Next Article in Journal
Assessment of Pressure Sources and Water Body Resilience: An Integrated Approach for Action Planning in a Polluted River Basin
Next Article in Special Issue
The Epidemiological Significance and Temporal Stability of Mycobacterial Interspersed Repetitive Units-Variable Number of Tandem Repeats-Based Method Applied to Mycobacterium tuberculosis in China
Previous Article in Journal
Advances in Residential Design Related to the Influence of Geomagnetism
Previous Article in Special Issue
West Nile Virus and Usutu Virus Monitoring of Wild Birds in Germany
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 15
Issue 2
10.3390/ijerph15020389
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

The Role of Culex pipiens L. (Diptera: Culicidae) in Virus Transmission in Europe

by
Victor A. Brugman
1,2,
Luis M. Hernández-Triana
3,
Jolyon M. Medlock
4,5,
Anthony R. Fooks
3,6,
Simon Carpenter
7 and
Nicholas Johnson
3,8,*
1
Evolution Biotechnologies, Colworth Science Park, Sharnbrook, Bedford MK44 1LZ, UK
2
Department of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK
3
Animal and Plant Health Agency, Woodham Lane, Addlestone, Surrey KT15 3NB, UK
4
Public Health England, Porton Down, Salisbury SP4 0JG, UK
5
Health Protection Research Unit in Emerging Infections & Zoonoses, Porton Down, Salisbury SP4 0JG, UK
6
Department of Clinical Infection, Microbiology and Immunology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7BE, UK
7
The Pirbright Institute, Ash Road, Woking, Surrey GU24 0NF, UK
8
Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15(2), 389; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15020389
Submission received: 5 January 2018 / Revised: 15 February 2018 / Accepted: 16 February 2018 / Published: 23 February 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Emerging Infectious Disease (EID) Research, Management and Response)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Over the past three decades, a range of mosquito-borne viruses that threaten public and veterinary health have emerged or re-emerged in Europe. Mosquito surveillance activities have highlighted the Culex pipiens species complex as being critical for the maintenance of a number of these viruses. This species complex contains morphologically similar forms that exhibit variation in phenotypes that can influence the probability of virus transmission. Critical amongst these is the choice of host on which to feed, with different forms showing different feeding preferences. This influences the ability of the mosquito to vector viruses and facilitate transmission of viruses to humans and domestic animals. Biases towards blood-feeding on avian or mammalian hosts have been demonstrated for different Cx. pipiens ecoforms and emerging evidence of hybrid populations across Europe adds another level of complexity to virus transmission. A range of molecular methods based on DNA have been developed to enable discrimination between morphologically indistinguishable forms, although this remains an active area of research. This review provides a comprehensive overview of developments in the understanding of the ecology, behaviour and genetics of Cx. pipiens in Europe, and how this influences arbovirus transmission.

1. Introduction

Mosquitoes are responsible for the biological transmission of a wide diversity of arboviruses (arthropod-borne viruses) that cause diseases in humans, companion animals and livestock [1]. Among the approximately 3500 mosquito species currently recognised worldwide [2,3], only a small number play a primary role in the transmission of arboviruses. The species that do fulfil this role tend to have adopted a degree of anthropophilic behaviour and occur at high abundance and in close proximity to susceptible hosts, primarily through exploitation of larval development sites created by humans.
In Europe, the recent emergence of mosquito-borne arboviruses has focused attention on identifying the species of mosquito that drive pathogen transmission. This phenomenon has occurred simultaneously with the incursion and establishment of several exotic and highly invasive species of mosquito associated with globalised trade. Several species of the Aedes genus have become established following importation and are a notable biting nuisance [4]. Significantly, they change the epidemiological status of the region with respect to the occurrence of vector-borne disease. The first incursion into Europe of Aedes albopictus (Skuse, 1895) was reported in Albania in 1979 [5], followed by Italy in 1990 [6]. The ability of this mosquito to exploit container habitats to breed in urban areas, produce diapausing eggs in temperate regions, and successfully expand through transportation in vehicles along highway systems, has facilitated its movement to more than 28 European countries and its establishment throughout large parts of the Mediterranean Basin [7], with a subsequent spread north. Similarly, since 2005 [8], populations of Ae. aegypti (Linnaeus, 1762) have been reported on the Portuguese island of Madeira and are expanding in the Black Sea region [9]; populations of Ae. japonicus (Theobald, 1901) have become widely established throughout Germany and have been reported from other countries such as Belgium and The Netherlands; and Ae. koreicus (Edwards, 1917) has been reported from Belgium and Italy [10,11]. The involvement of Ae. albopictus in the local transmission of arboviruses previously considered to be exotic, such as chikungunya virus (CHIKV) in Italy [12], is now a major concern for European public health. This species may furthermore facilitate emergence and re-emergence of other viruses including dengue virus (DENV).
In contrast, invasive species of mosquito appear to have had only a limited impact on the transmission of arboviruses that have a longer history of circulation in Europe. The highest profile of these is West Nile virus (WNV), which has been present in this region for at least twenty years. In southern Europe WNV has been detected in the indigenous mosquito species Culex pipiens (L. 1758) [13,14,15,16], which plays a primary role in transmission [17]. This observation has been supported by laboratory studies that demonstrated susceptibility to infection in Cx. pipiens and isolated virus in saliva from fully susceptible individuals. Transmission rates of between 37% and 47% have been reported for populations in Italy where the virus is endemic [18], compared to 33% for populations tested from The Netherlands [19], suggesting that WNV could emerge in northern Europe.
There is no evidence that WNV has reached mosquito populations north of countries surrounding the Mediterranean Sea or south-east Europe, despite the presence of Cx. pipiens in many of these areas. However, the related flavivirus, Usutu virus (USUV), was detected in southern Europe around the same time as WNV, and has emerged in northern European countries including Germany, The Netherlands and Belgium [20]. The principal vector for USUV is also Cx. pipiens and thus the reason for the absence of WNV in northern Europe is not fully understood, but among other factors may be related to the behaviour and distribution of different Cx. pipiens populations across Europe.
Previous reviews have considered the ecology of Cx. pipiens [21,22], current and future threats of mosquito-borne diseases across Europe [23,24] and the influence of a changing climate on vector-borne disease [25,26,27]. This review starts by presenting an overview of key arboviral threats to Europe, with focus on those for which Cx. pipiens is a vector. It then provides an updated overview of the literature relating to the taxonomy, ecology and behaviour of this important mosquito in Europe and examines future directions for research in these areas.

1.1. Viruses Associated with Transmission by Culex pipiens

At least ten arboviruses of medical and veterinary importance that are thought to be primarily transmitted by mosquitoes are currently circulating in Europe (Table 1). Culex pipiens has been shown to play a critical role in the transmission of three of these viruses. Conversely, there is no evidence that Cx. pipiens has contributed to the transmission of viruses such as DENV and CHIKV. Furthermore, experimental evidence overwhelmingly indicates that Cx. pipiens is refractory to Zika virus transmission [28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36], although some results are conflicting [37,38].

1.1.1. Emergence of West Nile Virus in Europe

West Nile virus causes a febrile illness in both humans and horses that generally resolves without complications [44,45]. In a small proportion of cases (usually <1%), infected individuals develop more serious clinical symptoms and signs including encephalitis, meningitis and paralysis, followed by death in severe cases. The first isolation of WNV from the West Nile district of Uganda by Smithburn and co-workers is well documented [46]. Serum prepared from a blood sample taken from a febrile individual was inoculated into mice from which virus was isolated. Following its discovery, research in the 1950s in Africa identified an enzootic transmission cycle involving multiple bird species as natural reservoirs for the virus and mosquitoes as the primary vector group [47].
The majority of countries in sub-Saharan Africa have reported evidence of WNV presence, either through isolation of the virus or through seroprevalence studies [48]. North African countries including Egypt [49], Morocco [50] and Algeria [51] have also reported evidence of WNV. Due to its association with birds, avian migratory behaviour has been considered the most likely means for the translocation of WNV from Africa to northern latitudes [52]. Repeated emergence of WNV in Israel, Italy, France and Spain correspond to bottlenecks of major flyways of migratory birds travelling north as they avoid the Mediterranean Sea, or cross at its narrowest points [53].
West Nile virus has caused sporadic outbreaks of disease in southern Europe in both humans and horses [54]. Phylogenetic analysis has demonstrated at least eight distinct lineages of WNV, of which two, lineages 1 and 2, circulate in Europe [55]. The most significant epidemic occurred in south eastern Romania with a focus in the capital, Bucharest. Almost 400 cases of encephalitis and 17 deaths were reported in 1996, with further cases reported in subsequent years [56]. The Danube delta was considered the potential site of introduction but with transmission in an urban setting. Interest in WNV was also stimulated by its emergence in North America in 1999, initiating a major epidemic outbreak and highlighting its epidemic potential in other countries [57]. The virus caused numerous cases of disease in birds, particularly North American crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos), domestic horses and humans. A wide range of indigenous mosquito species were found to be infected with WNV [58], however, the Cx. pipiens complex was considered to be the principal vector [59,60].
During the first decade of the 21st century, there was an increase in the number of detections of WNV outbreaks in Europe. It remains unclear if this phenomenon was due to more frequent annual re-introduction of WNV or a greater focus on surveillance in the Mediterranean Basin. The successful overwintering of virus in mosquito populations in Italy between 2008 and 2011 was a notable epidemiological shift [61]. The virus causing the outbreaks in Italy and in other countries was identified as belonging to WNV lineage 1 [62]. West Nile virus lineage 2 was first detected in Hungary during 2004 and then spread west and south, reaching Greece prior to 2010. The outbreak in Greece was notable for involving a high number of human cases, including 33 deaths attributed to the infection [14]. Mosquito species from the genus Culex, Aedes and other mosquito genera have been shown to transmit WNV under experimental conditions but the epidemiological significance for natural virus transmission is unclear [63].

1.1.2. Emergence of Usutu Virus in Europe

Usutu virus was first detected in Europe in dead blackbirds (Turdus merula) collected following a wild bird die-off event in Tuscany, Italy, in 1996 [64]. A later emergence in 2001 is better documented due to a highly visible die-off of birds around Vienna, Austria. Submission of blackbirds, great gray owls (Strix nebulosa) and a barn swallow (Hirundo rustica) resulted in detection of virus by histopathology and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) [43]. Usutu virus has emerged in countries across southern Europe and it has subsequently spread north across western and central Europe [65,66]. A small but growing number of documented cases of human infection with USUV have been recorded, although these have often been in patients with additional underlying health conditions [67,68]. However, most cases of USUV infection appear to be asymptomatic [69].
Phylogenetic analysis using complete USUV genomes suggests that there have been multiple introductions of the virus into Europe over the past 50 years and that migrating birds are the most likely mechanism of translocation over long and short distances [20]. Culex pipiens originating from a colony established in the Netherlands have been shown experimentally to be highly susceptible to infection with USUV when compared to WNV, although the ecoform status of the mosquitoes used was not explored [19].

1.1.3. Sindbis Virus in Europe

Sindbis virus (SINV) was first isolated from a pool of Cx. pipiens and/or Culex univittatus (Theobald, 1901) mosquitoes collected from the Sindbis health district, 30 km north of Cairo, Egypt [70]. Infection causes a rash and long-lasting polyarthritis that has been recognised in northern Europe for decades [23,71]. It is known colloquially as Ockelbo disease in Sweden, Pogosta disease in Finland and Karellian fever in Russia. In South Africa it has been reported to cause disease in horses [72]; SINV infection in horses or other domestic animals has not been observed in Europe, possibly due to a lack of surveillance. The virus circulates between birds and mosquitoes with occasional spill over into human populations [73]. Phylogenetic analysis of SINV suggests that there is long distance translocation of the virus, possibly through bird migration [74].
Experimental studies have shown that a range of mosquito species present in Scandinavia are capable of transmitting SINV but that Culex torrentium (Martini, 1925) demonstrated higher infection and transmission rates than Cx. pipiens [75,76]. Subsequent field studies have shown higher rates of SINV infection in wild caught Cx. torrentium than in other species [77] and this is now considered the most important vector species. Although Cx. torrentium is found across Europe and the Middle East, few cases of SINV are reported outside of northern Europe, and are limited to occasional virus isolations [78]. The susceptibility to infection of Cx. torrentium for WNV or USUV has not been defined [79].

1.1.4. Other Viruses Transmitted by Culex Mosquitoes

The other Culex-transmitted viruses detected in Europe include Lednice virus (LEDV) and Rabensberg virus (RABV). LEDV, a bunyavirus, was isolated from Culex modestus (Ficalbi, 1889) in the Czech Republic in 1963 [80]; this mosquito remains the only known vector [81]. RABV is a more recent isolation from the Czech Republic and is a virus related to WNV. It was first isolated from pools of Cx. pipiens collected in 1997 from South Moravia near the border with Austria [82]. Batai virus (BATV) was originally detected in Culex gelidus (Theobald, 1901) in Malaysia in 1955 [24], but in Europe it has been associated with Anopheline species [83].

1.2. Culex pipiens Taxonomy

The taxonomy of the Cx. pipiens complex remains a much debated subject due to the morphological similarity between some species and the varied behaviours exhibited within species [84,85,86,87]. The first description of Cx. pipiens is attributed to Carl Linnaeus in 1758. The complex (or assemblage [86]) of species includes Cx. pipiens, Cx. quinquefasciatus (Say, 1823), Cx. australicus (Dobrotworsky and Drummond, 1953) and Cx. globocoxitus (Dobrotworsky, 1953) with varied geographical distribution that has been modified by the translocation of species between continents [88]. Additionally, some authors include the sibling species Cx. torrentium in taxonomic studies of the complex owing to its similar morphology and larval ecology [85,89]. Within the species Cx. pipiens there are two ecoforms (sometimes called biotypes) recognised, pipiens (L.) and molestus (Forskål, 1775), based primarily on ecological and behavioural traits. The term molestus was first introduced by Petrus Forskål who recognised the species during an expedition to Egypt and the Arabian Peninsula. The behavioural and physiological traits reported as broadly separating the two forms are summarised in Table 2.
Evidence from several studies of European Cx. pipiens populations has indicated that ecoform molestus is a distinct species separate from ecoform pipiens and arose from a single speciation event [85,90,91]. This contrasts with the alternative theory that molestus populations arose from repeated and independent colonisations of underground habitats by aboveground pipiens populations [92,93,94]; other studies have shown equivocal results [95].
Herein, we use the following terms: (1) “Cx. pipiens complex” when referring to the group as a whole, (2) “Cx. pipiens” when referring to specimens separated from Cx. torrentium but no further, (3) “pipiens” and “molestus” in reference to the ecoforms, and (4) “pipiens/molestus” and “pipiens/quinquefasciatus” in reference to hybrid forms where appropriate.

