046/j.1365-294x.2000.01020.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Templeton AR, Crandall KA, Sing CF: A cladistic analysis of phenotypic associations with haplotypes inferred from restriction endonuclease mapping and DNA sequence data. III. Cladogram estimation. Genetics. 1992, 132: 619-633.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Crandall KA, Templeton AR: Empirical tests of some predictions from coalescent theory with applications to intraspecific phylogeny reconstruction. Genetics. 1993, 134: 959-969.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Lehmann T, Hawley WA, Grebert H, Collins FH: The effective population size of Anopheles gambiae in Kenya: implications for population structure. Mol Biol Evol. 1998, 15: 264-276. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a025923.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Hoffman AA: Acclimation for desiccation resistance in drosophila melanogaster and the association between acclimation responses and genetic variation. J Insect Physiol. 1990, 36: 885-891. 10.1016/0022-1910(90)90176-G.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  60. True JR: Insect melanism: the molecules matter. Trends Ecol Evol. 2003, 18: 640-647. 10.1016/j.tree.2003.09.006.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  61. Ramniwas S, Kajla B, Dev K, Parkash R: Direct and correlated responses to laboratory selection for body melanisation in Drosophila melanogaster: support for the melanisation–desiccation resistance hypothesis. J Exp Biol. 2013, 216: 1244-1254. 10.1242/jeb.076166.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Aggarwal DD, Ranga P, Kalra B, Parkash R, Rashkovetsky E, Bantis LE: Rapid effects of humidity acclimation on stress resistance in Drosophila melanogaster. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 2013, 166: 81-90. 10.1016/j.cbpa.2013.05.012.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Parkash R, Kalra B, Sharma V: Changes in cuticular lipids, water loss and desiccation resistance in a tropical drosophilid: analysis of variation between and within populations. Fly. 2008, 2: 189-197. 10.4161/fly.6619.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Donnelly MJ, Simard F, Lehman T: Evolutionary studies of malaria vectors. Trends Parasitol. 2002, 18: 75-80. 10.1016/S1471-4922(01)02198-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Aboud et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Advertisement