Use of a Highly Sensitive Immunomarking System to Characterize Face Fly (Diptera: Muscidae) Dispersal From Cow Pats

Peck, George W.; Ferguson, Holly J.; Jones, Vincent P.; O'Neal, Sally D.; Walsh, Douglas B.

doi:10.1603/en13139

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, no mark-capture research protocol used to date has applied pure proteins to the arthropods. Protein mark-capture studies published to date have applied <20% solutions of the various protein marks (Jones et al, 2006;Boina et al, 2009;Horton et al, 2009;Krugner et al, 2012;Sivakoff et al, 2012;Swezey et al, 2013Swezey et al, , 2014Peck et al, 2014). Finally, the number of protein-marked specimens (n = 30 per sample unit) placed into each sweep net sample was much higher than one would expect to encounter in mark-capture type studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A potential contamination error associated with insect protein mark‐capture data

Hagler

Machtley

Blackmer

2014

Entomologia Exp Applicata

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Various types of protein-spray solutions have proven effective for externally tagging arthropods for mark-release-recapture and mark-capture type dispersal research. However, there is concern that certain standardized arthropod collection methods, such as sweep netting, might lead to high incidences of protein transfer from field-marked to unmarked arthropods during sample collection and sample handling. Native arthropods were collected in sweep nets from a field of alfalfa, Medicago sativa L. (Fabaceae). The nets also contained 10 egg white-, 10 bovine milk-, 10 soy milk-, and 10 water (control)-marked Hippodamia convergens Gu erin-M eneville (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) that were visually distinguishable by a yellow, white, green, and blue dot, respectively. The plant debris and arthropods from each sweep net collection were then placed into either a paper or a plastic bag and frozen for storage. The contents of each sweep net sample were thawed and the color-coded H. convergens and field-collected arthropods were examined for the presence of each protein by an egg white (albumin), bovine milk (casein), and soy milk (soy trypsin) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Data revealed that only 0.67, 0.81, and 0% of the field-collected unmarked arthropods acquired an egg white, bovine milk, and soy milk mark, respectively. ELISA results also showed that all the egg white-marked H. convergens retained their mark, but 22.1% of the bovine milk-marked and 5.1% of the soy milk-marked H. convergens (color-coded beetles) lost their mark during the collection and sample handling processes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A potential contamination error associated with insect protein mark‐capture data

Hagler

Machtley

Blackmer

2014

Entomologia Exp Applicata

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Protein markers are cost‐effective, easy to apply, durable, reliably detected, and inexpensive to analyze by an enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Protein‐based markers have been used in numerous mark‐capture studies evaluating field dispersal of insect pests in agricultural systems (Jones et al, 2006; Boina et al, 2009; Horton et al, 2009; Basoalto et al, 2010; Hagler et al, 2011; Krugner et al, 2012; Sivakoff et al, 2012; Swezey et al, 2013, 2014; Peck et al, 2014). However, no studies to date have evaluated the utility of mark‐capture immunomarking to characterize the dispersal abilities of woodborers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Protein self‐marking by emerald ash borer: an evaluation of efficacy and persistence

Gula

Lopez

Ray

et al. 2020

Entomologia Exp Applicata

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the dispersal ability of invasive insects provides useful insights for developing effective management strategies. Historically, methods for marking insects for dispersal studies have been expensive, time-consuming, labor-intensive, and oftentimes ineffective, especially for woodboring beetles. Also, capturing or rearing insects requires human handling, which can alter behavior. Protein immunomarking is a well-established technique for studying the dispersal of insects; however, it has not been applied to woodborers. This study evaluates the potential for using protein immunomarkers applied directly to woodborer-infested trees to mark emerging beetles. Specifically, in the first experiment, we sprayed varying concentrations of ovalbumin (egg white) solution directly onto logs infested with emerald ash borer (EAB), Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire (Coleoptera: Buprestidae, Agrilini). In turn, an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was used to detect the presence of protein on emerged beetles. To test the persistence of the mark, we applied varying concentrations of albumin to freeze-killed beetles, mounted them on pins, and placed them over various time intervals in an exposed location outdoors. Adult EAB self-marked as they emerged from protein-treated trees, with higher protein concentrations persisting for longer on the cuticle. This technique offers a convenient, inexpensive, and durable means of marking woodborers and circumvents the need for human handling, allowing for more natural behavior and more realistic estimates of dispersal. Protein self-marking may find application in studies of woodborer dispersal within natural forest environments.

show abstract

“…Perhaps the most creative use of the protein marking involved targeting cow pats with egg whites using a jet sprayer 28 . In turn, face fly adults acquired a self-mark as they emerged from their pupal stage and exited the cow pat.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Administering and Detecting Protein Marks on Arthropods for Dispersal Research

Hagler

Machtley

2016

JoVE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Monitoring arthropod movement is often required to better understand associated population dynamics, dispersal patterns, host plant preferences, and other ecological interactions. Arthropods are usually tracked in nature by tagging them with a unique mark and then recollecting them over time and space to determine their dispersal capabilities. In addition to actual physical tags, such as colored dust or paint, various types of proteins have proven very effective for marking arthropods for ecological research. Proteins can be administered internally and/ or externally. The proteins can then be detected on recaptured arthropods with a protein-specific enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Here we describe protocols for externally and internally tagging arthropods with protein. Two simple experimental examples are demonstrated: (1) an internal protein mark introduced to an insect by providing a protein-enriched diet and (2) an external protein mark topically applied to an insect using a medical nebulizer. We then relate a step-by-step guide of the sandwich and indirect ELISA methods used to detect protein marks on the insects. In this demonstration, various aspects of the acquisition and detection of protein markers on arthropods for mark-releaserecapture, mark-capture, and self-mark-capture types of research are discussed, along with the various ways that the immunomarking procedure has been adapted to suit a wide variety of research objectives. Video LinkThe video component of this article can be found at

show abstract

Use of a Highly Sensitive Immunomarking System to Characterize Face Fly (Diptera: Muscidae) Dispersal From Cow Pats

Cited by 9 publications

References 26 publications

A potential contamination error associated with insect protein mark‐capture data

A potential contamination error associated with insect protein mark‐capture data

Protein self‐marking by emerald ash borer: an evaluation of efficacy and persistence

Administering and Detecting Protein Marks on Arthropods for Dispersal Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About