1.3. Delineation of Species, Ecoforms and Hybrids

Differences in the structure of the male genitalia can be used to distinguish members of the complex [85]. However, the lack of distinguishing morphological features to separate females adds complication to the identification of surveillance trap catches where females are usually the target. The presence or absence of behavioural traits such as autogeny (Table 2) have been used to identify between the forms; however, this approach is not a consistently reliable method for separating the ecoforms. Furthermore, demonstrating autogeny in wild-caught populations is labour intensive, requiring the collection and rearing of larvae, and is therefore impractical for large scale screening. This has led to the development of several molecular techniques for differentiating the two ecoforms and their hybrids (Table 3).
Initial differentiation techniques were aimed at identifying polymorphisms at 20 loci in order to differentiate above and belowground breeding populations associated with the London Underground, and to examine gene flow [92]. This method was developed to include sequence comparison of up to 11 concatenated sequences to enable phylogenetic distinction of the two ecoforms [85]. An alternative approach compared polymorphic microsatellite markers amplified to generate fingerprints for autogenous and anautogenous populations [90,96]. Subsequent methodologies have largely been based on the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), DNA sequencing or restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) (Table 3). Many of these have focused on a single locus to distinguish between the two forms, particularly the CQ11 locus [97] (Figure 1). This end-point PCR approach is often preceded by the use of a multiplex PCR to separate Cx. torrentium from Cx. pipiens [98] (Figure 1), although identification via comparative wing morphometrics can be used for this [99]. In a further modification, fluorescent probes have been developed that selectively bind to the polymorphisms within the same real-time PCR amplification [100]. Some authors have expressed caution in using only a single diagnostic marker for the identification of the Cx. pipiens complex [101,102], and advocate the use of multiple targets for maximum taxonomic clarity. For example, although a nucleotide substitution from G to A at the 3rd position of the 68th codon of the COI gene was reported as being diagnostic for form molestus over form pipiens [91], this finding was not replicated in a subsequent UK study that targeted the same region [103]. In an attempt to avoid differences between assays, a recent study employed a combined four-point approach to characterising Mediterranean Cx. pipiens populations, using assays targeting the CQ11, ace-2, COI and Wolbachia (wPip) infection typing markers [102].
An alternative approach to species delineation is the application of matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS). While this application is still in relative infancy, it has been used for the identification of various vector groups [111,112,113] and in future it may be possible to use this to define ecoforms of Cx. pipiens based on changes in protein expression.

1.4. Distribution and Hybridisation

Culex pipiens is widely distributed across Eurasia and further afield [22,90]. Our understanding of the local and regional distribution of its ecoforms has, however, developed only relatively recently, aided by the increasing use of molecular species delineation methods. There remains, however, a poor understanding of the relationship between the genetics of the ecoforms and their phenotype [103]. Initial evidence indicated a fairly consistent separation between the habitats of each ecoform: the ubiquitous pipiens ecoform was associated with natural and artificial aboveground habitats across rural and urban areas and the molestus form was found in urban underground habitats [22]. Particularly in northern Europe, this habitat distinction was believed to serve as a barrier to hybridisation between the forms and this was supported by limited success in breeding between forms under laboratory conditions [90,92].
Present evidence, however, suggests that this habitat separation is far less rigid, with cross-breeding experiments and analysis of genetic markers from field and colony specimens indicating that inter-breeding populations of pipiens and molestus can be found sympatrically in both above- and belowground urban habitats, as well as in rural and semi-rural areas [100,103,110,114,115,116,117,118,119]. Indeed, natural hybrid pipiens/molestus forms have now been reported from at least 12 European countries (Figure 2a) with reported rates of hybridisation of up to 25.7% [116]. The relative abundance of each of the forms and hybridisation rates have been found to vary across latitudes, with the proportion of molestus populations relative to pipiens increasing from northern to southern latitudes [120]. To add further complexity, hybridisation of Cx. pipiens with Cx. quinquefasciatus has been reported from the Mediterranean Basin (Figure 2b) [102,121,122], despite sympatric populations of these species existing without hybridisation in East Africa [123].
The occurrence of natural hybrid populations has important consequences for the risks of pathogen transmission [124]. Changes to mosquito host preference, vector competence, the occurrence of autogeny and the ability to forgo diapause and continue reproduction through the winter months may all alter virus transmission dynamics. This may have contributed to the persistence of WNV in Romania during the 1990s where the presence of mosquitoes indoors and in flooded basements were considered risk factors for human infection [125]. Additionally, the strains of the endosymbiont Wolbachia pipientis associated with Cx. quinquefasciatus and the different ecoforms of Cx. pipiens differ [102], and the impact of such differences on vector competence is not fully understood. Studies of Cx. pipiens populations in Portugal demonstrated that gene flow occurred predominantly from the molestus to the pipiens form [119]. Asymmetric gene flow in this fashion could alter feeding preferences of Cx. pipiens from an ornithophilic to mammalophilic feeding preference, as demonstrated in the USA [126]. The vector competence of molestus populations to WNV in The Netherlands was lower (6–10%) than that of pipiens (0–32%) and hybrid (0–14%) forms [127]. In this context, gene flow from pipiens to molestus could result in increased vector competence and thus may be equally important in influencing local pathogen transmission dynamics.
Culex torrentium has also been reported from many countries across Europe (Figure 3) where its larvae are often found in sympatry with Cx. pipiens [89,114,128,129]. In many studies little morphological separation is performed [79], thus masking the true distribution of the two species. Initially believed to be a rare European species [130], Cx. torrentium is now recognised to be widespread in northern and central regions of Europe [79,89]. When compared with Cx. pipiens, these species form an apparent contrasting gradient of abundance: in northern regions Cx. torrentium dominates, in central Europe both species exist in similar proportions, and in southern Europe Cx. pipiens is the dominant species and Cx. torrentium is rarely reported [89]. The current distribution of Cx. torrentium may reflect a range expansion, perhaps in response to favourable anthroponotic environmental changes [110], but the misidentification of females as Cx. pipiens prior to the widespread use of molecular analyses may have hindered information on its distribution.

1.5. Culex pipiens Blood-Feeding Behaviour

A critical behavioural trait relevant to arthropod-borne virus transmission is a vector’s host feeding pattern. Host selection determines the exposure of a mosquito to pathogens and its involvement in enzootic, zoonotic or anthroponotic transmission cycles [131]. Host selection by mosquitoes is a complex phenomenon, influenced by an interplay of genetic and environmental factors [132]. The latter includes the local and seasonal presence of vertebrate hosts [133], host defensive behaviour against biting [134] and the presence of pathogens in the arthropod, host, or both, which may influence rates of vector-host contact [135,136,137,138,139]. Evidence for preferential feeding on specific hosts may be derived from studies that identify the blood meal hosts of wild-caught engorged mosquitoes, or semi-field or laboratory tests offering a choice of feeding from different hosts [132].
The pipiens ecoform is considered to be almost exclusively ornithophilic (bird-feeding), whilst the molestus ecoform feeds on other mammalian hosts, including humans [140,141] (Table 2). Here, we collated data from 29 European studies identifying the blood meals of Cx. pipiens (Table 4).
Collectively, these data show feeding of Cx. pipiens on a wide range of hosts encompassing mammals (eight orders, 12 families and 17 species), birds (14 orders, 33 families, 82 species) and reptiles (two orders, three families, three species). Eight of these studies identified specimens to ecoform, and three of these [117,147,149] successfully collected blood-fed specimens of both ecoforms and their hybrids, identified by sequence analysis of the CQ11 locus. Collectively, these latter three studies identified both ecoforms and their hybrids as feeding on both mammals and birds. Interestingly, all found that birds were highly utilised by the pipiens and molestus ecoforms plus their hybrids (Figure 4), with no significant differences in feeding preference between the forms. These results contrast with findings in the USA showing that specimens with a higher proportion of molestus ancestry fed more frequently on humans [170,171]. Reasons for these disparate findings may lie with geographic or seasonal differences in host availability, the relatively low sample sizes inherent with the challenges of collecting blood-fed specimens, or with differences in the microsatellite markers used to identify the forms in each study.
Relatively few manipulative comparisons of host selection, whereby mosquitoes are offered choices to feed on different hosts, have been carried out with Cx. pipiens under field, semi-field or laboratory conditions. Preferential attraction was recorded towards chicks by the pipiens ecoform, to humans by the molestus ecoform, and intermediate feeding behaviour in pipiens/molestus hybrids from field-collected populations in Chicago, USA [126]. Choice tests can be an effective method to compare feeding preferences between individual hosts, but to our knowledge, these have not been conducted to compare the ecoforms and hybrids of European populations of Cx. pipiens.
Field studies collecting mosquitoes attempting to feed on live human or animal baits can also greatly contribute to our understanding of host preference [172]. Several field studies have reported human-biting Cx. pipiens; studies in Portugal [149] and the UK [173] collected both pipiens and molestus ecoforms by human landing catch. Although the study in Portugal identified human blood in one engorged pipiens female [149], the specimens collected by human landing catch in both studies did not contain blood to permit confirmation of human feeding. However, this collection method is considered the gold-standard approach for assessing mosquito-human contact rates, with mosquito feeding (or at least probing) assumed to occur after landing [172]. Combining these field data with laboratory choice tests and, although challenging, with blood meal studies that are coupled with comprehensive surveys of vertebrate hosts in the sample area to assess the impact of host availability, will contribute further to our understanding of host selection and preference of members of the Culex pipiens complex. However, studies where wild mosquitoes are offered a choice of host are very rare and findings such as those reported above could therefore represent opportunistic feeding rather than a true preference.

2. Future Research Directions

Our understanding of the Cx. pipiens complex has expanded rapidly in recent years, but there remain many intriguing and as yet unexplored questions concerning their biology and ecology. Below we highlight four areas of research important to defining the impact of Cx. pipiens on present and future virus transmission in Europe.
(1) What factors lead to successful arbovirus transmission by populations of Culex pipiens?
The distribution of Culex-transmitted arboviruses is not uniform across Europe. Identification of the different factors that lead to successful transmission of viruses and those that preclude virus emergence are critical to understanding this distribution. Northern Europe has seasonally abundant populations of Cx. pipiens that appear to support transmission of USUV but not WNV [174]. This suggests environmental and climatic factors alone cannot explain the absence of WNV from countries such as Germany, Poland, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom. In North America, Culex species, including Cx. pipiens, enabled rapid spread of West Nile virus across the continent with no apparent barriers. Expanding upon recent work [120] investigating the distribution of the ecoforms of Cx. pipiens across Europe is essential to furthering our understanding of the relationship between the ecoforms and their hybrids with current arbovirus distribution patterns. Furthermore, as many important arboviruses exist in bird-mosquito-bird transmission cycles, identifying hotspots of high mosquito and resident and migratory bird populations will enable better targeting of interventions in advance of a novel virus introduction. Such hotspots may include rural wetland areas [168,175] but could, increasingly, include more urbanised areas [176,177,178]. At the level of the mosquito, there remain many questions regarding the complex interplay of genetic and environmental factors that influence vector competence and mosquito-virus-host interactions. These include the extrinsic incubation period, viral adaptivity, mosquito and host immunity and mosquito behaviour. In reference to the latter, newly-emerged Australian ecoform molestus females preferentially delay blood-feeding until after laying their first egg batch [179]. If such high levels of obligatory autogeny exist in European populations, this would not only provide a highly beneficial population survival mechanism but may influence the transovarial maintenance of virus through several generations. Finally, the survival of virus in overwintering Cx. pipiens is likely a critical factor involved in the maintenance of transmission cycles in Europe; a recent study detected WNV RNA in overwintering Cx. pipiens in the Czech Republic [180]. Further investigation of the factors influencing overwintering survival, post-hibernation emergence, and subsequent dispersal of Cx. pipiens and its ecoforms, as conducted elsewhere [181,182], will improve our understanding of the role of overwintering in virus maintenance, particularly in regions of Europe that experience colder winters.
(2) What are the potential impacts of a changing environment?
That climate changes are occurring and will impact both native and non-native arthropod fauna worldwide is well established. The potential influences on arthropod-borne pathogens have been explored [25,26,27], although the specific effects will vary considerably according to mosquito species biology and the region concerned [183]. Anthroponotic changes influencing the structure of the environment may be equally important in altering mosquito populations at the local or regional scale [184,185]. For example, the creation of urban wetlands as part of sewage treatment works [178] could increase available eutrophic habitat particularly suitable for ecoform molestus [85]. Increasing urbanisation could provide additional container habitats suitable for existing urban mosquito populations, or facilitate an adaptive shift by other species towards the utilisation of urban habitats, as evidenced by an increasing urban population of Anopheles plumbeus (Stephens, 1828) in various parts of north-western Europe [176,177,186,187]. Urban centres could be at further risk of vector-borne disease if existing temperature rises were compounded by the urban heat island effect in such locations, although the precise effects of this phenomenon on pathogen transmission risk are likely to be complex [185,188]. The storage of water during periods of drought could additionally provide increased urban habitat for mosquito breeding [189], whilst the reversion of arable land to wetlands could provide further habitat for Culex mosquitoes and provide a location where grazing animals come into contact with migratory birds [175].
(3) What are the key factors influencing rates of hybridisation?
The variable rates of hybridisation in European populations between sympatric populations of pipiens and molestus ecoforms indicate the existence of multiple barriers to hybridisation that extend beyond simple allopatric reproductive isolation. Although in parts of Europe hybridisation rates are low, rates in southern Europe may approach those reported from northern Africa [122,190]. To what extent reproductive barriers are behavioural, such as environmental requirements for swarm formation or specificity of matched wing beat frequencies [191,192], or intrinsic, for example mediated by commensal Wolbachia strains and cytoplasmic incompatibility [109,193], is currently unknown. Furthermore, although human-mediated transport of mosquitoes may facilitate long-distance species translocation and provide opportunities for hybridisation aboveground [121], to what extent are belowground molestus populations able to disperse within and beyond their existing habitats? Approaches such as the use of mark-release-recapture aided by fluorescently- or immune-marked insects [194,195] in belowground systems could, for example, reveal the dispersal potential of form molestus.
(4) How do the olfactory responses to semiochemicals of host and environmental origin differ?
Furthering the understanding of the responses of the Cx. pipiens complex to volatile compounds produced by vertebrate hosts, nectar sources and larval habitats will facilitate the development of novel repellents, attractants and more optimal approaches to surveillance and control. To date, the olfactory responses of Culex species to host odours have been investigated for Cx. quinquefasciatus [196,197], and to flower odours in ecoform pipiens [198] and molestus [199]. However, directly comparative studies of the olfactory responses between the ecoforms have not been conducted, and paired trap comparison studies comparing above- and belowground collections remain unexplored. Recent work has shown that ecoforms pipiens and molestus, plus their hybrids, were collected in similar ratios by BG-Sentinel and Mosquito Magnet Liberty Plus traps [120]. However, Cx. torrentium was found to be under-represented in CDC light trap catches in Germany and Sweden in comparison to Cx. pipiens [200,201] and although the authors did not molecularly identify specimens to ecoform, these results illustrate the need for further field investigation using other trap types.
In summary, it is vital that data on members of the Cx. pipiens complex is collected from countries across Europe and at a range of geographic scales that reflect different ecological zones. Comparisons should also be made between urban and rural populations and those in intermediate areas. Habitat differences may be more important in influencing distribution and hybridisation rates than broader latitudinal trends [118,120]. Studies conducted at the regional, national and pan-European level will provide critical data to model trends in mosquito biology and virus transmission, and to better inform regional approaches to surveillance and control. However, these large-scale studies cannot replace targeted field-based studies which are critical to understand the factors influencing transmission at the level of the vector and its hosts in different local habitats. Finally, although these research questions span several fields, it has become increasingly clear that future studies should, insofar as is possible, identify Cx. pipiens to the level of both species and ecoform. The continued decrease in costs and increase in the speed of molecular identification approaches will no doubt greatly contribute towards this goal.

