ArticleParasite (Paris, France)2025
Optimizing larval mass-rearing techniques for Aedes mosquitoes: enhancing production and quality for genetic control strategies.
Article in Parasite (Paris, France), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of chilling, fluorescent dust marking, and X-ray irradiation on the quality of male Anopheles arabiensis for sterile insect technique applications.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Effects of small-scale temperature shifts on Aedes mosquito production and the influence of environmental conditions on quality assessment with the FAO/IAEA flight test device.Parasite (Paris, France) · 2026Article
- Larval diet-mediated morphological trait andFrontiers in insect science · 2026Article
- Mosquito sex separation using complementation of selectable traits and engineered neo-sex chromosomes.Nature communications · 2025Article
- A 3D-printed adult release system compatible with a drone for aerial deployment of Aedes aegypti and Glossina palpalis gambiensis.Parasites & vectors · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The quantity and quality of laboratory-reared insects are pivotal for the success of any sterile male-release program. Optimizing larval mass-rearing methods to enhance both production and quality in Aedes mosquitoes is essential to meet the growing demand from FAO/IAEA Member States for the sterile insect technique (SIT) as a component of area-wide integrated pest management to control or suppress disease vectors. This study was designed to identify the most effective feeding regime and schedule that maximize pupae production with a single tilt/sorting event and to evaluate an alternative larval-rearing unit. The results demonstrated that ingredient particle size, mosquito strain and feeding regime significantly influenced insect production and quality, underscoring the critical need to account for these factors in mass-rearing operations. A daily feeding regime of 0.17, 0.33, 0.67, 0.67 and 0.5 mg per larva was identified as optimal for both species (Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus) achieving up to 80 ± 2.5% male pupae recovery rate when sorted 48 h after the onset of pupation. Production outcomes were not compromised with the exclusion of feeding on Days 2 and 3. Furthermore, under the conditions of this study, the Wolbaki rack (Model WBK-P0003-V2) was shown to be sufficient for mass-rearing Aedes mosquitoes. Finally, a 4-day feeding regime was implemented in a field program on Reunion island, yielding similar pupae recovery rates and contamination as the reference regime, a significant step toward improving cost-efficiency and scaling-up the program. These findings provide valuable information for refining standard operating procedures (SOPs) for mass-rearing, thereby enhancing the efficiency and scalability of SIT programs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.