La Crosse Encephalitis in North Carolina

Brian Byrd1, David Rollick1*, Mike Riles1*, Theo Tamini2, Laura White2*, Alan Goggins1*, Charles Sither1*, and Gideon Wasserberg2

1Environmental

Health Sciences Program Western Carolina University of Biology UNC-Greensboro

*Undergraduate Students

2Dept.

Haddow AD and Odoi A, The incidence risk, clustering, and clinical presentation of La Crosse virus infections in the eastern United States, 2003-2007. PLoS One. 2009 Jul 3;4(7):e6145.

La Crosse Encephalitis
Illness is seen primarily in pediatrics

Cases

Age Distribution (Years)

La Crosse Encephalitis Cases (NC: 1988-2011)

40

35

30

25 NUMBER OF CASES

20

15

10

0 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Annual Incidence per 100K

2000 2004 2008

LACE Incidence (per 100,000)

2001

2005

2009

2002

2006

2010

2003

2007

2011

Annual Incidence per 100K (Western NC Counties)

25 Incidence per 100K 0
2000

10

15

20

2002

2004

2006 Year

2008

2010

Small Mammals Tamias striatus Sciurus carolinensis

Human Host (Dead End)

Mosquito Vector (Ae. triseriatus)

Mosquito Vector (Ae. triseriatus)

Small Mammals Tamias striatus Sciurus carolinensis

Transovarial Transmission

(Virus dissemination/Transovarial transmission)

Female Mosquito (Ae. triseriatus)

Infected Progeny (Male and Female)

Female Mosquito (Ae. triseriatus)

Male Mosquito (Ae. triseriatus)

La Crosse Virus Cycle

Adapted from Beaty and Marquardt (1996)
Venereal Transmission (male to uninfected female)

Secondary/Suspect Vectors
Aedes albopictus
Gerhardt et al. First isolation of La Crosse virus from naturally infected Aedes albopictus Emerg Infect Dis. 2001 SepOct;7(5):807-11

Aedes japonicus
Sardelis et al, Laboratory transmission of La Crosse virus by Ochlerotatus j. japonicus (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol. 2002 Jul;39(4):635-9.

Transmission Amplification Potential

TAP

Hughes MT et al. Comparative potential of Aedes triseriatus, Aedes albopictus, and Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) to transovarially transmit La Crosse virus. J Med Entomol. 2006 Jul;43(4):757-61.

What Drives LACE Risk?

Human Behaviors
Protective Risky
Environment

Location
Regional Microscale/Microhabitat

Vector Ecology
Temporal Risk Native/Invasive Species
Host Agent

Impact of Anthropogenic Disturbance

Goal: Investigate the role of anthropogenic effects at the local habit scale

Study Design
Peridomestic Sites: Six (6) Historical LACE Case Residences

Forested Sites: Six (6) Forested Sites

Study Design
Peridomestic Forest

Case house

Ovitraps: 1 week sample periods twice monthly (May-Sept.) Large Bore (Nasci) Aspiration: Every week

Results
Ae. japonicus
(15%)

Other

Ae. albopictus
(2%)

Ae. japonicus
(33%)

Ae. triseriatus** Nasci

(n=1,040) (50%)

Ovitraps
(n=11,773*)

Ae. albopictus Ae. triseriatus**

(83%) (8%)

*93K collected/11.7K identified **Aedes triseriatus/Aedes hendersoni

Oviposition traps
Total Number of eggs (n=93,158) 2-way ANOVA testing the effect of site and time
P= 0.001

Mean number of eggs collected by sites per week from June 12th -October 8th 2010 P=0.0013, R=0.817

Number of wet containers per site

Number of eggs collected per number of wet containers

Sites EC, LD, LOC = High wet containers density level (HIGH DISTURBANCE) Sites BF, OR, SL = Low wet containers density level (LOW DISTURBANCE)

EC, LD, LOC = Sites with High wet artificial containers density level BF, OR, SL = Sites with low wet artificial containers density level

Does the effect of habitat type differ between sites of low disturbance versus sites of high disturbance?

P = 0.03

No difference across habitat type, differences evident based on level of disturbance 2-way repeated measures ANOVA testing the effect of habitat type and disturbance for each species

Does the effect of habitat type differ between sites of low disturbance versus sites of high disturbance?
Adult (resting) mosquitoes

Epidemiologically Important Mosquitoes: Blood Fed and Gravid

Habitat Type Influences: Does the effect of habitat type differ between sites of low disturbance versus high disturbance?

Pilot Study Conclusions

Anthropogenic effects on the LACV systems are likely mediated via the introduction of artificial containers Artificial containers attract the sylvatic Ae. triseriatus from forested habitat into the peridomestic habitat?
Anthropogenic effects (artificial containers) increase Ae. japonicus oviposition in the peridomestic habitat

Public Health Implications

Source Reduction!

Vertical Distribution Studies (2011)

Trap were placed at heights of 0, 3, 6, and 9 meters

Results: Total Eggs Collected

2791 2755

974

33

Rainfall (inches)

Relative Abundance
Ae. triseriatus (24%) Ae. albopictus (43%)

Aedes triseriatus
Aedes hendersoni Aedes japonicus Aedes albopictus

Ae. hendersoni (13%)

Ae. japonicus (20%) 6,553 COLLECTED 2,686 IDENTIFIED

Aedes triseriatus vs Aedes hendersoni

Aedes triseriatus 75% Aedes hendersoni 67%

N=645

N=349

Aedes triseriatus: 75% of the total eggs identified were oviposited at 3 or 6 meters Aedes hendersoni: 67% of the total eggs identified were oviposited at 6 or 9 meters

Aedes albopictus

74%

N=1,155

Aedes albopictus: 74% of the total eggs were oviposited at 3 meters or below

Aedes japonicus
61%

N=537 Aedes japonicus: 61% of the total eggs identified were oviposited at ground level

Vertical Distribution Studies (2012: 0 vs 9 m)

A total of 11,394 eggs were collected and 2,595 were reared to 4th instars and identified to species.

2012 Vertical Distribution Study: A Comparative Approach (0 and 9 meters)

A
June 2012 Oviposition:

Natives: 349 Invasive: 37

10%

Natives: 665 Invasive: 379

Natives: 482 Invasive: 58

11%

36%
64% 90% 89%

Acknowledgements
WCU QEP Funding WCU College of Health and Human Sciences UNC-Greensboro College of Arts and Sciences UNC-Greensboro Office of Research and Economic Development

Tamini, Tuamami T., M.S., Does anthropogenic disturbance affect the ecological transmission drivers of the La Crosse virus? 2011