3. Conclusions

Current evidence from across Europe highlights the importance of the Cx. pipiens complex in the current and potential future transmission of important medical and veterinary arboviruses. It is therefore imperative that a concerted effort be made between research and governmental agencies across Europe to better target future sampling efforts to answer the remaining questions concerning the ecology and genetics of mosquito and pathogen that influence this association.
Surveillance for mosquito-borne viruses in mosquito populations varies widely across Europe [17]. Extensive surveillance is conducted in northern Italy where cases of WNV occur annually in an attempt to detect virus in mosquitoes populations [202]. This offers the opportunity for public health authorities to warn health professionals before the occurrence of human disease. Both Germany and Switzerland conduct extensive surveillance to detect invasive mosquitoes and the emergence of virus infections. This has proven useful in mapping the spread of USUV across Europe. In the majority of countries across Europe, however, surveillance is reactive in response to disease outbreaks or changes in the mosquito population [203].
The extent of the distribution of the specific forms of Cx. pipiens is just beginning to be defined. However, evidence indicates that latitudinal differences in the distribution of Cx. pipiens forms and their hybrids, together with the distribution of the sibling species Cx. torrentium, may influence the transmission dynamics of arboviruses in Europe. However, the picture is more complicated than simply this fact and will include the effect of different environmental conditions on the life cycle and behaviour of the mosquitoes, as well as intrinsic factors such as vector competence. In addition, despite the importance of this species in current and potential pathogen transmission, increasing our understanding of how species complexes as a whole function within an ecosystem to contribute to pathogen transmission is vitally important. For example, Rift Valley fever virus outbreaks involve multiple species that act sequentially depending on environmental circumstances. Therefore, maintenance of surveillance approaches that target a wide range of mosquito species should be used.
Current evidence continues to support the importance of birds as a major blood-meal host for Cx. pipiens across Europe. However, there is considerable evidence from blood meal and host-baited studies that ecoform pipiens can also take blood meals from humans and other mammals. Conversely, ecoform molestus also feeds to a considerable extent on birds, in many cases to the same degree as the pipiens ecoform. Therefore, it may be necessary to take a broader view and consider the potential for both ecoforms to act as enzootic and bridge vectors of medically important arboviruses.

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Scottish and Welsh Governments through grant SE4113.

Author Contributions

Nicholas Johnson and Victor A. Brugman conceived the review. Victor A. Brugman, Luis M. Hernández-Triana, Jolyon M. Medlock, Anthony R. Fooks, Simon Carpenter and Nicholas Johnson wrote the paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

References used for the production of maps showing country-level presence of the following species:

