A Checklist of the Mosquito Species in 13 Counties West of San Antonio, Texas.

The aim of this study was to consolidate mosquito information for 13 counties west of San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas, and to create a species checklist for future regional studies. The resulting checklist established a baseline for local mosquito-borne disease surveillance and can serve as a resource for public health officials. The 13 counties in this region were Bandera, Edwards, Kendall, Kerr, Kimble, Kinney, Maverick, Medina, Real, Sutton, Uvalde, Val Verde, and Zavala counties. To develop the checklist, county-level mosquito species data were extracted from 38 peer-reviewed publications and government documents, university reference collections, private collections, and the Texas Department of State Health Services' historical collection data. These data were combined with author field collections to create a comprehensive species list. Overall, 339 county-level records were documented through field studies with a total of 36 species representing 8 genera confirmed as being present in this region. An additional 14 species listed in historical surveillance records were not collected during this study.

County-Level Records for Culex stigmatosoma and Culex thriambus in Texas.

Populations of Culex stigmatosoma and Cx. thriambus have been documented in the southwestern USA with a southward range extension to northern South America and Central America, respectively. Studies conducted in California indicate both species are potential vectors of West Nile virus. However, vector competence studies are lacking for other parts of the USA. During a multicounty regional surveillance study west of San Antonio, Texas, multiple errors were observed in the Texas distributional literature of these species. These errors involved incorrect distributional information in Texas and US publications. Evidence to correct these errant records was found upon further analysis of Texas literature and curated specimens. Therefore, the aims of this study were to present that evidence and then combine the corrected records with additional records from the Texas Department of State Health Services and from larval collections made during other Texas surveillance studies.

Evidence for transmission of Plasmodium vivax among a duffy antigen negative population in Western Kenya.

We present evidence that a parasite with characteristics of Plasmodium vivax is being transmitted among Duffy blood group-negative inhabitants of Kenya. Thirty-two of 4,901 Anopheles gambiae and An. funestus (0.65%) collected in Nyanza Province were ELISA positive for the P. vivax circumsporozoite protein VK 247. All positives were found late in the rainy season, when An. funestus predominated, and disproportionately many were found at a single village. A P. vivax specific sequence of the SSU rRNA gene was amplified from three of six ELISA-positive mosquitoes. Erythrocytes from 31 children, including 9 microscopically diagnosed as infected with P. vivax, were negative by flow cytometry for the Fy3 or Fy6 epitopes, which indicate Duffy blood group expression. A DNA fragment specific for the C terminus of the gene for P. vivax merozoite surface protein 1 (MSP-1) was amplified from the blood of four of these children and subsequently sequenced from two.

Addressing feral and wild animal threats during deployment: the distinction between animal control and rabies control.

Feral and wild animal control is a critical component of force health protection during troop deployments. The primary goal of animal control during a military deployment is to limit human injury or disease by reducing the likelihood of human-animal contact on US bases. For deployed US military forces, animal control will often be necessary, and trapping and euthanasia will remain the standard. In contrast, a rabies control program focuses on reducing disease incidence in an animal population with a subsequent reduction in rabies risk to military personnel. A successful rabies control program requires several components that typically are not possible in areas where the US Army deploys. The responsibility for animal control during an Army deployment has historically fallen to Army Preventive Medicine Sciences officers (Area of Concentration 67C). Understanding that the deployed US Army conducts animal control to limit human-animal contact, and also that it is generally not possible to mount a successful rabies control program on US contingency bases in the absence of an established, mature national plan will ensure that we are doing all we can to protect Soldiers from animal injury and disease transmission.