References

  1. Gratz, N.G. The Vector- and Rodent-Borne Diseases of Europe and North America: Their Distribution and Public Health Burden; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2006; ISBN 9780511541896. [Google Scholar]
  2. Harbach, R.E. Mosquito Taxonomic Inventory. Available online: http://mosquito-taxonomic-inventory.info (accessed on 16 September 2015).
  3. Harbach, R.E.; Howard, T.M. Index of currently recognized mosquito species (Diptera: Culicidae). Eur. Mosq. Bull. 2007, 23, 1–66. [Google Scholar]
  4. Medlock, J.M.; Hansford, K.M.; Versteirt, V.; Cull, B.; Kampen, H.; Fontenille, D.; Hendrickx, G.; Zeller, H.; van Bortel, W.; Schaffner, F. An entomological review of invasive mosquitoes in Europe. Bull. Entomol. Res. 2015, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Adhami, J.; Reiter, P. Introduction and establishment of Aedes (Stegomyia) albopictus Skuse (Diptera: Culicidae) in Albania. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 1998, 14, 340–343. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  6. Sabatini, A.; Raineri, V.; Trovato, G.; Coluzzi, M. Aedes albopictus in Italy and possible diffusion of the species into the Mediterranean area. Parassitologia 1990, 32, 301–304. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  7. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Aedes Albopictus—Factsheet for Experts; European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control: Solna, Sweden, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  8. Margarita, Y.; Grácio, A.J.; Lencastre, I.; Silva, A.C.; Novo, M.T.; Sousa, C.A. First record of Aedes (Stegomyia) aegypti (Linnaeus, 1762) (Diptera, Culicidae) in Madeira Island-Portugal. Acta Parasitológica Port. 2006, 13, 59–61. [Google Scholar]
  9. Akiner, M.M.; Demirci, B.; Babuadze, G.; Robert, V.; Schaffner, F. Spread of the invasive mosquitoes Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus in the Black Sea region increases risk of Chikungunya, Dengue, and Zika outbreaks in Europe. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2016, 10, e0004664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Versteirt, V.; de Clercq, E.M.; Fonseca, D.M.; Pecor, J.; Schaffner, F.; Coosemans, M.; van Bortel, W. Bionomics of the established exotic mosquito species Aedes koreicus in Belgium, Europe. J. Med. Entomol. 2012, 49, 1226–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  11. Capelli, G.; Drago, A.; Martini, S.; Montarsi, F.; Soppelsa, M.; Delai, N.; Ravagnan, S.; Mazzon, L.; Schaffner, F.; Mathis, A.; et al. First report in Italy of the exotic mosquito species Aedes (Finlaya) koreicus, a potential vector of arboviruses and filariae. Parasit. Vectors 2011, 4, 188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Beltrame, A.; Angheben, A.; Bisoffi, Z.; Monteiro, G.; Marocco, S.; Calleri, G.; Lipani, F.; Gobbi, F.; Canta, F.; Castelli, F.; et al. Imported chikungunya infection, Italy. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2007, 13, 1264–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Calzolari, M.; Bonilauri, P.; Bellini, R.; Albieri, A.; Defilippo, F.; Maioli, G.; Galletti, G.; Gelati, A.; Barbieri, I.; Tamba, M.; et al. Evidence of simultaneous circulation of West Nile and Usutu viruses in mosquitoes sampled in Emilia-Romagna region (Italy) in 2009. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e14324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Papa, A.; Xanthopoulou, K.; Gewehr, S.; Mourelatos, S. Detection of West Nile virus lineage 2 in mosquitoes during a human outbreak in Greece. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2011, 17, 1176–1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Savini, G.; Capelli, G.; Monaco, F.; Polci, A.; Russo, F.; Di Gennaro, A.; Marini, V.; Teodori, L.; Montarsi, F.; Pinoni, C.; et al. Evidence of West Nile virus lineage 2 circulation in Northern Italy. Vet. Microbiol. 2012, 158, 267–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Almeida, A.P.G.; Freitas, F.B.; Novo, M.T.; Sousa, C.A.; Rodrigues, J.C.; Alves, R.; Esteves, A. Mosquito surveys and West Nile virus screening in two different areas of southern Portugal, 2004–2007. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2010, 10, 673–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Engler, O.; Savini, G.; Papa, A.; Figuerola, J.; Groschup, M.H.; Kampen, H.; Medlock, J.M.; Vaux, A.G.C.; Wilson, A.J.; Werner, D.; et al. European surveillance for West Nile virus in mosquito populations. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 10, 4869–4895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Fortuna, C.; Remoli, M.E.; Di Luca, M.; Severini, F.; Toma, L.; Benedetti, E.; Bucci, P.; Montarsi, F.; Minelli, G.; Boccolini, D.; et al. Experimental studies on comparison of the vector competence of four Italian Culex pipiens populations for West Nile virus. Parasit. Vectors 2015, 8, 463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Fros, J.J.; Miesen, P.; Vogels, C.B.; Gaibani, P.; Sambri, V.; Martina, B.E.; Koenraadt, C.J.; van Rij, R.P.; Vlak, J.M.; Takken, W.; et al. Comparative Usutu and West Nile virus transmission potential by local Culex pipiens mosquitoes in north-western Europe. One Heal. 2015, 1, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Engel, D.; Jöst, H.; Wink, M.; Börstler, J.; Bosch, S.; Garigliany, M.M.; Jöst, A.; Czajka, C.; Lühken, R.; Ziegler, U.; et al. Reconstruction of the evolutionary history and dispersal of Usutu virus, a neglected emerging arbovirus in Europe and Africa. mBio 2016, 7, e01938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Farajollahi, A.; Fonseca, D.M.; Kramer, L.D.; Kilpatrick, A.M. “Bird biting” mosquitoes and human disease: A review of the role of Culex pipiens complex mosquitoes in epidemiology. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2011, 11, 1577–1585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Vinogradova, E.B. Culex pipiens pipiens mosquitoes: Taxonomy, distribution, ecology, physiology, genetics, applied importance and control. Pensoft Ser. Parasitol. 2000, 2, 250. [Google Scholar]
  23. Lundström, J.O. Mosquito-borne viruses in western Europe: A review. J. Vector Ecol. 1999, 24, 1–39. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  24. Hubálek, Z. Mosquito-borne viruses in Europe. Parasitol. Res. 2008, 103, S29–S43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Snow, K.R.; Medlock, J.M. The potential impact of climate change on the distribution and prevalence of mosquitoes in Britain. Eur. Mosq. Bull. 2006, 21, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  26. Becker, N. Influence of climate change on mosquito development and mosquito-borne diseases in Europe. Parasitol. Res. 2008, 103, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Gould, E.A.; Higgs, S. Impact of climate change and other factors on emerging arbovirus diseases. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2009, 103, 109–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Aliota, M.T.; Peinado, S.A.; Osorio, J.E.; Bartholomay, L.C. Culex pipiens and Aedes triseriatus mosquito susceptibility to Zika Virus. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2016, 22, 1857–1859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Kenney, J.L.; Romo, H.; Duggal, N.K.; Tzeng, W.P.; Burkhalter, K.L.; Brault, A.C.; Savage, H.M. Transmission incompetence of Culex quinquefasciatus and Culex pipiens pipiens from North America for Zika virus. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2017, 96, 1235–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Heitmann, A.; Jansen, S.; Lühken, R.; Leggewie, M.; Badusche, M.; Pluskota, B.; Becker, N.; Vapalahti, O.; Schmidt-Chanasit, J.; Tannich, E. Experimental transmission of zika virus by mosquitoes from central Europe. Eurosurveillance 2017, 22, 30437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Amraoui, F.; Atyame-Nten, C.; Vega-Rúa, A.; Lourenço-De-Oliveira, R.; Vazeille, M.; Failloux, A.B. Culex mosquitoes are experimentally unable to transmit zika virus. Eurosurveillance 2016, 21, 30333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Boccolini, D.; Toma, L.; Di Luca, M.; Severini, F.; Romi, R.; Remoli, M.E.; Sabbatucci, M.; Venturi, G.; Rezza, G.; Fortuna, C. Experimental investigation of the susceptibility of Italian Culex pipiens mosquitoes to zika virus infection. Eurosurveillance 2016, 21, 30328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Hart, C.E.; Roundy, C.M.; Azar, S.R.; Huang, J.H.; Yun, R.; Reynolds, E.; Leal, G.; Nava, M.R.; Vela, J.; Stark, P.M.; et al. Zika virus vector competency of mosquitoes, Gulf Coast, United States. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2017, 23, 559–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Weger-Lucarelli, J.; Rückert, C.; Chotiwan, N.; Nguyen, C.; Garcia Luna, S.M.; Fauver, J.R.; Foy, B.D.; Perera, R.; Black, W.C.; Kading, R.C.; et al. Vector competence of American mosquitoes for three strains of Zika virus. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2016, 10, e0005101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Liu, Z.; Zhou, T.; Lai, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Jia, Z.; Zhou, G.; Williams, T.; Xu, J.; Gu, J.; Zhou, X.; et al. Competence of Aedes aegypti, Ae. albopictus, and Culex quinquefasciatus mosquitoes as Zika virus vectors, China. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2017, 23, 1085–1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Huang, Y.-J.S.; Ayers, V.B.; Lyons, A.C.; Unlu, I.; Alto, B.W.; Cohnstaedt, L.W.; Higgs, S.; Vanlandingham, D.L. Culex species mosquitoes and Zika virus. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2016, 16, 673–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Guo, X.X.; Li, C.X.; Deng, Y.Q.; Xing, D.; Liu, Q.M.; Wu, Q.; Sun, A.J.; Dong, Y.D.; Cao, W.C.; Qin, C.F.; et al. Culex pipiens quinquefasciatus: A potential vector to transmit Zika virus. Emerg. Microbes Infect. 2016, 5, e102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Guedes, D.R.D.; Paiva, M.H.S.; Donato, M.M.A.; Barbosa, P.P.; Krokovsky, L.; Rocha, S.W.S.; Saraiva, K.L.A.; Crespo, M.M.; Rezende, T.M.T.; Wallau, G.L.; et al. Zika virus replication in the mosquito Culex quinquefasciatus in Brazil. Emerg. Microbes Infect. 2017, 6, e69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Medlock, J.M.; Snow, K.R.; Leach, S.A. Possible ecology and epidemiology of medically important mosquito-borne arboviruses in Great Britain. Epidemiol. Infect. 2007, 135, 466–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Becker, N.; Jöst, H.; Ziegler, U.; Eiden, M.; Höper, D.; Emmerich, P.; Fichet-Calvet, E.; Ehichioya, D.U.; Czajka, C.; Gabriel, M.; et al. Epizootic emergence of Usutu virus in wild and captive birds in Germany. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e32604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Tomasello, D.; Schlagenhauf, P. Chikungunya and dengue autochthonous cases in Europe, 2007–2012. Travel Med. Infect. Dis. 2013, 11, 274–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Pecorari, M.; Longo, G.; Gennari, W.; Grottola, A.; Sabbatini, A.; Tagliazucchi, S.; Savini, G.; Monaco, F.; Simone, M.L.; Lelli, R.; et al. First human case of Usutu virus neuroinvasive infection, Italy, August–September 2009. Euro. Surveill. 2009, 14, 19446. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  43. Weissenböck, H.; Kolodziejek, J.; Url, A.; Lussy, H.; Rebel-Bauder, B.; Nowotny, N. Emergence of Usutu virus, an African mosquito-borne Flavivirus of the Japanese encephalitis virus group, central Europe. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2002, 8, 652–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Campbell, G.L.; Marfin, A.A.; Lanciotti, R.S.; Gubler, D.J. West Nile virus. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2002, 2, 519–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bunning, M.L.; Bowen, R.A.; Bruce Cropp, C.; Sullivan, K.G.; Davis, B.S.; Komar, N.; Godsey, M.S.; Baker, D.; Hettler, D.L.; Holmes, D.A.; et al. Experimental infection of horses with West Nile virus. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2002, 8, 380–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Smithburn, K.C.; Hughes, T.P.; Burke, A.W.; Paul, J.H. A neurotropic virus isolated from the blood of a native of Uganda. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 1940, 20, 471–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Work, T.H.; Hurlbut, H.S.; Taylor, R.M. Indigenous wild birds of the Nile-delta as potential West Nile virus circulating reservoirs. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 1955, 4, 872–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Cabre, O.; Grandadam, M.; Marié, J.-L.; Gravier, P.; Prangé, A.; Santinelli, Y.; Rous, V.; Bourry, O.; Durand, J.-P.; Tolou, H.; et al. West Nile Virus in horses, sub-Saharan Africa. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2006, 12, 1958–1960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Melnick, J.L.; Paul, J.R.; Riordan, J.T.; Barnett, V.H.; Goldblum, N.; Zabin, E. Isolation from human sera in Egypt of a virus apparently identical to West Nile Virus. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 1951, 77, 661–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Schuffenecker, I.; Peyrefitte, C.N.; El Harrak, M.; Murri, S.; Leblond, A.; Zeller, H.G. West Nile Virus in Morocco, 2003. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2005, 11, 306–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Lafri, I.; Prat, C.M.; Bitam, I.; Gravier, P.; Besbaci, M.; Zeroual, F.; Ben-Mahdi, M.H.; Davoust, B.; Leparc-Goffart, I. Seroprevalence of West Nile virus antibodies in equids in the North-East of Algeria and detection of virus circulation in 2014. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2017, 50, 8–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Rappole, J.H.; Hubálek, Z. Migratory birds and West Nile virus. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2003, 94, 47S–58S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Jourdain, E.; Gauthier-Clerc, M.; Bicout, D.J.; Sabatier, P. Bird migration routes and risk for pathogen dispersion into western Mediterranean wetlands. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2007, 13, 365–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Nikolay, B. A review of West Nile and Usutu virus co-circulation in Europe: How much do transmission cycles overlap? Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2015, 109, 609–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Fall, G.; Di Paola, N.; Faye, M.; Dia, M.; de Melo Freire, C.C.; Loucoubar, C.; de Andrade Zanotto, P.M.; Faye, O.; Sall, A.A. Biological and phylogenetic characteristics of West African lineages of West Nile virus. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2017, 11, e0006078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Cernescu, C.; Nedelcu, N.I.; Tardei, G.; Ruta, S.; Tsai, T.F. Continued transmission of West Nile virus to humans in southeastern Romania, 1997–1998. J. Infect. Dis. 2000, 181, 710–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Lanciotti, R.S. Origin of the West Nile virus responsible for an outbreak of encephalitis in the Northeastern United States. Science 1999, 286, 2333–2337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Hayes, E.B.; Komar, N.; Nasci, R.S.; Montgomery, S.P.; O’Leary, D.R.; Campbell, G.L. Epidemiology and transmission dynamics of West Nile virus disease. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2005, 11, 1167–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Hamer, G.; Kitron, U.D.; Goldberg, T.L.; Brawn, J.D.; Loss, S.R.; Ruiz, M.O.; Hayes, D.B.; Walker, E.D. Host selection by Culex pipiens mosquitoes and West Nile virus amplification. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2009, 80, 268–278. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  60. Andreadis, T.G. The contribution of Culex pipiens complex mosquitoes to transmission and persistence of West Nile virus in North America. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 2012, 28, 137–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Calzolari, M.; Bonilauri, P.; Bellini, R.; Albieri, A.; Defilippo, F.; Tamba, M.; Tassinari, M.; Gelati, A.; Cordioli, P.; Angelini, P.; et al. Usutu virus persistence and West Nile virus inactivity in the Emilia-Romagna region (Italy) in 2011. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e63978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Sotelo, E.; Fernández-Pinero, J.; Llorente, F.; Vázquez, A.; Moreno, A.; Agüero, M.; Cordioli, P.; Tenorio, A.; Jimeénez-Clavero, M.Á. Phylogenetic relationships of Western Mediterranean West Nile virus strains (1996–2010) using full-length genome sequences: Single or multiple introductions? J. Gen. Virol. 2011, 92, 2512–2522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Vogels, C.B.F.; Göertz, G.P.; Pijlman, G.P.; Koenraadt, C.J.M. Vector competence of European mosquitoes for West Nile virus. Emerg. Microbes Infect. 2017, 6, e96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Mani, P.; Rossi, G.; Perrucci, S.; Bertini, S. Mortality of Turdus merula in Tuscany. Sel. Vet. 1998, 8, 749–753. [Google Scholar]
  65. Cadar, D.; Lühken, R.; van der Jeugd, H.; Garigliany, M.; Ziegler, U.; Keller, M.; Lahoreau, J.; Lachmann, L.; Becker, N.; Kik, M.; et al. Widespread activity of multiple lineages of Usutu virus, Western Europe, 2016. Eurosurveillance 2017, 22, 30452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Bakonyi, T.; Erdélyi, K.; Brunthaler, R.; Dán, Á.; Weissenböck, H.; Nowotny, N. Usutu virus, Austria and Hungary, 2010–2016. Emerg. Microbes Infect. 2017, 6, e85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Cavrini, F.; Gaibani, P.; Longo, G.; Pierro, A.M.; Rossini, G.; Bonilauri, P.; Gerundi, G.E.; Di Benedetto, F.; Pasetto, A.; Girardis, M.; et al. Usutu virus infection in a patient who underwent orthotropic liver transplantation, Italy, August–September 2009. Eurosurveillance 2009, 14, 19448. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  68. Santini, M.; Vilibic-Cavlek, T.; Barsic, B.; Barbic, L.; Savic, V.; Stevanovic, V.; Listes, E.; Di Gennaro, A.; Savini, G. First cases of human Usutu virus neuroinvasive infection in Croatia, August–September 2013: Clinical and laboratory features. J. Neurovirol. 2014, 21, 92–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Cadar, D.; Maier, P.; Müller, S.; Kress, J.; Chudy, M.; Bialonski, A.; Schlaphof, A.; Jansen, S.; Jöst, H.; Tannich, E.; et al. Blood donor screening for west nile virus (WNV) revealed acute usutu virus (USUV) infection, Germany, September 2016. Eurosurveillance 2017, 22, 30501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Taylor, R.M.; Hurlbut, H.S.; Work, T.H.; Kingston, J.R.; Frothingham, T.E. Sindbis virus: A newly recognized arthropod-transmitted virus. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 1955, 4, 844–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Espmark, A.; Niklasson, B. Ockelbo disease in Sweden: epidemiological, clinical, and virological data from the 1982 outbreak. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 1984, 33, 1203–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Van Niekerk, S.; Human, S.; Williams, J.; van Wilpe, E.; Pretorius, M.; Swanepoel, R.; Venter, M. Sindbis and Middelburg old world alphaviruses associated with neurologic disease in horses, South Africa. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2015, 21, 2225–2229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Adouchief, S.; Smura, T.; Sane, J.; Vapalahti, O.; Kurkela, S. Sindbis virus as a human pathogen—Epidemiology, clinical picture and pathogenesis. Rev. Med. Virol. 2016, 26, 221–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Lundström, J.O.; Pfeffer, M. Phylogeographic structure and evolutionary history of Sindbis virus. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2010, 10, 889–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Lundström, J.O.; Niklasson, B.; Francy, D.B. Swedish Culex torrentium and Cx. pipiens (Diptera: Culicidae) as experimental vectors of Okelbo virus. J. Med. Entomol. 1990, 27, 561–563. [Google Scholar]
  76. Lundström, J.O.; Turell, M.J.; Niklasson, B. Effect of environmental temperature on the vector competence of Culex pipiens and Cx. torrentium for Okelbo virus. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 1990, 43, 534–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Hesson, J.C.; Verner-Carlsson, J.; Larsson, A.; Ahmed, R.; Lundkvist, Å.; Lundström, J.O. Culex torrentium mosquito role as major enzootic vector defined by rate of Sindbis virus infection, Sweden, 2009. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2015, 21, 875–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Eiden, M.; Ziegler, U.; Keller, M.; Müller, K.; Granzow, H.; Jöst, H.; Schmidt-Chanasit, J.; Groschup, M.H. Isolation of sindbis virus from a hooded crow in Germany. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2014, 14, 220–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Hesson, J.C.; Ostman, O.; Schäfer, M.; Lundström, J.O. Geographic distribution and relative abundance of the sibling vector species Culex torrentium and Culex pipiens in Sweden. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2011, 11, 1383–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Málková, D.; Danielová, V.; Minár, B.; Rosický, B.; Casals, J. Isolation of Yaba 1 arbovirus in Czechoslovakia. Acta Virol. 1972, 16, 93. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  81. Danielová, V. To the problem of the vector of Lednice virus. Folia Parasitol. (Praha) 1984, 31, 379–382. [Google Scholar]
  82. Bakonyi, T.; Hubálek, Z.; Rudolf, I.; Nowotny, N. Novel flavivirus or new lineage of West Nile virus, Central Europe. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2005, 11, 225–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Jöst, H.; Bialonski, A.; Schmetz, C.; Günther, S.; Becker, N.; Schmidt-Chanasit, J. Isolation and phylogenetic analysis of Batai virus, Germany. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2011, 84, 241–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Weitzel, T.; Collado, A.; Jöst, A.; Pietsch, K.; Storch, V.; Becker, N. Genetic differentiation of populations within the Culex pipiens complex and phylogeny of related species. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 2009, 25, 6–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Becker, N.; Jöst, A.; Weitzel, T. The Culex pipiens complex in Europe. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 2012, 28, 53–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Harbach, R.E. Culex pipiens: Species versus species complex—taxonomic history and perspective. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 2012, 28, 10–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Russell, R.C. A review of the status and significance of the species within the Culex pipiens group in Australia. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 2012, 28, 24–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Fonseca, D.M.; Lapointe, D.A.; Fleischer, R.C. Bottlenecks and multiple introductions: Population genetics of the vector of avian malaria in Hawaii. Mol. Ecol. 2000, 9, 1803–1814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Hesson, J.C.; Rettich, F.; Merdić, E.; Vignjević, G.; Ostman, O.; Schäfer, M.; Schaffner, F.; Foussadier, R.; Besnard, G.; Medlock, J.M.; et al. The arbovirus vector Culex torrentium is more prevalent than Culex pipiens in northern and central Europe. Med. Vet. Entomol. 2014, 28, 179–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Fonseca, D.M.; Keyghobadi, N.; Malcolm, C.A.; Mehmet, C.; Schaffner, F.; Mogi, M.; Fleischer, R.C.; Wilkerson, R.C. Emerging vectors in the Culex pipiens complex. Science 2004, 303, 1535–1538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Shaikevich, E.V. PCR-RFLP of the COI gene reliably differentiates Cx. pipiens, Cx. pipiens f. molestus and Cx. torrentium of the Pipiens Complex. Eur. Mosq. Bull. 2007, 23, 25–30. [Google Scholar]
  92. Byrne, K.; Nichols, R.A. Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: Differentiation between surface and subterranean populations. Heredity (Edinb.) 1999, 82, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Kothera, L.; Godsey, M.; Mutebi, J.-P.; Savage, H.M. A comparison of aboveground and belowground populations of Culex pipiens (Diptera: Culicidae) mosquitoes in Chicago, Illinois, and New York City, New York, using microsatellites. J. Med. Entomol. 2010, 47, 805–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Dobrotworsky, N.V. The problem of the Culex pipiens complex in the South Pacific (including Australia). Bull. World Health Organ. 1967, 37, 251–255. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  95. Kent, R.J.; Harrington, L.C.; Norris, D.E. Genetic differences between Culex pipiens f. molestus and Culex pipiens pipiens (Diptera: Culicidae) in New York. J. Med. Entomol. 2007, 44, 50–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Keyghobadi, N.; Matrone, M.A.; Ebel, G.D.; Kramer, L.D.; Fonseca, D.M. Microsatellite loci from the northern house mosquito (Culex pipiens), a principal vector of West Nile virus in North America. Mol. Ecol. Notes 2004, 4, 20–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Bahnck, C.M.; Fonseca, D.M. Rapid assay to identify the two genetic forms of Culex (Culex) pipiens L. (Diptera: Culicidae) and hybrid populations. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2006, 75, 251–255. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  98. Smith, J.L.; Fonseca, D.M. Rapid assays for identification of members of the Culex (Culex) pipiens complex, their hybrids, and other sibling species (Diptera: Culicidae). Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2004, 70, 339–345. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  99. Börstler, J.; Lühken, R.; Rudolf, M.; Steinke, S.; Melaun, C.; Becker, S.; Garms, R.; Krüger, A. The use of morphometric wing characters to discriminate female Culex pipiens and Culex torrentium. J. Vector Ecol. 2014, 39, 204–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Vogels, C.B.F.; van de Peppel, L.J.J.; van Vliet, A.J.H.; Westenberg, M.; Ibañez-Justicia, A.; Stroo, A.; Buijs, J.A.; Visser, T.M.; Koenraadt, C.J.M. Winter activity and aboveground hybridization between the two biotypes of the West Nile virus vector Culex pipiens. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2015, 15, 619–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Danabalan, R.; Ponsonby, D.J.; Linton, Y.-M. A critical assessment of available molecular identification tools for determining the status of Culex pipiens s.L. in the United Kingdom. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 2012, 28, 68–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Shaikevich, E.V.; Vinogradova, E.B.; Bouattour, A.; Gouveia de Almeida, A.P. Genetic diversity of Culex pipiens mosquitoes in distinct populations from Europe: Contribution of Cx. quinquefasciatus in Mediterranean populations. Parasit. Vectors 2016, 9, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Manley, R.; Harrup, L.E.; Veronesi, E.; Stubbins, F.; Stoner, J.; Gubbins, S.; Wilson, A.; Batten, C.; Koenraadt, C.J.M.; Henstock, M.; et al. Testing of UK populations of Culex pipiens L. for Schmallenberg virus vector competence and their colonization. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0134453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Folmer, O.; Black, M.; Hoeh, W.; Lutz, R.; Vrijenhoek, R. DNA primers for amplification of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I from diverse metazoan invertebrates. Mol. Mar. Biol. Biotechnol. 1994, 3, 294–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Lunt, D.H.; Zhang, D.-X.; Szymura, J.M.; Hewitt, O.M. The insect cytochrome oxidase I gene: Evolutionary patterns and conserved primers for phylogenetic studies. Insect Mol. Biol. 1996, 5, 153–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Bernasconi, M.V.; Valsangiacomo, C.; Piffaretti, J.C.; Ward, P.I. Phylogenetic relationships among Muscoidea (Diptera: Calyptratae) based on mitochondrial DNA sequences. Insect Mol. Biol. 2000, 9, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Shaikevich, E.V.; Zakharov, I.A. Polymorphism of mitochondrial COI and nuclear ribosomal ITS2 in the Culex pipiens complex and in Culex torrentium (Diptera: Culicidae). Comp. Cytogenet. 2010, 4, 161–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Bourguet, D.; Fonseca, D.; Vourch, G.; Dubois, M.P.; Chandre, F.; Severini, C.; Raymond, M. The acetylcholinesterase gene Ace: A diagnostic marker for the Pipiens and Quinquefasciatus forms of the Culex pipiens complex. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 1998, 14, 390–396. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  109. Atyame, C.M.; Delsuc, F.; Pasteur, N.; Weill, M.; Duron, O. Diversification of Wolbachia endosymbiont in the Culex pipiens mosquito. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2011, 28, 2761–2772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Rudolf, M.; Czajka, C.; Börstler, J.; Melaun, C.; Jöst, H.; von Thien, H.; Badusche, M.; Becker, N.; Schmidt-Chanasit, J.; Krüger, A.; et al. First nationwide surveillance of Culex pipiens complex and Culex torrentium mosquitoes demonstrated the presence of Culex pipiens biotype pipiens/molestus hybrids in Germany. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e71832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Yssouf, A.; Parola, P.; Lindström, A.; Lilja, T.; L’Ambert, G.; Bondesson, U.; Berenger, J.M.; Raoult, D.; Almeras, L. Identification of European mosquito species by MALDI-TOF MS. Parasitol. Res. 2014, 113, 2375–2378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Kaufmann, C.; Schaffner, F.; Ziegler, D.; Pflüger, V.; Mathis, A. Identification of field-caught Culicoides biting midges using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time of flight mass spectrometry. Parasitology 2012, 139, 248–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  113. Yssouf, A.; Flaudrops, C.; Drali, R.; Kernif, T.; Socolovschi, C.; Berenger, J.M.; Raoult, D.; Parola, P. Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry for rapid identification of tick vectors. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2013, 51, 522–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Zittra, C.; Flechl, E.; Kothmayer, M.; Vitecek, S.; Rossiter, H.; Zechmeister, T.; Fuehrer, H.-P. Ecological characterization and molecular differentiation of Culex pipiens complex taxa and Culex torrentium in eastern Austria. Parasit. Vectors 2016, 9, 197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Reusken, C.B.E.M.; De Vries, A.; Buijs, J.; Braks, M.A.H.; Den Hartog, W.; Scholte, E.J. First evidence for presence of Culex pipiens biotype molestus in the Netherlands, and of hybrid biotype pipiens and molestus in Northern Europe. J. Vector Ecol. 2010, 35, 210–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Bravo-Barriga, D.; Gomes, B.; Almeida, A.P.G.; Serrano-Aguilera, F.J.; Pérez-Martín, J.E.; Calero-Bernal, R.; Reina, D.; Frontera, E.; Pinto, J. The mosquito fauna of the western region of Spain with emphasis on ecological factors and the characterization of Culex pipiens forms. J. Vector Ecol. 2017, 42, 136–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Osório, H.C.; Zé-Zé, L.; Amaro, F.; Nunes, A.; Alves, M.J. Sympatric occurrence of Culex pipiens (Diptera, Culicidae) biotypes pipiens, molestus and their hybrids in Portugal, Western Europe: Feeding patterns and habitat determinants. Med. Vet. Entomol. 2014, 28, 103–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Di Luca, M.; Toma, L.; Boccolini, D.; Severini, F.; La Rosa, G.; Minelli, G.; Bongiorno, G.; Montarsi, F.; Arnoldi, D.; Capelli, G.; et al. Ecological distribution and CQ11 genetic structure of Culex pipiens complex (Diptera: Culicidae) in Italy. PLoS ONE 2016, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Gomes, B.; Sousa, C.A.; Novo, M.T.; Freitas, F.B.; Alves, R.; Côrte-Real, A.R.; Salgueiro, P.; Donnelly, M.J.; Almeida, A.P.G.; Pinto, J. Asymmetric introgression between sympatric molestus and pipiens forms of Culex pipiens (Diptera: Culicidae) in the Comporta region, Portugal. BMC Evol. Biol. 2009, 9, 262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Vogels, C.B.F.; Möhlmann, T.W.R.; Melsen, D.; Favia, G.; Wennergren, U.; Koenraadt, C.J.M. Latitudinal diversity of Culex pipiens biotypes and hybrids in farm, peri-urban, and wetland habitats in Europe. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0166959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Shaikevich, E.V.; Vinogradova, E.B. The discovery of a hybrid population of mosquitoes of the Culex pipiens L. complex (Diptera, Culicidae) on the Kos Island (Greece) by means of molecular markers. Entomol. Rev. 2014, 94, 35–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Amraoui, F.; Tijane, M.; Sarih, M.; Failloux, A.-B. Molecular evidence of Culex pipiens form molestus and hybrids pipiens/molestus in Morocco, North Africa. Parasit. Vectors 2012, 5, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Cornel, A.J.; McAbee, R.D.; Rasgon, J.; Stanich, M.A.; Scott, T.W.; Coetzee, M. Differences in extent of genetic introgression between sympatric Culex pipiens and Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae) in California and South Africa. J. Med. Entomol. 2003, 40, 36–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Vogels, C.B.F.; Hartemink, N.; Koenraadt, C.J.M. Modelling West Nile virus transmission risk in Europe: Effect of temperature and mosquito biotypes on the basic reproduction number. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 5022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Han, L.L.; Popovici, F.; Alexander, J.P., Jr.; Laurentia, V.; Tengelsen, L.A.; Cernescu, C.; Gary, H.E., Jr.; Ion-Nedelcu, N.; Campbell, G.L.; Tsai, T.F.; et al. Risk factors for West Nile virus infection and meningoencephalitis, Romania, 1996. J. Infect. Dis. 1999, 179, 230–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Fritz, M.L.; Walker, E.D.; Miller, J.R.; Severson, D.W.; Dworkin, I. Divergent host preferences of above- and below-ground Culex pipiens mosquitoes and their hybrid offspring. Med. Vet. Entomol. 2015, 29, 115–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Vogels, C.B.F.; Fros, J.J.; Göertz, G.P.; Pijlman, G.P.; Koenraadt, C.J.M. Vector competence of northern European Culex pipiens biotypes and hybrids for West Nile virus is differentially affected by temperature. Parasit. Vectors 2016, 9, 393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Weitzel, T.; Jawień, P.; Rydzanicz, K.; Lonc, E.; Becker, N. Culex pipiens s.l. and Culex torrentium (Culicidae) in Wrocław area (Poland): Occurrence and breeding site preferences of mosquito vectors. Parasitol. Res. 2015, 114, 289–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Lühken, R.; Steinke, S.; Leggewie, M.; Tannich, E.; Krüger, A.; Becker, S.; Kiel, E. Physico-chemical characteristics of Culex pipiens sensu lato and Culex torrentium (Diptera: Culicidae) breeding sites in Germany. J. Med. Entomol. 2015, 52, 932–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Service, M.W. The taxonomy and biology of two sympatric sibling species of Culex, C. pipiens and C. torrentium (Diptera, Culicidae). J. Zool. 1968, 156, 313–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Simpson, J.E.; Hurtado, P.J.; Medlock, J.; Molaei, G.; Andreadis, T.G.; Galvani, A.P.; Diuk-Wasser, M.A. Vector host-feeding preferences drive transmission of multi-host pathogens: West Nile virus as a model system. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2012, 279, 925–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Takken, W.; Verhulst, N.O. Host preferences of blood-feeding mosquitoes. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2013, 58, 433–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Kilpatrick, A.M.; Kramer, L.D.; Jones, M.J.; Marra, P.P.; Daszak, P. West Nile virus epidemics in North America are driven by shifts in mosquito feeding behavior. PLoS Biol. 2006, 4, e82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Edman, J.D.; Scott, T.W. Host defensive behaviour and the feeding success of mosquitoes. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 1987, 8, 617–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. De Boer, J.G.; Robinson, A.; Powers, S.J.; Burgers, S.L.G.E.; Caulfield, J.C.; Birkett, M.A.; Smallegange, R.C.; van Genderen, P.J.J.; Bousema, T.; Sauerwein, R.W.; et al. Odours of Plasmodium falciparum-infected participants influence mosquito-host interactions. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 9283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Cornet, S.; Nicot, A.; Rivero, A.; Gandon, S. Both infected and uninfected mosquitoes are attracted toward malaria infected birds. Malar. J. 2013, 12, 179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Cornet, S.; Nicot, A.; Rivero, A.; Gandon, S. Malaria infection increases bird attractiveness to uninfected mosquitoes. Ecol. Lett. 2013, 16, 323–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Vogels, C.B.F.; Fros, J.J.; Pijlman, G.P.; van Loon, J.J.A.; Gort, G.; Koenraadt, C.J.M. Virus interferes with host-seeking behaviour of mosquito. J. Exp. Biol. 2017, 220, 3598–3603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Busula, A.O.; Bousema, T.; Mweresa, C.K.; Masiga, D.; Logan, J.G.; Sauerwein, R.W.; Verhulst, N.O.; Takken, W.; de Boer, J.G. Gametocytemia and attractiveness of Plasmodium falciparum-infected Kenyan children to Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes. J. Infect. Dis. 2017, 216, 291–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Harbach, R.E.; Harrison, B.A.; Gad, A.M. Culex (Culex) molestus Forskal (Diptera: Culicidae): Neotype designation, description, variation and taxonomic status. Proc. Entomol. Soc. Washingt. 1984, 86, 521–542. [Google Scholar]
  141. Harbach, R.E.; Dahl, C.; White, G.B. Culex (Culex) pipiens Linnacus (Diptera: Culicidae): Concepts, type designations, and description. Proc. Entomol. Soc. Washingt. 1985, 87, 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  142. Platonov, A.E.; Fedorova, M.V.; Karan, L.S.; Shopenskaya, T.A.; Platonova, O.V.; Zhuravlev, V.I. Epidemiology of West Nile infection in Volgograd, Russia, in relation to climate change and mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae) bionomics. Parasitol. Res. 2008, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Martínez-de la Puente, J.; Moreno-Indias, I.; Hernández-Castellano, L.E.; Argüello, A.; Ruiz, S.; Soriguer, R.; Figuerola, J. Host-feeding pattern of Culex theileri (Diptera: Culicidae), potential vector of Dirofilaria immitis in the Canary Islands, Spain. J. Med. Entomol. 2012, 49, 1419–1423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  144. Osório, H.C.; Zé-Zé, L.; Alves, M.J. Host-feeding patterns of Culex pipiens and other potential mosquito vectors (Diptera: Culicidae) of West Nile virus (Flaviviridae) collected in Portugal. J. Med. Entomol. 2012, 49, 717–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Korkmaz, S.; Yildirim, A.; Duzlu, O.; Ciloglu, A.; Onder, Z.; Inci, A. Blood meal identification of the mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae) specimens belong to Culex pipiens complex that were collected from Kayseri Province. Turkish J. Parasitol. 2017, 40, 199–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Martínez-de la Puente, J.; Muñoz, J.; Capelli, G.; Montarsi, F.; Soriguer, R.; Arnoldi, D.; Rizzoli, A.; Figuerola, J. Avian malaria parasites in the last supper: identifying encounters between parasites and the invasive Asian mosquito tiger and native mosquito species in Italy. Malar. J. 2015, 14, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Martínez-de la Puente, J.; Ferraguti, M.; Ruiz, S.; Roiz, D.; Soriguer, R.C.; Figuerola, J. Culex pipiens forms and urbanization: Effects on blood feeding sources and transmission of avian Plasmodium. Malar. J. 2016, 15, 589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  148. Börstler, J.; Jöst, H.; Garms, R.; Krüger, A.; Tannich, E.; Becker, N.; Schmidt-Chanasit, J.; Lühken, R. Host-feeding patterns of mosquito species in Germany. Parasit. Vectors 2016, 9, 318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  149. Gomes, B.; Sousa, C.A.; Vicente, J.L.; Pinho, L.; Calderón, I.; Arez, E.; Almeida, A.P.G.; Donnelly, M.J.; Pinto, J. Feeding patterns of molestus and pipiens forms of Culex pipiens (Diptera: Culicidae) in a region of high hybridization. Parasit. Vectors 2013, 6, 93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  150. Alcaide, M.; Rico, C.; Ruiz, S.; Soriguer, R.; Muñoz, J.; Figuerola, J. Disentangling vector-borne transmission networks: A universal DNA barcoding method to identify vertebrate hosts from arthropod bloodmeals. PLoS ONE 2009, 4, e7092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  151. Martínez-de la Puente, J.; Ruiz, S.; Soriguer, R.; Figuerola, J. Effect of blood meal digestion and DNA extraction protocol on the success of blood meal source determination in the malaria vector Anopheles atroparvus. Malar. J. 2013, 12, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  152. Muñoz, J.; Eritja, R.; Alcaide, M.; Montalvo, T.; Soriguer, R.C.; Figuerola, J. Host-feeding patterns of native Culex pipiens and invasive Aedes albopictus mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) in urban zones from Barcelona, Spain. J. Med. Entomol. 2011, 48, 956–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  153. Cancrini, G.; Magi, M.; Gabrielli, S.; Arispici, M.; Tolari, F.; Dell’Omodarme, M.; Prati, M.C. Natural vectors of Dirofilariasis in rural and urban areas of the Tuscan region, central Italy. J. Med. Entomol. 2006, 43, 574–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Curtotti, A. Characterization of East London Culex pipiens s.l. in Relation to the Risk of Transmission to Humans of the West Nile Virus in Great Britain. PhD Thesis, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  155. Radrova, J.; Seblova, V.; Votypka, J. Feeding behavior and spatial distribution of Culex mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) in wetland areas of the Czech Republic. J. Med. Entomol. 2013, 50, 1097–1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  156. Schönenberger, A.C.; Wagner, S.; Tuten, H.C.; Schaffner, F.; Torgerson, P.; Furrer, S.; Mathis, A.; Silaghi, C. Host preferences in host-seeking and blood-fed mosquitoes in Switzerland. Med. Vet. Entomol. 2016, 30, 39–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  157. Service, M.W. Feeding behaviour and host preferences of British mosquitoes. Bull. Entomol. Res. 1971, 60, 653–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  158. Service, M.W. A reappraisal of the role of mosquitoes in the transmission of myxomatosis in Britain. J. Hyg. (Lond). 1971, 69, 105–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  159. Balenghien, T.; Fouque, F.; Sabatier, P.; Bicout, D.J. Horse-, bird-, and human-seeking behavior and seasonal abundance of mosquitoes in a West Nile virus focus of southern France. J. Med. Entomol. 2006, 43, 936–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  160. Service, M.W. Observations on the ecology of some British mosquitoes. Bull. Entomol. Res. 1969, 59, 161–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Rizzoli, A.; Bolzoni, L.; Chadwick, E.A.; Capelli, G.; Montarsi, F.; Grisenti, M.; Martínez-de la Puente, J.; Muñoz, J.; Figuerola, J.; Soriguer, R.; et al. Understanding West Nile virus ecology in Europe: Culex pipiens host feeding preference in a hotspot of virus emergence. Parasit. Vectors 2015, 8, 213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  162. Fyodorova, M.V.; Savage, H.M.; Lopatina, J.V.; Bulgakova, T.A.; Ivanitsky, A.V.; Platonova, O.V.; Platonov, A.E. Evaluation of potential West Nile virus vectors in Volgograd Region, Russia, 2003 (Diptera: Culicidae): Species composition, bloodmeal host utilization, and virus infection rates of mosquitoes. J. Med. Entomol. 2006, 43, 552–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  163. Jaenson, T.G.T.; Niklasson, B. Feeding patterns of mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) in relation to the transmission of Ockelbo disease in Sweden. Bull. Entomol. Res. 1986, 76, 375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Muñoz, J.; Ruiz, S.; Soriguer, R.; Alcaide, M.; Viana, D.S.; Roiz, D.; Vázquez, A.; Figuerola, J. Feeding patterns of potential West Nile virus vectors in south-west Spain. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e39549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  165. Onyeka, J.O.A.; Boreham, P.F.L. Population studies, physiological state and mortality factors of overwintering adult populations of females of Culex pipiens L. (Diptera:Culicidae). Bull. Entomol. Res. 1987, 77, 99–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Ferraguti, M.; Martínez-de la Puente, J.; Muñoz, J.; Roiz, D.; Ruiz, S.; Soriguer, R.; Figuerola, J. Avian Plasmodium in Culex and Ochlerotatus mosquitoes from Southern Spain: Effects of season and host-feeding source on parasite dynamics. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e66237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  167. Roiz, D.; Vazquez, A.; Rosà, R.; Muñoz, J.; Arnoldi, D.; Rosso, F.; Figuerola, J.; Tenorio, A.; Rizzoli, A. Blood meal analysis, flavivirus screening, and influence of meteorological variables on the dynamics of potential mosquito vectors of West Nile virus in northern Italy. J. Vector Ecol. 2012, 37, 20–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. Brugman, V.A.; Hernández-Triana, L.M.; England, M.E.; Medlock, J.M.; Mertens, P.P.C.; Logan, J.G.; Wilson, A.J.; Fooks, A.R.; Johnson, N.; Carpenter, S. Blood-feeding patterns of native mosquitoes and insights into their potential role as pathogen vectors in the Thames estuary region of the United Kingdom. Parasites Vectors 2017, 10, 163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  169. Hernández-Triana, L.M.; Brugman, V.A.; Prosser, S.W.J.; Weland, C.; Nikolova, N.; Thorne, L.; Fernández de Marco, M.; Fooks, A.R.; Johnson, N. Molecular approaches for blood meal analysis and species identification of mosquitoes (Insecta: Diptera: Culicidae) in rural locations in southern England, United Kingdom. Zootaxa 2017, 4250, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  170. Kilpatrick, A.M.; Kramer, L.D.; Jones, M.J.; Marra, P.P.; Daszak, P.; Fonseca, D.M. Genetic influences on mosquito feeding behavior and the emergence of zoonotic pathogens. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2007, 77, 667–671. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  171. Huang, S.; Hamer, G.L.; Molaei, G.; Walker, E.D.; Goldberg, T.L.; Kitron, U.D.; Andreadis, T.G. Genetic variation associated with mammalian feeding in Culex pipiens from a West Nile virus epidemic region in Chicago, Illinois. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2009, 9, 637–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  172. Silver, J.B. Mosquito Ecology: Field Sampling Methods, 3rd ed.; Springer Netherlands: Berlin, Germany, 2007; ISBN 140206666X. [Google Scholar]
  173. Brugman, V.A.; England, M.E.; Stoner, J.; Tugwell, L.; Harrup, L.E.; Wilson, A.J.; Medlock, J.M.; Logan, J.G.; Fooks, A.R.; Mertens, P.P.C.; et al. How often do mosquitoes bite humans in southern England? A standardised summer trial at four sites reveals spatial, temporal and site-related variation in biting rates. Parasit. Vectors 2017, 10, 420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  174. Sieg, M.; Schmidt, V.; Ziegler, U.; Keller, M.; Höper, D.; Heenemann, K.; Rückner, A.; Nieper, H.; Muluneh, A.; Groschup, M.H.; et al. Outbreak and Cocirculation of Three Different Usutu Virus Strains in Eastern Germany. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2017, 17, 662–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  175. Medlock, J.M.; Vaux, A.G.C. Impacts of the creation, expansion and management of English wetlands on mosquito presence and abundance—Developing strategies for future disease mitigation. Parasit. Vectors 2015, 8, 142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  176. Townroe, S.; Callaghan, A. British container breeding mosquitoes: The impact of urbanisation and climate change on community composition and phenology. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e95325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  177. Dekoninck, W.; Hendrickx, F.; Vasn Bortel, W.; Versteirt, V.; Coosemans, M.; Damiens, D.; Hance, T.; De Clercq, E.M.; Hendrickx, G.; Schaffner, F.; et al. Human-induced expanded distribution of Anopheles plumbeus, experimental vector of West Nile virus and a potential vector of human malaria in Belgium. J. Med. Entomol. 2011, 48, 924–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  178. Medlock, J.M.; Vaux, A.G.C. Colonization of a newly constructed urban wetland by mosquitoes in England: Implications for nuisance and vector species. J. Vector Ecol. 2014, 39, 249–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  179. Kassim, N.F.A.; Webb, C.E.; Russell, R.C. Is the expression of autogeny by Culex molestus Forskal (Diptera: Culicidae) influenced by larval nutrition or by adult mating, sugar feeding, or blood feeding? J. Vector Ecol. 2012, 37, 162–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  180. Rudolf, I.; Betášová, L.; Blažejová, H.; Venclíková, K.; Straková, P.; Šebesta, O.; Mendel, J.; Bakonyi, T.; Schaffner, F.; Nowotny, N.; et al. West Nile virus in overwintering mosquitoes, central Europe. Parasit. Vectors 2017, 10, 452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  181. Ciota, A.T.; Drummond, C.L.; Drobnack, J.; Ruby, M.A.; Kramer, L.D.; Ebel, G.D. Emergence of Culex pipiens from overwintering hibernacula. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 2011, 27, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  182. Nelms, B.M.; Macedo, P.A.; Kothera, L.; Savage, H.M.; Reisen, W.K. Overwintering biology of Culex (Diptera: Culicidae) mosquitoes in the Sacramento Valley of California. J. Med. Entomol. 2013, 50, 773–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  183. Roiz, D.; Ruiz, S.; Soriguer, R.; Figuerola, J. Climatic effects on mosquito abundance in Mediterranean wetlands. Parasit. Vectors 2014, 7, 333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  184. Ferraguti, M.; Martínez-de la Puente, J.; Roiz, D.; Ruiz, S.; Soriguer, R.; Figuerola, J. Effects of landscape anthropization on mosquito community composition and abundance. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 29002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  185. LaDeau, S.L.; Allan, B.F.; Leisnham, P.T.; Levy, M.Z. The ecological foundations of transmission potential and vector-borne disease in urban landscapes. Funct. Ecol. 2015, 29, 889–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  186. Ibañez-Justicia, A.; Cianci, D. Modelling the spatial distribution of the nuisance mosquito species Anopheles plumbeus (Diptera: Culicidae) in the Netherlands. Parasit. Vectors 2015, 8, 258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  187. Heym, E.C.; Kampen, H.; Fahle, M.; Hohenbrink, T.L.; Schäfer, M.; Scheuch, D.E.; Walther, D. Anopheles plumbeus (Diptera: Culicidae) in Germany: updated geographic distribution and public health impact of a nuisance and vector mosquito. Trop. Med. Int. Heal. 2017, 22, 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  188. Misslin, R.; Telle, O.; Daudé, E.; Vaguet, A.; Paul, R.E. Urban climate versus global climate change-what makes the difference for dengue? Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2016, 1382, 56–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  189. Brown, L.; Medlock, J.M.; Murray, V. Impact of drought on vector-borne diseases—how does one manage the risk? Public Health 2014, 128, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  190. Beji, M.; Rhim, A.; Roiz, D.; Bouattour, A. Ecophysiological characterization and molecular differentiation of Culex pipiens forms (Diptera: Culicidae) in Tunisia. Parasit. Vectors 2017, 10, 327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  191. Gibson, G.; Russell, I. Flying in tune: Sexual recognition in mosquitoes. Curr. Biol. 2006, 16, 1311–1316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  192. Pennetier, C.; Warren, B.; Dabiré, K.R.; Russell, I.J.; Gibson, G. “Singing on the Wing” as a mechanism for species recognition in the malarial mosquito Anopheles gambiae. Curr. Biol. 2010, 20, 131–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  193. Duron, O.; Raymond, M.; Weill, M. Many compatible Wolbachia strains coexist within natural populations of Culex pipiens mosquito. Heredity (Edinb.) 2011, 106, 986–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  194. Sanders, C.J.; Harrup, L.E.; Tugwell, L.A.; Brugman, V.A.; England, M.; Carpenter, S. Quantification of within- and between-farm dispersal of Culicoides biting midges using an immunomarking technique. J. Appl. Ecol. 2017, 54, 1429–1439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  195. Verhulst, N.O.; Loonen, J.A.C.M.; Takken, W. Advances in methods for colour marking of mosquitoes. Parasit. Vectors 2013, 6, 200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  196. Syed, Z.; Leal, W.S. Acute olfactory response of Culex mosquitoes to a human- and bird-derived attractant. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 18803–18808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  197. Allan, S.A.; Bernier, U.R.; Kline, D.L. Laboratory evaluation of avian odors for mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae) attraction. J. Med. Entomol. 2006, 43, 225–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  198. Mauer, D.J.; Rowley, W.A. Attraction of Culex pipiens pipiens (Diptera: Culicidae) to flower volatiles. J. Med. Entomol. 1999, 36, 503–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  199. Jhumur, U.S.; Dötterl, S.; Jürgens, A. Naïve and conditioned responses of Culex pipiens pipiens biotype molestus (Diptera: Culicidae) to flower odors. J. Med. Entomol. 2006, 43, 1164–1170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  200. Hesson, J.C.; Ignell, R.; Hill, S.R.; Östman, Ö.; Lundström, J.O. Trapping biases of Culex torrentium and Culex pipiens revealed by comparison of captures in CDC traps, ovitraps, and gravid traps. J. Vector Ecol. 2015, 40, 158–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  201. Weitzel, T.; Braun, K.; Collado, A.; Jost, A.; Becker, N. Distribution and frequency of Culex pipiens and Culex torrentium (Culicidae) in Europe and diagnostic allozyme markers. Eur. Mosq. Bull. 2011, 29, 22–37. [Google Scholar]
  202. Calzolari, M.; Pautasso, A.; Montarsi, F.; Albieri, A.; Bellini, R.; Bonilauri, P.; Defilippo, F.; Lelli, D.; Moreno, A.; Chiari, M.; et al. West Nile virus surveillance in 2013 via mosquito screening in Northern Italy and the influence of weather on virus circulation. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e014915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  203. Vaux, A.G.C.; Gibson, G.; Hernández-Triana, L.M.; Cheke, R.A.; McCracken, F.; Jeffries, C.L.; Horton, D.L.; Springate, S.; Johnson, N.; Fooks, A.R.; et al. Enhanced West Nile virus surveillance in the North Kent marshes, UK. Parasit. Vectors 2015, 8, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  204. Boukraa, S.; de La Grandiere, M.A.; Bawin, T.; Raharimalala, F.N.; Zimmer, J.Y.; Haubruge, E.; Thiry, E.; Francis, F. Diversity and ecology survey of mosquitoes potential vectors in Belgian equestrian farms: A threat prevention of mosquito-borne equine arboviruses. Prev. Vet. Med. 2016, 124, 58–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  205. Gomes, B.; Kioulos, E.; Papa, A.; Almeida, A.P.G.; Vontas, J.; Pinto, J. Distribution and hybridization of Culex pipiens forms in Greece during the West Nile virus outbreak of 2010. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2013, 16, 218–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  206. Petrić, D.; Petrović, T.; Hrnjaković Cvjetković, I.; Zgomba, M.; Milošević, V.; Lazić, G.; Ignjatović Ćupina, A.; Lupulović, D.; Lazić, S.; Dondur, D.; et al. West Nile virus “circulation” in Vojvodina, Serbia: Mosquito, bird, horse and human surveillance. Mol. Cell. Probes 2017, 31, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  207. Brustolin, M.; Talavera, S.; Santamaría, C.; Rivas, R.; Pujol, N.; Aranda, C.; Marquès, E.; Valle, M.; Verdún, M.; Pagès, N.; et al. Culex pipiens and Stegomyia albopicta (=Aedes albopictus) populations as vectors for lineage 1 and 2 West Nile virus in Europe. Med. Vet. Entomol. 2016, 30, 166–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  208. Rogozi, E.; Velo, E.; Bino, S.; Kadriaj, P.; Severini, F.; Schaffner, F. An update of the mosquito fauna of Albania, based on a country-wide field survey 2011–2012. In Proceedings of the E-Sove: From biology to integrated in a changing world, Montpellier, France, 8–11 October 2012. [Google Scholar]
  209. Snow, K.; Ramsdale, C. Distribution chart for European mosquitoes. Eur. Mosq. Bull. 1999, 3, 14–31. [Google Scholar]
  210. Boukraa, S.; Dekoninck, W.; Versteirt, V.; Schaffner, F.; Coosemans, M.; Haubruge, E.; Francis, F. Updated checklist of the mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) of Belgium. J. Vector Ecol. 2015, 40, 398–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  211. Huldén, L.; Huldén, L. Checklist of the family Culicidae (Diptera) in Finland. Zookeys 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  212. Culverwell, C.L. A report on the mosquitoes of mainland Åland, southwestern Finland and revised list of Finnish mosquitoes. Med. Vet. Entomol. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  213. Schaffner, F. A revised cheddist of the French Culicidae. Eur. Mosq. Bull. 1998, 2, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  214. Tóth, S.; Kenyeres, Z. Revised checklist and distribution maps of mosquitoes (Diptera, Culicidae) of Hungary. Eur. Mosq. Bull. 2012, 30, 30–65. [Google Scholar]
  215. Pakalniškis, S.; Bernotienė, R.; Lutovinovas, E.; Petrašiūnas, A.; Podėnas, S.; Rimšaitė, J.; Saether, O.A.; Spungis, V. Checklist of Lithuanian Diptera. New Rare Lith. Insect Species 2006, 18, 16–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Beck, M.; Galm, M.; Weitzel, T.; Fohlmeister, V.; Kaiser, A.; Amold, A. Preliminary studies on the mosquito fauna of Luxembourg. Eur. Mosq. Bull. 2003, 14, 21–24. [Google Scholar]
  217. Sulesco, T.M.; Toderas, I.K.; Toderas, L.G. Annotated checklist of the mosquitoes of the Republic of Moldova. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 2013, 29, 98–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  218. Ribeiro, H.; Ramos, H.; Pires, C.; Capela, R. An annotated checklist of the mosquitoes of continental Portugal (Diptera, Culicidae). Acta III Congr. Iber. Entomol. Spec. 1988, 233–254. [Google Scholar]
  219. Nicolescu, G.; Vladimirescu, A.; Ciolpan, O. The distribution of mosquitoes in Romania (Diptera: Culicidae). Part I: Anopheles, Aedes and Culex. Eur. Mosq. Bull. 2002, 13, 17–26. [Google Scholar]
  220. Božičić-Lothrop, B.; Vujić, A. Fauna of mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) of Stara Planina, Serbia. Acta Entomol. Serbica 1996, 1, 31–38. [Google Scholar]
  221. Jalili, N.; Országh, I.; Halgoš, J.; Labuda, M. Mosquitoes (Diptera, Culicidae) of Slovakia. Eur. Mosq. Bull. 2000, 6, 20–26. [Google Scholar]
  222. Aranda, C.; Eritja, R.; Schaffner, F.; Escosa, R. Culex (Culex) torrentium Martini (Diptera: Culicidae) a new species from Spain. Eur. Mosq. Bull. 2000, 8, 7–9. [Google Scholar]
  223. Eritja, R.; Aranda, C.; Padrós, J.; Goula, M.; Lucientes, J.; Escosa, R.; Marques, E.; Cáceres, F. An annotaded checklist and bibliography of the mosquitoes of Spain (Diptera: Culicidae). Eur. Mosq. Bull. 2000, 8, 10–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Gunay, F.; Alten, B.; Simsek, F.; Aldemir, A.; Linton, Y.M. Barcoding Turkish Culex mosquitoes to facilitate arbovirus vector incrimination studies reveals hidden diversity and new potential vectors. Acta Trop. 2015, 143, 112–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ijerph 15 00389 g001 550
Figure 1. Gel images showing discrimination between (a) Culex torrentium/Culex pipiens [M = ϕX174 marker, 1 = negative control, 2 = Cx. pipiens, 3 = Cx. torrentium] and (b) Cx. pipiens form pipiens, Cx. pipiens form molestus and hybrid forms [M = ϕX174 marker, 1 = negative control, 2 = form pipiens, 3 = form molestus, 4 = pipiens/molestus hybrid].
Figure 1. Gel images showing discrimination between (a) Culex torrentium/Culex pipiens [M = ϕX174 marker, 1 = negative control, 2 = Cx. pipiens, 3 = Cx. torrentium] and (b) Cx. pipiens form pipiens, Cx. pipiens form molestus and hybrid forms [M = ϕX174 marker, 1 = negative control, 2 = form pipiens, 3 = form molestus, 4 = pipiens/molestus hybrid].
Ijerph 15 00389 g001
Ijerph 15 00389 g002 550
Figure 2. European country-level reports of natural hybrid populations of (a) Culex pipiens forms pipiens/molestus hybrids; (b) Culex pipiens/Culex quinquefasciatus hybrids. References available in Appendix A.
Figure 2. European country-level reports of natural hybrid populations of (a) Culex pipiens forms pipiens/molestus hybrids; (b) Culex pipiens/Culex quinquefasciatus hybrids. References available in Appendix A.
Ijerph 15 00389 g002
Ijerph 15 00389 g003 550
Figure 3. European country-level reports of Culex torrentium. References available in Appendix A.
Figure 3. European country-level reports of Culex torrentium. References available in Appendix A.
Ijerph 15 00389 g003
Ijerph 15 00389 g004 550
Figure 4. Proportion of blood meals of Culex pipiens taken from birds, mammals or mixed bird/mammal sources. Data collated from [117,147,149].
Figure 4. Proportion of blood meals of Culex pipiens taken from birds, mammals or mixed bird/mammal sources. Data collated from [117,147,149].
Ijerph 15 00389 g004
Table
Table 1. Mosquito-borne viruses of medical and veterinary importance circulating in Europe, after [23,24,39,40,41,42,43]. Involvement of Culex pipiens is highlighted using bold typeface.
Table 1. Mosquito-borne viruses of medical and veterinary importance circulating in Europe, after [23,24,39,40,41,42,43]. Involvement of Culex pipiens is highlighted using bold typeface.
VirusPrimary Vertebrate HostsPrincipal VectorsMedical/Veterinary Importance
Batai virus (Bunyaviridae)Pigs, horses, ruminants, and isolations from wild birds.Anopheles maculipennis s.l., Anopheles claviger (Meigen, 1804), Coquillettidia richiardii (Ficalbi, 1889)Mild illness in sheep/goats. Influenza-like illness in humans.
Chikungunya virus (Togaviridae)Humans as primary reservoirs during epidemics. Non-human reservoirs include monkeys, rodents and birds.Aedes aegypti, Aedes albopictusFever, joint pain (also chronic), occasional neurological involvement with some deaths reported.
Dengue virus (Flaviviridae)Humans.Aedes aegypti, Aedes albopictusSerotype 1 recorded from Europe. Cases range from asymptomatic to severe haemorrhagic fever.
Inkoo virus (Bunyaviridae)Mountain hares.Aedes communis (De Geer, 1776)Influenza-like illness in humans.
Lednice virus (Bunyaviridae)Birds, primarily of the order Anseriformes.Culex modestus (Ficalbi, 1889)Unknown, avian fatalities not recorded.
Sindbis/Sindbis-like viruses (Togaviridae)Birds (Passeriformes), occasionally rodents and amphibians.Culex pipiens, Culex torrentium (Martini, 1925), Culiseta morsitans (Theobald, 1901), Coquillettidia richiardii, Aedes communis, Aedes excrucians (Walker, 1856), Aedes cinereus (Meigen, 1818) and Anopheles hyrcanus s.l.Sporadic illness in birds, including mortality in chickens. Fever, malaise and potentially chronic arthritis in humans, no mortality.
Snowshoe hare virus (Bunyaviridae)Snowshoe hare, voles, lemmings.Aedes cinereus, Aedes vexans (Meigen, 1830), Aedes communis, Aedes punctor (Kirby, 1837), Aedes cataphylla (Dyar, 1916), Culiseta inornata (Williston, 1893) and Culiseta impatiens (Walker, 1848)Non-fatal encephalitis in horses. Fever and occasional CNS involvement in humans.
Tahyna virus (Bunyaviridae)Brown hares, hedgehogs, rodents. Aedes vexansInfluenza-like illness in humans with occasional CNS involvement.
Usutu virus (Flaviviridae)Birds, particularly the Passeriformes.Culex spp. including Culex pipiensAvian mortality recorded in several species. Limited neuroinvasive cases reported from Italy.
West Nile virus (Flaviviridae)Wild birds. Mammals including horses and humans incidental hosts.Culex pipiens, Culex modestus, Coquillettidia richiardiiLimited avian mortality in Europe, equine febrile illness with ~25% mortality. Severe neurological disease in <1% human infections.
Table
Table 2. Comparative summary of the behavioural and physiological traits of Culex pipiens ecoforms.
Table 2. Comparative summary of the behavioural and physiological traits of Culex pipiens ecoforms.
EcoformTrait
MatingEgg-Laying RequirementsBlood-Feeding PreferenceHabitat AssociationsOverwintering
form pipiensEurogamous (mating requires open spaces)Anautogenous (blood meal required for first egg batch)Primarily birdsRural and urban, abovegroundHeterodynamic (undergoes diapause)
form molestusStenogamous (can mate in confined spaces)Autogenous (no blood meal required for first egg batch)Birds and mammalsPrincipally urban, aboveground and undergroundHomodynamic (active throughout the year)
Table
Table 3. Common methods used for the species delineation of the Culex pipiens complex.
Table 3. Common methods used for the species delineation of the Culex pipiens complex.
MethodTargetPrimer SequencesIdentification OutputReferences
Gel electrophoresisElectrophoreticpolymorphisms in various genetic targets, often enzymesn/aProvides estimates of genetic differentiation between populations in target genes[40,92]
Multiplex end-point PCRace-2FOR ACEtorr 5′-TGCCTGTGCTACCAGTGATGTT-3′
FOR ACEpip (5′-GGAAACAACGACGTATGTACT-3′)
REV B1246s (5′-TGGAGCCTCCTCTTCACGG-3′)		Cx. pipiens complex: Cx. pipiens, Cx. quinquefasciatus, Cx. p. pallens, Cx. australicus, Cx. torrentium, Cx. pervigilans, Cx pipiens/Cx. quinquefasciatus hybrids[98]
CQ11FOR CQ11F (5′-GATCCTAGCAAGCGAGAAC-3′)
REV pipCQ11R (5′-CATGTTGAGCTTCGGTGAA-3′
REV molCQ11R (5′-CCCTCCAGTAAGGTATCAAC-3′		Cx. pipiens form pipiens and form molestus[97]
PCR-DNA sequencingCOIFOR LCO1490 (5′-GGTCAACAAATCATAAAGATATTGG-3′)
REV HCO2198 (5′-TAAACTTCAGGGTGACCAAAAAATCA-3′) 		Enables universal identification to species level with comparison to sequence database[104]
COIFOR TY-J-1460 (5′-TACAATCTATCGCCTAAACTTCAGCC-3′)
REV UEA10 (5′ -TCCAATGCACTAATCTGCCATATTA-3′)		[105,106,107]
PCR-RFLPCOIFOR COIF (5′-TTGAGCTGGA-ATAGTTGGAACTT-3′)
REV COIR (5′-CCTCCAATTGGATCAAAGAATGA-3′)		Cx. pipiens form pipiens and form molestus, Cx. torrentium[91]
ace-2FOR F1457 (5′-GAGGAGATGTGGAATC CCAA-3′)
REV B1246 (5′-TGGAGCCTCCTCTTCACGG C-3′)		Cx. pipiens, Cx. quinquefasciatus and their hybrids[108]
Wolbachia pipientis markers, ank2, pk1ank2 FOR (5′-CTTCTTCTGTGAGTGTACGT-3′)
ank2 REV (5′-TCCATATCGATCTACTGCGT-3′)
pk1 FOR (5′-CCACTACATTGCGCTATAGA-3′)
pk1 REV (5′-ACAGTAGAACTACACTCCTCCA-3′)		Five groups of W. pipientis: wPip-I to wPip-V[102,109]
Real-time PCRCQ11FOR Culex pipiens (5′-GCGGCCAAATATTGAGACTT-3′)
REV Culex pipiens (5′-CGTCCTCAAACATCCA-GACA-3′)
Probes
Cx. pipiens all (59-Cy55-GGAACATGTTGAGCTTCGGK-BBQ-1-39
Cx. pipiens pipiens form pipiens (5′-JOE-GCTTCGGTGAAGGT TTGTGT-BHQ1-3′)
Cx. pipiens pipiens form molestus (5′-Rox-TGAACCCTCC AGTAAGGTATCAACTAC-BHQ2-3′)		Collectively enables separation Cx. pipiens and its ecoforms and hybrids, plus Cx. torrentium[110]
ace-2FOR Cx. torrentium (5′ -GACACAGGACGACAGAAA-3′)
REV Cx. torrentium (5′-GCCTACGCAACTACTAAA-3′)
Probe
Cx. torrentium (5′-FAM-CGAT-GATGCCTGTGCTACCA-3BHQ1-3′)
CQ11FOR Cx_pip_F (5′-GCGGCCAAATATTGAGACTTTC-3′)
REV Cx_pip_R (5′- ACTCGTCCTCAAACATCCAGACATA-3′)
Probes
Cpp_mol_P (5′-FAM-TGAACCCTCCAGTAAGGTA-MGB-3′)
Cpp_pip_P1 (5′-VIC-CACA CAAAYCTTCACCGAA-MGB-3′)
Cpp_pip_P2 (5′-VIC-ACACAAACCTTCATCGAA-MGB-3′)		Collectively enables separation Cx. pipiens and its ecoforms and hybrids, plus Cx. torrentium[100] (modified from Rudolf et al. [110])
ace-2FOR Cx_tor_F (5′-CTTATTAGTATGACACAGGACGACAG AAA-3′)
Cx_tor_R (5′-GCATAAACGCCTACGCAACTACTAA-3′)
Probe
Cx_tor_P (5′-FAM-ATGATGCCTGTG CTACCA-MGB-3′)
Table
Table 4. Blood-feeding hosts of Culex pipiens in Europe. Some hosts are non-native to Europe owing to collections in, or close to, captive animal parks.
Table 4. Blood-feeding hosts of Culex pipiens in Europe. Some hosts are non-native to Europe owing to collections in, or close to, captive animal parks.
OrderFamilyGenus SpeciesCommon NameLocationsReferences
Mammals
Mammal, unidentified---Russia[142]
ArtiodactylaBovidaeCapra hircusGoatSpain (Canary Islands)[143]
Ovis ariesSheepPortugal, Turkey[117,144,145]
Bos taurusCowPortugal, Turkey, Italy, Spain, Germany[144,145,146,147,148,149]
CervidaeCapreolus capreolusRoe deerGermany[148]
SuidaeSus scrofaWild boarItaly, Germany, Spain[146,147,148]
CarnivoraCanidaeCanis lupus familiarisDogSpain, Turkey, Italy, Germany, UK[145,146,147,148,150,151,152,153,154]
FelidaeFelis catusDomestic catSpain, Czech Republic, Switzerland, Italy[146,150,152,155,156]
Felis silvestrisWildcatSpain[147]
HerpestidaeHerpestes ichneumonEgyptian mongooseSpain[150]
ChiropteraVespertilionidaeNyctalus noctulaCommon NoctuleCzech Republic[155]
EulipotyphlaErinaceidaeErinaceus europaeusEuropean hedgehogItaly[146]
LagomorphaLeporidaeOryctolagus cuniculusRabbitUK, Germany, Spain[147,148,157,158]
Lepus granatensisGranada hareSpain[147]
PerissodactylaEquidaeEquus caballusHorseFrance, Italy, Spain[146,147,159]
PrimatesHominidaeHomo sapiensHumanUK, Spain, Portugal, Czech Republic, Switzerland, Turkey, Italy, Russia, Germany[142,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,152,154,155,156,160,161,162]
RodentiaCaviidaeCavia porcellusGuinea pigSweden[163]
MuridaeRattus rattusRatSpain[147]
Reptiles
Reptile unidentified---Spain, Italy[161,164]
AnuraRanidaeRana sp.FrogCzech Republic[155]
HylidaeHyla arboreaEuropean tree frogCzech Republic[155]
SquamataLacertidaePodarcis muralisCommon wall lizardItaly[146]
Lacerta sp.FrogItaly[146]
Birds
Bird, unidentified---UK, Spain, Switzerland, France, Russia, Portugal, Sweden[117,142,151,156,159,160,162,163,164,165,166]
AccipitriformesAccipitridaeHieraaetus pennatusBooted eagleTurkey[145]
Buteo buteoBuzzardTurkey[145]
Neophron percnopterusEgyptian vultureSwitzerland[156]
Accipiter nisusEurasian sparrowhawkSwitzerland, Italy[146,156]
Circus aeruginosusWestern marsh harrierCzech Republic[155]
AnseriformesAnatidaeCygnus atratusBlack swanSpain[151]
Anas sp.DuckCzech Republic[155]
Anas creccaEurasian tealSpain[147]
Tachyeres pteneresFlightless steamerduckSwitzerland[156]
Anas streperaGadwallCzech Republic[155]
Anser sp.GooseCzech Republic[155]
Anser albifronsGreater white-fronted gooseCzech Republic[155]
Anser anserGreylag gooseCzech Republic[155]
Anas platyrhynchosMallardPortugal, Czech Republic, Switzerland, Italy, Germany[144,146,148,155,156]
Cairina moschataMuscovy duckSpain, Portugal, Italy[144,146,150]
Branta sandvicensisNeneSpain[151]
CharadriiformesLaridaeLarus ridibundusBlack-headed gullSpain[147]
Larus fuscusLesser black-backed gullPortugal[144]
BurhinidaeBurhinus oedicnemusEurasian stone-curlewSpain[147]
ColumbiformesColumbidaeStreptopelia decaoctoEurasian collared doveSpain, Switzerland, Turkey, Italy[145,146,147,150,152,156,161,164,167]
Columba liviaRock doveUK, Spain, Italy[146,147,154,161]
Columba oenasStock doveUK[168]
Columba palumbusWood pigeonSpain, Italy, UK[146,152,168]
FalconiformesFalconidaeFalco tinnunculusCommon kestrelPortugal[144]
GalliformesPhasianidaeGallus gallusChickenSpain, Portugal, Switzerland, Italy, Russia, UK[144,146,147,149,151,152,156,161,162,168]
Pavo cristatusCommon peacockSwitzerland[156]
Phasianus colchicusCommon pheasantCzech Republic, Italy[146,155]
Coturnix coturnixCommon quailCzech Republic[155]
Alectoris rufaRed-legged partridgeSpain[150]
Alectoris rufaRed-legged partridgeSpain[147]
Meleagris gallopavoTurkeyPortugal, Italy[144,146]
NumididaeNumida meleagrisHelmeted guineafowlItaly[146]
GruiformesGruidaeGrus sp.-Spain[151]
Grus grusCommon craneSpain[150]
Anthropoides virgoDemoiselle craneSwitzerland[156]
RallidaeRallus aquaticusWater railCzech Republic[155]
Gallinula chloropusCommon moorhenItaly[146]
PasseriformesAcrocephalidaeAcrocephalus scirpaceusEurasian reed warblerCzech Republic[155]
Hippolais polyglottaMelodious warblerPortugal, Spain[144,147]
AlaudidaeGalerida cristataCrested larkSpain, Turkey, Portugal[144,145,147,150]
Alauda arvensisEurasian skylarkUK[168]
CorvidaeCorvus coroneCarrion crowSwitzerland[156]
Garrulus glandariusEurasian jayTurkey[145]
Pica picaEurasian magpieCzech Republic, Switzerland, Turkey, Italy[145,146,155,156,161]
Cyanopica cookiIberian magpiePortugal[144]
Cyanocorax chrysopsPlush-crested jaySwitzerland[156]
EmberizidaeMiliaria calandraCorn buntingPortugal[144]
Emberiza citrinellaYellowhammerCzech Republic, Germany[148,155]
FringillidaeSerinus canariaAtlantic canaryPortugal[144]
Fringilla coelebsCommon chaffinchCzech Republic[155]
Carduelis chlorisEuropean greenfinchSpain, Italy[146,151]
Serinus serinusEuropean serinItaly[167]
Carduelis chlorisGreenfinchSpain[147]
HirundinidaeHirundo rusticaBarn swallowCzech Republic, UK[155,168,169]
Delichon urbicaHouse martinPortugal, Czech Republic, Italy, Germany[144,148,155,167]
LocustellidaeBradypterus tacsanowskiusChinese bush warblerPortugal[144]
MotacillidaeAnthus pratensisMeadow pipitSpain, UK[147,168]
Motacilla albaPied wagtailCzech Republic, Switzerland[155,156]
Motacilla flavaYellow wagtailUK[168]
MuscicapidaeErithacus rubeculaEuropean robinItaly, Germany[148,167]
OriolidaeOriolus oriolusEurasian golden orioleItaly[146]
ParidaeCyanistes caeruleusBlue titPortugal, Czech Republic, Switzerland, Germany[144,148,149,155,156]
Parus majorGreat titSwitzerland, Italy, UK[146,156,169]
PasseridaePasser montanusEurasian tree sparrowItaly[146]
Passer domesticusHouse sparrowSpain, Portugal, Switzerland, Italy, UK, Germany[144,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,156,161,164,167,168]
SturnidaeSturnus sp.-Spain[147]
Sturnus vulgarisEuropean starlingSpain, Czech Republic, Italy, UK[146,150,155,161,168]
SylviidaeSylvia sp.-Spain[147]
Sylvia communisCommon whitethroatPortugal, Czech Republic, Germany[144,148,155]
Sylvia atricapillaEurasian blackcapCzech Republic, Italy[146,155]
Sylvia borinGarden warblerPortugal[144]
Sylvia melanocephalaSardinian warblerPortugal, Spain[144,147,150]
TurdidaeTurdus merulaBlackbirdSpain, Portugal, Czech Republic, Switzerland, Italy, UK, Germany[144,146,147,148,149,150,152,155,156,161,164,167,168,169]
Turdus philomelosSong thrushCzech Republic, Germany[148,155]
PelecaniformesArdeidaeNycticorax nycticoraxBlack-crowned night heronPortugal, Italy, Spain[144,146,147]
Bubulcus ibisCattle egretSpain[147]
Ardea cinereaGrey heronCzech Republic, UK[155,168]
Ixobrychus minutusLittle bitternSpain[147]
Ardeola ralloidesSquacco heronSpain[147]
PiciformesPicidaeJynx torquillaEurasian wryneckItaly[146]
PsittaciformesCacatuidaeNymphicus hollandicusCockatielPortugal[144]
PsittacidaeMyiopsitta monachusMonk parakeetSpain[152]
Cyanoliseus patagonusPatagonian conureSwitzerland[156]
SphenisciformesSpheniscidaeSpheniscus humboldtiHumboldt's penguinSwitzerland[156]
StrigiformesTytonidaeTyto albaBarn owlUK[168]
Tyto alba guttataDark-breasted barn owlUK[168]
StrigidaeAthene noctuaLittle owlTurkey, Italy[145,146]
Asio otusLong-eared owlUK, Portugal, Spain[147,149,168]
SuliformesSulidaeMorus bassanusNorthern gannetPortugal[144]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Brugman, V.A.; Hernández-Triana, L.M.; Medlock, J.M.; Fooks, A.R.; Carpenter, S.; Johnson, N. The Role of Culex pipiens L. (Diptera: Culicidae) in Virus Transmission in Europe. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 389. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15020389

AMA Style

Brugman VA, Hernández-Triana LM, Medlock JM, Fooks AR, Carpenter S, Johnson N. The Role of Culex pipiens L. (Diptera: Culicidae) in Virus Transmission in Europe. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2018; 15(2):389. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15020389

Chicago/Turabian Style

Brugman, Victor A., Luis M. Hernández-Triana, Jolyon M. Medlock, Anthony R. Fooks, Simon Carpenter, and Nicholas Johnson. 2018. "The Role of Culex pipiens L. (Diptera: Culicidae) in Virus Transmission in Europe" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15, no. 2: 389. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15020389

APA Style

Brugman, V. A., Hernández-Triana, L. M., Medlock, J. M., Fooks, A. R., Carpenter, S., & Johnson, N. (2018). The Role of Culex pipiens L. (Diptera: Culicidae) in Virus Transmission in Europe. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(2), 389. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15020389

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop