Next Article in Journal
Effects of Flight on Reproductive Development in Long-Winged Female Crickets (Velarifictorus aspersus Walker; Orthoptera: Gryllidae) with Differences in Flight Behavior
Next Article in Special Issue
Effects of Temperature and Nutrition during the Larval Period on Life History Traits in an Invasive Malaria Vector Anopheles stephensi
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Flupyradifurone and Two Reference Insecticides Commonly Used in Toxicological Studies on the Larval Proteome of the Honey bee Apis mellifera
Previous Article in Special Issue
Copper Exposure Affects Anti-Predatory Behaviour and Acetylcholinesterase Levels in Culex pipiens (Diptera, Culicidae)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Insects
Volume 14
Issue 1
10.3390/insects14010078
insects-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:
Article

Evaluation of Modern Techniques for Species Identification of Lutzia Mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand: Geometric Morphometrics and DNA Barcoding

by
Sedthapong Laojun
1,
Tanasak Changbunjong
2,3 and
Tanawat Chaiphongpachara
1,*
1
Department of Public Health and Health Promotion, College of Allied Health Sciences, Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University, Samut Songkhram 75000, Thailand
2
Department of Pre-Clinic and Applied Animal Science, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Mahidol University, Nakhon Pathom 73170, Thailand
3
The Monitoring and Surveillance Center for Zoonotic Diseases in Wildlife and Exotic Animals (MoZWE), Faculty of Veterinary Science, Mahidol University, Nakhon Pathom 73170, Thailand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2023, 14(1), 78; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14010078
Submission received: 28 November 2022 / Revised: 6 January 2023 / Accepted: 10 January 2023 / Published: 12 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Mosquito: Ecology, Behavior and Molecular Biology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

There are four species of Lutzia mosquitoes in Thailand, including Lt. chiangmaiensis, Lt. fuscana, Lt. halifaxii, and Lt. vorax. However, it is difficult to identify damaged specimens when some of their morphological character is missing. Thus, we evaluated the efficacy of the geometric morphometric (GM) approach and DNA barcoding for the identification of four Lutzia species. Our results showed that DNA barcoding is poorly effective in identifying Lt. fuscana and Lt. halifaxii based on their low interspecific genetic differences. On the other hand, the GM approach based on wing shape analyses successfully identified the four Lutzia species in Thailand.

Abstract

There are four species of Lutzia mosquitoes in Thailand, including Lutzia chiangmaiensis, Lt. fuscana, Lt. halifaxii, and Lt. vorax. The accurate species identification of adult Lutzia mosquitoes based on morphological features requires many body parts, including the abdominal terga and wing. However, species identification is difficult in the case of damaged specimens when some of their morphological character is missing due to transit or gathering in the field. Thus, we evaluated the efficacy of the landmark-based geometric morphometric (GM) approach for the discrimination of Lutzia species in Thailand. In addition, DNA barcoding was also used in parallel with the GM approach to identify the species. Larvae of Lutzia were collected, raised into adults, and identified based on their morphological characteristics. The validated reclassification test results clearly demonstrated that wing shape resulted in a high level of success in identification (correct identifications ranged from 92.50% to 100%); however, based on the DNA barcoding analyses, our results showed that it was poorly effective in identifying Lt. fuscana and Lt. halifaxii based on an overlap between the intraspecific and interspecific divergence. Moreover, our survey results provide updates on the distribution of Lt. chiangmaiensis and Lt. vorax in Thailand. This research will help medical entomologists more efficiently identify mosquitoes in the genus Lutzia, resulting in more effective mosquito control and surveillance.

1. Introduction

Lutzia are large mosquitoes that belong to the order Diptera, subfamily Culicidae, tribe Culicini. This genus consists of nine formally recognized species divided into three subgenera, including Insulalutzia (one species: Lt. shinonagai), Lutzia (two species: Lt. allostigma and Lt. bigoti), and Metalutzia (six species: Lt. agranensis, Lt. chiangmaiensi, Lt. fuscana, Lt. halifaxii, Lt. tigripes, and Lt. vorax) [1]. Recently, phylogenetic analyses based on DNA sequence data on the first and second internal transcribed spacer (ITS-1 and ITS-2) regions of nuclear ribosomal DNA (rDNA) and the mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase I (mtDNA-COI) revealed that the Lutzia clade is classified as a species of the subgenera of Culex [2,3]. However, Lutzia is currently classified as a distinct genus from the genus Culex based on its fundamentally distinctive morphological and biological identity [1].
Lutzia shinonagai, the only species of the subgenus Insulalutzia, is exclusively found on Ogasawara Island, Japan, whereas Lt. allostigma and Lt. bigoti, two species of the subgenus Lutzia, are distributed in the Neotropical region. Some species of the subgenus Metalutzia have limited distribution: Lt. agranensis is reported only in India; Lt. chiangmaiensis is reported only in northern Thailand. Other species of this subgenus are widely distributed: Lt. fuscana and Lt. halifaxii are distributed in the Oriental, Australian, and eastern Palearctic regions; Lt. tigripes is distributed throughout the Afrotropical region; and Lt. vorax is distributed in the Oriental and Australian regions [1,4].
Mosquito species in the genus Lutzia have not been reported to carry pathogens of human diseases because female Lutzia mosquitoes feed mainly on the blood of mammals and birds and seldom attack humans [5]. However, Lutzia mosquitoes serve as natural biological controls on mosquito vectors, making them inevitably important for public health. Lutzia larvae are voracious predators that feed primarily on the larvae of other mosquito species. Surendran et al. [6] assessed the effectiveness of Lutzia larvae as a predator on mosquito vectors in Sri Lanka and found that they were most effective at hunting Aedes aegypti larvae. The immature stages of Lutzia are typically found in a wide variety of freshwater habitats, which are similar to those occupied by Culex species, and have been found in wheel ruts and barrels, which are similar to those occupied by Aedes species, and are most probably related to their desired prey [1].
There are four different species of Lutzia mosquitoes in Thailand, including Lt. chiangmaiensis, Lt. fuscana, Lt. halifaxii, and Lt. vorax [4,7]. Rattanarithikul et al. [5] reported that Lt. fuscana and Lt. halifaxii are distributed across Thailand, whereas Lt. vorax are only distributed in the northern, western, and central regions. Lately, Somboon and Harbach [7] reported that Lt. chiangmaiensis is distributed in northern Thailand, while its presence in other regions remains unconfirmed. According to the gold standard, the species identification of Lutzia mosquitoes in their adult stages based on their morphological characters requires multiple body parts, including the abdominal terga and wing, to aid in decision making [5,7]. However, it is difficult to identify them in the case of damaged specimens when some of their morphological character is missing due to transit or gathering in the field [8]. Presently, many modern techniques have emerged to assist medical entomologists in identifying specimens, such as GMs and DNA barcoding [9,10,11].
The geometric morphometric (GM) technique is a useful modern approach to investigate differences in wing shape for species classification when some species of mosquitoes are difficult to identify by standard taxonomic methods [12,13,14]. In addition, this approach has been used to evaluate the morphological changes caused by environmental conditions in insect vector populations [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22]. Previously, this technique was applied to identify cryptic species of the Anopheles dirus and the An. barbirostris complexes in Thailand, and it was found that GM had a high level of discriminating efficiency in many member species [23,24]. In addition, this modern technique was also proven to be effective with several insects of medical and veterinary significance [25,26,27,28,29]. However, the success of this technique is not guaranteed for all mosquito species, which depends on sufficient differences in geometrical shapes between species [30]. Phanitchakun et al. (2019)’s earlier study revealed that four Lutzia species in Thailand had different wing vein structures, especially between Lt. chiangmaiensis and Lt. vorax [4]. Therefore, it is possible that the GM technique could help identify member species in the genus Lutzia in Thailand. Ruangsittichai et al. [31] explained that the application of GM techniques to particular species for the first time should be supported by molecular biology techniques. DNA barcoding is a recognized effective choice in supporting and confirming the results of GM [31,32,33]. In addition, DNA barcoding sequences of several mosquito species were recently collected across Thailand, which could be used to better confirm the results of GM [3].
Therefore, in the present study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the landmark-based GM approach for the identification of mosquito species within the genus Lutzia in Thailand: Lt. chiangmaiensis, Lt. fuscana, Lt. halifaxii, and Lt. vorax. In addition, DNA barcoding based on a COI sequence analysis was also used in parallel with the landmark-based GM approach to identify four Lutzia species. The results of this study can provide a novel method to more efficiently identify mosquitoes in the genus Lutzia.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Mosquito Collection

All Lutzia larvae were collected from various breeding sites in six provinces of Thailand: Trat (eastern Thailand; 12°08′27.9″ N, 102°16′35.1″ E and 11°38′16.3″ N, 102°33′23.0″ E), Chachoengsao (eastern Thailand; 13°27′14.0″ N, 101°46′25.5″ E), Ubon Ratchathani (northeastern Thailand; 14°34′38.6″ N, 105°21′41.2″ E), Ranong (southern Thailand; 9°50′28.5″ N, 98°27′15.6″ E and 9°43′47.4″ N, 98°23′56.1″ E), Kanchanaburi (western Thailand; 14°06′02.5″ N, 99°00′01.1″ E), and Ratchaburi (western Thailand; 13°22′34.0″ N, 99°16′26.0″ E) between June 2021 and April 2022 (Figure 1).
The mosquito larvae were transported to the College of Allied Health Sciences at the Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University, Samut Songkhram, Thailand, where they were raised in white plastic trays (20 larvae per tray) in the biology laboratory at 25–28 °C, a 12–12 h light–dark cycle, and 50–60% relative humidity until they reached the pupal stage. Third-stage Aedes larvae from the field were used as food for the Lutzia larvae, with each tray receiving 50 larvae daily. When the larvae became pupae, they were relocated to a small cup containing clean water and placed in 30 × 30 × 30 cm cages to facilitate the collection of adult mosquitoes. Four mature female Lutzia species (Lt. chiangmaiensis, Lt. fuscana, Lt. halifaxii, and Lt. vorax; Figure 2) were identified based on their physical characteristics under a stereomicroscope using illustrated taxonomic keys to the mosquitoes of Thailand after being euthanized in the freezer at –20 °C [5,7,34].

2.2. Geometric Morphometrics

After the morphological identification, the right wings of the four Lutzia species were cut off from their thorax by fine forceps and mounted using Hoyer’s mounting medium on glass microscope slides with coverslips. A digital camera (Nikon DS-Fi3, Tokyo, Japan) linked to a Nikon SMZ 800 N stereomicroscope (Nikon Corp., Tokyo, Japan) was used to take photos of all the mounted wing slides of the Lutzia samples, adding a 1 mm scale bar to each wing image.
Eighteen landmarks on the wing vein structure of the Lutzia mosquitoes were identified and digitized for the GM analyses (Figure 3). This study’s landmark placements are based on earlier research that successfully identified certain mosquito species [23,24,35].
In order to evaluate the accuracy of landmark plotting in a wing image set, also known as a repeatability test, 10 images from each Lutzia species were chosen at random and re-digitized by the same individual. The Procrustes analysis was used to estimate shape repeatability [36]. In addition, the linear determination coefficient was calculated after regressing the wing size on the wing shape, in order to assess allometry, which is the relationship between wing size and wing shape [30].
Wing shape variables were computed by the Generalized Procrustes Analysis. The shape matrix was held in Euclidean space to construct partial warps, wherein the principal components of the partial warps were used as the final shape variables [37]. After that, the final shape variables were used for various statistical calculations. The discriminant analysis was used to examine the group separation among the Lutzia species, which is represented as a discriminant space (also called a factor map), and to compute the Mahalanobis distance for assessing shape divergence between the Lutzia species.
The significant difference in wing shape between four Lutzia species based on the pairwise Mahalanobis distance was performed using a non-parametric test (1000 permutations) with Bonferroni correction at p < 0.05.
To evaluate wing shape similarity between the four Lutzia species, a hierarchical clustering tree was constructed based on Mahalanobis distances. Finally, Mahalanobis-based validated (cross-checked) classification was used to evaluate the efficacy of species identification based on wing shape variables, with each sample sequentially removed from the total sample and assigned to the closest group, performing this for all mosquito samples.

2.3. DNA Extraction, PCR Amplification, and DNA Sequencing

Ten Lutzia mosquitoes were randomly sampled per species (a total of 40 samples) for DNA extraction. The total genomic DNA of the mosquitoes was extracted from 4 to 6 legs of each adult Lutzia specimen, using FavorPrep™ Mini Kits (Favorgen Biotech, Ping-Tung, Taiwan), following the manufacturer’s guidelines. Both universal barcode primers, including forward (5′-GGA TTT GGA AAT TGA TTA GTT CCT T-3′) and reverse (5′-AAA AAT TTT AAT TCC AGT TGG AAC AGC-3′) primers [38], were used to amplify a 709-bp fragment of COI; the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) reaction mixture and PCR conditions were as described in a previous study [3]. Negative (water without DNA) and positive controls (DNA of Lutzia mosquitoes) were included in each PCR. All PCR products were examined through electrophoresis using 1.5% agarose gels and Tris-borate-EDTA (TBE) buffer, as well as staining with the Midori Green DNA stain (Nippon Gene, Tokyo, Japan), and visualized via the ImageQuant LAS 500 imager (GE Healthcare Japan Corp., Tokyo, Japan). After that, quality PCR products were purified and sequenced, in both forward and reverse, by SolGent, Inc. (Daejeon, Republic of Korea).

2.4. Software

For the GM analyses, the online XYOM version 2 was used in this study [39]. While for the molecular analyses, the trace files of the COI sequences were examined and manually edited using the BioEdit software [40]. Both forward and reverse sequences were used to create a consensus sequence using the BioEdit software. Our consensus sequences were compared to DNA sequences available in the GenBank database of the National Center for Biotechnology Information website (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi/, accessed on 5 October 2022) and the Barcode of Life Database (BOLD) available at https://www.boldsystems.org/index.php/IDS_OpenIdEngine, accessed on 5 October 2022 to identify the Lutzia species.
The multiple sequence alignment of the COI sequences of the Lutzia mosquitoes were performed using Clustal W software [41] in MEGA X [42]. The nucleotide composition and genetic divergences (within and between the Lutzia species) were calculated by the Kimura-2 parameter (K2P) model via MEGA X [42]. A neighbor-joining (NJ) tree based on the K2P distances with 1000 bootstraps was constructed using MEGA X [42] to examine the genetic relationship between the Lutzia species.

3. Results

3.1. Lutzia Species

In this study, 179 individuals of the four Lutzia species were gathered. The morphological identification of the Lutzia specimens grouped them into four species: Lt. chiangmaiensis, Lt. fuscana, Lt. halifaxii, and Lt. vorax (Table 1). Most of the collected Lutzia samples were identified as Lt. fuscana (58 individuals, 32.40%), followed by Lt. halifaxii (47 individuals, 26.26%), Lt. chiangmaiensis (45 individuals, 25.14%), and Lt. vorax (29 individuals, 16.20%), respectively. Based on our survey, all four Lutzia species were collected in Trat, eastern Thailand, whereas in Ranong, southern Thailand, only Lt. halifaxii was found.

3.2. Wing Geometric Morphometrics

A total of 157 undamaged Lutzia wings were utilized for the GM analyses: 40 wings of Lt. chiangmaiensis, 50 wings of Lt. fuscana, 42 wings of Lt. halifaxii, and 25 wings of Lt. vorax. Assessing the repeatability of landmark digitizing on wing image sets revealed a high degree of shape repeatability based on the Procrustes analysis (repeatability percentage score = 96%; measurement error percentage score = 4%). The repeatability result indicated that landmark digitization in the tested wing image set showed a high accuracy rate, while investigating the allometry revealed a significant relationship between the wing size and wing shape of the Lutzia mosquitoes. The linear determination coefficient after regression showed a negative correlation between size and shape. The effect of wing size (wing centroid size) on wing shape (the discriminant factor) based on the linear determination coefficient was 22% (r2) (p < 0.05) (Figure 4).
The superposition of the average wing shapes revealed shape variation differences among the four Lutzia species, especially at landmark positions 12, 13, 17, and 18 (Figure 5). Investigating the wing shape based on the final shape variables by discriminant analysis displayed that the Lt. vorax group was clearly separated from the other Lutzia groups, whereas some specimens of the Lt. chiangmaiensis, Lt. fuscana, and Lt. halifaxii groups overlapped with each other (Figure 6). Pairwise Mahalanobis distances, which were used to investigate the wing shape differences between the species, were significantly different in all Lutzia species pairs (p < 0.05, Table 2). Wing shape similarity between the four Lutzia species was visualized by a hierarchical clustering tree based on the Mahalanobis distances (Figure 7).
The efficacy of the landmark-based GM approach based on wing shape in identifying the Lutzia species was evaluated by a cross-validated reclassification test, which is shown in Table 3. The results of the reclassification test clearly indicated that wing shape yielded a high level of successful identification (correct identifications ranged from 92.50% to 100%). Lutzia vorax had the highest correct classification score (100%), while Lt. chiangmaiensis had the least correct classification score (92.50%).

3.3. Barcode Sequences

Using the GenBank database and the BOLD system for preliminary species identification, the COI sequences of Lt. chiangmaiensis and Lt. vorax obtained in our study were correctly identified (>99% similarity), while a more than 99% similarity overlap between Lt. fuscana and Lt. halifaxii was found from our sequence comparison with available species sequences in the GenBank database and the BOLD system.
The average nucleotide compositions of the entire dataset of the 40 Lutzia mosquito sequences were A (29.9%), T (38.8%), G (15.4%), and C (15.9%). The absence of stop codons in the amino acid translations indicated that all sequences were functioning protein-coding genes and not pseudogenes.
The intraspecific genetic divergence (within species) based on the K2P model of the Lutzia species varied from 0.00% to 1.43%, and the average intraspecific divergence was 0.48% (Table 4). The highest average intraspecific divergence was observed in Lt. vorax (0.76%), followed by Lt. fuscana (0.60%), Lt. halifaxii (0.35%), and Lt. chiangmaiensis (0.19%), respectively. The interspecific genetic divergence (between species) of the Lutzia species varied from 0.00% to 5.60%, and the average interspecific divergence was 3.14%. The highest average interspecific divergence was observed between Lt. vorax and Lt. chiangmaiensis (5.11%), followed by that between Lt. vorax and Lt. fuscana (4.96%), and between Lt. vorax and Lt. halifaxii (4.74%). Meanwhile, the lowest average interspecific divergence was observed between Lt. fuscana and Lt. halifaxii (0.48%). The results of the K2P distances showed the overlap between intra- and interspecific divergence between Lt. halifaxii and Lt. fuscana.
A neighbor-joining phylogenetic analysis revealed three distinct Lutzia clusters, including the Lt. chiangmaiensis cluster (bootstrap value = 96%), the Lt. fuscana and Lt. halifaxii cluster (bootstrap value = 88%), and the Lt. vorax cluster (bootstrap value = 100%) (Figure 8). This result strongly visualized that Lt. fuscana and Lt. halifaxii samples were grouped into the same cluster based on similarity with the sequences of both mosquito species.
The COI barcode sequence data of the four obtained Lutzia species were submitted to the GenBank database under the following accession numbers: Lt. chiangmaiensis (OP783906–OP783915), Lt. fuscana (OP783916–OP783925), Lt. halifaxii (OP783926–OP783935), and Lt. vorax (OP783936–OP783945).

4. Discussion

In the present study, we evaluated the efficacy of the landmark-based GM approach coupled with DNA barcoding based on COI sequence analysis to identify four Lutzia species in Thailand: Lt. chiangmaiensis, Lt. fuscana, Lt. halifaxii, and Lt. vorax. A total of 179 Lutzia mosquitoes, consisting of 45 individuals of Lt. chiangmaiensis, 58 individuals of Lt. fuscana, 47 individuals of Lt. halifaxii, and 29 individuals of Lt. vorax, were collected from six provinces of Thailand: Trat, Chachoengsao, Ubon Ratchathani, Ranong, Kanchanaburi, and Ratchaburi.
Rattanarithikul et al. [5] reported that Lt. fuscana and Lt. halifaxii are distributed throughout Thailand, whereas the distribution of Lt. vorax in the southern, northeastern, and eastern regions is unclear. Our survey revealed the presence of Lt. vorax in the northeastern (Ubon Ratchathani) and eastern (Trat and Chachoengsao) regions of Thailand. Furthermore, Lt. chiangmaiensis is the newest Lutzia species in Thailand, which was discovered in northern Thailand by Somboon and Harbach [7]. This species was reported only in northern Thailand. This study reported the existence of Lt. chiangmaiensis for the first time in other regions of Thailand, including the eastern (Trat and Chachoengsao), northeastern (Ubon Ratchathani), and western (Kanchanaburi and Ratchaburi) regions.
At present, the standard morphological method for identifying mosquito species is recognized as error-prone and requires practitioners with extensive experience [43]. Nonetheless, this method is highly accepted when supported and confirmed by effective alternative or complementary techniques [8].
Our findings indicated that the landmark-based GM approach based on wing shape analyses was very successful in identifying Lutzia species in Thailand, which is supported by a high percentage of correct classification (94.27% of total performance). Correctly classified specimens of Lt. chiangmaiensis (92.50%), Lt. fuscana (94%), Lt. halifaxii (92.86%), and Lt. vorax (100%) yielded a high percentage of species identification success. The observation of the wireframe graph based on the superposition of the average wing shape revealed differences in wing structure between the four Lutzia species. According to previous research, the wing vein pattern of many mosquito species is a species-specific identity that may be detected by the landmark-based GM for identification [10,13,44,45,46]. The results of the discriminant analysis, pairwise Mahalanobis distance, and 100% identification success based on the cross-validated reclassification indicated that the wing shape of Lt. vorax differed markedly from that of the other Lutzia species. GM’s results are consistent with previous studies of Phanitchakun et al. [4] and Somboon and Harbach [7], reporting that the wing of Lt. vorax has the mediocubital crossvein situated distal to the radiomedial crossvein, unlike other Lutzia species.
In this study, wing size was not analyzed for the identification of the four Lutzia species. Almost all previous studies showed a failure to identify mosquito species by the landmark-based GM approach based on wing size analyses. The wing size of mosquitoes is not a conserved trait and will fluctuate from generation to generation according to density-dependent and independent selective pressures present during the immature stage of development [30,31]. In addition, Lorenz et al. [30] explained that the wing size is more sensitive to a changing environment and frequently overlaps among species, which is difficult to interpret.
An examination of the allometry indicated the relation between the wing size and wing shape of the Lutzia mosquito samples. The result of linear regression for allometric estimation showed a negative correlation (also called an inverse correlation), which means size decreases as shape difference increases, or size increases as shape difference decreases (one increases as the other decreases). This relationship pattern of Lutzia mosquitoes is similar to those found in studies that examined three cryptic species of the An. barbirostris complex in Thailand [24]. Nevertheless, this correlation has no effect on species identification (inter-species investigations) based on the wing shape analyses [47].
Furthermore, the limitation of our study is that larvae were collected and reared into adults for species investigations. It is difficult for adult Lutzia mosquitoes to be collected from mosquito traps and using the human landing catch method, as these methods do not attract them [5]. The preferred method of collecting specimens of mosquitoes in the genus Lutzia is the larval collection in breeding sites such as rice fields, small ponds, roadside ditches, shallow wells, bamboo cups, small puddles, water jars, and wheel tracks [4,5]. Therefore, the GM results of this study may differ from adult specimens in nature due to the influence of factors acquired during the development of the immature stage. However, environmental influences during the development of the immature stage of mosquitoes tend to affect size more than shape in the adult stage [31], while wing shape is relatively stable due to being influenced by the genetic background [30]. In this study, the identification of Lutzia species based on GM offers good results for the wing shape analysis and may be a potential alternative for future applications in the field. For more effective results in applications, we recommend that GM performance be tested on Lutzia specimens in new study areas to avoid errors from wing shape variations in different sites.
This is the first application of the landmark-based GM approach to identify mosquito species in the genus Lutzia. Thus, DNA barcoding based on the COI sequence analysis was used to identify Lutzia species coupled with the GM approach. These genetic results indicated that COI barcoding could distinguish only two of the four Lutzia species, namely, Lt. chiangmaiensis and Lt. vorax, as supported by the barcoding gap and the NJ phylogenetic analysis. Due to their low interspecific differences, it is impossible to distinguish between Lt. fuscana and Lt. halifaxi. The barcoding gap is a hiatus of difference between the greatest intraspecific genetic distance and the smallest interspecific distance, which is very important in determining the success of DNA barcoding [3]. Our assessment of genetic divergences revealed that this gap was not present between Lt. fuscana and Lt. halifaxii, indicating that the DNA barcoding method could not discriminate between the two species. This result is consistent with the investigation of Phanitchakun et al. [4], which found that Lt. fuscana and Lt. halifaxii were not clearly distinct in COI and COII sequences. We also found that Lt. chiangmaiensis was genetically more closely related to Lt. fuscana and Lt. halifaxii, with low genetic differences between species groups (1.86% and 1.70% average interspecific genetic divergences, respectively). The results of genetic divergences based on the K2P model were consistent with the result of our phylogenetic tree.
To confirm that the failure of DNA barcoding to identify Lt. fuscana and Lt. halifaxii was not attributable to faulty morphological identification, we compared all of our sequence samples to those Lutzia sequences available in public databases. The comparison results indicated that almost all overlap between Lt. fuscana and Lt. halifaxii in the database was observed. Therefore, the findings of this research concluded that DNA barcoding is not an effective approach for differentiating Lutzia species in Thailand. Recently, DNA barcoding was applied to aid mosquito identification in Thailand and found that although this technique has high efficiency, some mosquitoes are unable to identify the exact species, such as Anopheles dirus and An. baimaii [23].

5. Conclusions

In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of modern techniques, including the landmark-based GM approach and DNA barcoding, to support the standard morphological method for the identification of Lutzia species in Thailand. Our results showed that DNA barcoding was poorly effective in identifying Lt. fuscana and Lt. halifaxii based on a lack of barcoding gap. In contrast, the GM approach based on wing shape analyses successfully identified four Lutzia species in Thailand. Therefore, GM can help medical entomologists to identify their species in the field. Compared to molecular biology techniques, the GM approach is less expensive and does not require advanced scientific equipment. However, it is difficult to prepare wing slides for this approach, despite the rapid speed of analysis. In addition, our survey results update the distribution of Lt. chiangmaiensis and Lt. vorax in Thailand. This research will help medical entomologists to more efficiently identify mosquitoes in the genus Lutzia, resulting in more effective mosquito control and surveillance.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.L., T.C. (Tanasak Changbunjong) and T.C. (Tanawat Chaiphongpachara); methodology, S.L., T.C. (Tanasak Changbunjong) and T.C. (Tanawat Chaiphongpachara); validation, T.C. (Tanasak Changbunjong) and T.C. (Tanawat Chaiphongpachara); investigation, S.L. and T.C. (Tanawat Chaiphongpachara); data curation, T.C. (Tanawat Chaiphongpachara); writing—original draft preparation, S.L., T.C. (Tanasak Changbunjong) and T.C. (Tanawat Chaiphongpachara); writing—review and editing, T.C. (Tanasak Changbunjong) and T.C. (Tanawat Chaiphongpachara); project administration, T.C. (Tanawat Chaiphongpachara); funding acquisition, T.C. (Tanawat Chaiphongpachara). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research is funded by the National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT).

Institutional Review Board Statement

This research was conducted in conformity with the standards for animal care and the guidelines of the Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University, Thailand. The collection of mosquito samples in the field and other experimental procedures were rigorously reviewed and approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University, Thailand (Ref. IACUC 64-007/2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The COI sequence data obtained in this study were deposited in the GenBank database, and the accession numbers are as follows: Lutzia chiangmaiensis: OP783906–OP783915; Lutzia fuscana: OP783916–OP783925; Lutzia halifaxii: OP783926–OP783935; Lutzia vorax: OP783936–OP783945.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Research Council of Thailand. We also thank the Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University, Thailand for supporting laboratory facilities and equipment.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Harbach, R.E. Mosquito Taxonomic Inventory. Available online: https://mosquito-taxonomic-inventory.myspecies.info/simpletaxonomy/term/6192 (accessed on 8 October 2022).
  2. Harbach, R.E.; Kitching, I.J.; Culverwell, C.L.; Dubois, J.; Linton, Y.M. Phylogeny of Mosquitoes of Tribe Culicini (Diptera: Culicidae) Based on Morphological Diversity. Zool. Scr. 2012, 41, 499–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Chaiphongpachara, T.; Changbunjong, T.; Laojun, S.; Nutepsu, T.; Suwandittakul, N.; Kuntawong, K.; Sumruayphol, S.; Ruangsittichai, J. Mitochondrial DNA Barcoding of Mosquito Species (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0275090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Phanitchakun, T.; Namgay, R.; Miyagi, I.; Tsuda, Y.; Walton, C.; Harbach, R.E.; Somboon, P. Morphological and Molecular Evidence for a New Species of Lutzia (Diptera: Culicidae: Culicini) from Thailand. Acta Trop. 2019, 191, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Rattanarithikul, R.; Harbach, R.E.; Harrison, B.A.; Panthusiri, P.; Jones, J.W.; Coleman, R.E. Illustrated Keys to the Mosquitoes of Thailand. II. Genera Culex and Lutzia. Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Public Health 2005, 36, 2. [Google Scholar]
  6. Surendran, S.N.; Jude, P.J.; Thavaranjit, A.C.; Eswaramohan, T.; Vinobaba, M.; Ramasamy, R. Predatory Efficacy of Culex (Lutzia) fuscanus on Mosquito Vectors of Human Diseases in Sri Lanka. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 2013, 29, 168–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Somboon, P.; Harbach, R.E. Lutzia (Metalutzia) Chiangmaiensis n. sp. (Diptera: Culicidae), Formal Name for the Chiang Mai (CM) Form of the Genus Lutzia in Thailand. J. Med. Entomol. 2019, 56, 1270–1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sumruayphol, S.; Apiwathnasorn, C.; Ruangsittichai, J.; Sriwichai, P.; Attrapadung, S.; Samung, Y.; Dujardin, J.P. DNA Barcoding and Wing Morphometrics to Distinguish Three Aedes Vectors in Thailand. Acta Trop. 2016, 159, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sumruayphol, S.; Chaiphongpachara, T.; Samung, Y.; Ruangsittichai, J.; Cui, L.; Zhong, D.; Sattabongkot, J.; Sriwichai, P. Seasonal Dynamics and Molecular Differentiation of Three Natural Anopheles Species (Diptera: Culicidae) of the Maculatus Group (Neocellia Series) in Malaria Hotspot Villages of Thailand. Parasit Vectors 2020, 13, 574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Oliveira-Christe, R.; Marrelli, M.T. Using Geometric Morphometric Analysis of Wings to Identify Mosquito Species from the Subgenus Microculex (Diptera: Culicidae). J. Vector Ecol. 2021, 46, 221–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. de Souza, A.L.D.S.; Multini, L.C.; Marrelli, M.T.; Wilke, A.B.B. Wing Geometric Morphometrics for Identification of Mosquito Species (Diptera: Culicidae) of Neglected Epidemiological Importance. Acta Trop. 2020, 211, 105593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Dujardin, J.P. Morphometrics Applied to Medical Entomology. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2008, 8, 875–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Simões, R.F.; Wilke, A.B.B.; Chagas, C.R.F.; de Menezes, R.M.T.; Suesdek, L.; Multini, L.C.; Silva, F.S.; Grech, M.G.; Marrelli, M.T.; Kirchgatter, K. Wing Geometric Morphometrics as a Tool for the Identification of Culex Subgenus Mosquitoes of Culex (Diptera: Culicidae). Insects 2020, 11, 567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Bellin, N.; Calzolari, M.; Callegari, E.; Bonilauri, P.; Grisendi, A.; Dottori, M.; Rossi, V. Geometric Morphometrics and Machine Learning as Tools for the Identification of Sibling Mosquito Species of the Maculipennis Complex (Anopheles). Infect. Genet. Evol. 2021, 95, 105034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Boumaza, M.; Merabti, B.; Adjami, Y.; Ouakid, M.L. Geometric Morphometric Wing Analysis of Avian Malaria Vector, Culiseta longiareolata, from Two Locations in Algeria. Insects 2022, 13, 1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Petersen, V.; Santana, M.; Alves, J.M.P.; Suesdek, L. Genetic and Morphological Polymorphisms of Aedes scapularis (Diptera: Culicidae), Vector of Filariae and Arboviruses. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2022, 97, 105193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. DE Mello, C.F.; Carbajal-DE-LA-Fuente, A.L.; Ferreira, V.D.C.; Alencar, J. Influence of Seasonality on Wing Morphological Variability in Populations of Mansonia amazonensis (Theobald) (Diptera: Culicidae). Zootaxa 2022, 5100, 269–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Martinet, J.P.; Ferté, H.; Sientzoff, P.; Krupa, E.; Mathieu, B.; Depaquit, J. Wing Morphometrics of Aedes Mosquitoes from North-Eastern France. Insects 2021, 12, 341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Demirci, B.; Bedir, H.; Akiner, M.M. Landmark-Based Geometric Morphometric Analysis of Wing Size and Wing Shape among Aedes albopictus (Skuse, 1894) Populations in Turkey. J. Vector Ecol. 2021, 46, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Morales Vargas, R.; Tsunoda, T.; Noda, J.; Bousses, P.; Nguyen, T.Y.; Hasebe, F.; Dujardin, J.P. Shape Relatedness between Geographic Populations of Culex tritaeniorhynchus, the Primary Vector of Japanese Encephalitis Virus: A Landmark Study. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2021, 90, 104764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Carvajal, T.M.; Amalin, D.M.; Watanabe, K. Wing Geometry and Genetic Analyses Reveal Contrasting Spatial Structures between Male and Female Aedes aegypti (L.) (Diptera: Culicidae) Populations in Metropolitan Manila, Philippines. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2021, 87, 104676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chaiphongpachara, T.; Laojun, S. Variation over Time in Wing Size and Shape of the Coastal Malaria Vector Anopheles (Cellia) epiroticus Linton and Harbach (Diptera: Culicidae) in Samut Songkhram, Thailand. J. Adv. Vet. Anim. Res. 2019, 6, 208–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chaiphongpachara, T.; Changbunjong, T.; Sumruayphol, S.; Laojun, S.; Suwandittakul, N.; Kuntawong, K. Geometric Morphometrics versus DNA Barcoding for the Identification of Malaria Vectors Anopheles dirus and An. baimaii in the Thai-Cambodia Border. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 13236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Chaiphongpachara, T.; Changbunjong, T.; Laojun, S. Geometric Morphometric and Molecular Techniques for Discriminating among Three Cryptic Species of the Anopheles barbirostris Complex (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand. Heliyon 2022, 8, e11261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Altunsoy, F.; Ercan, I.; Ocakoglu, G. Analysis of Morphometric Characteristics of Different Populations of Tabanus Bromius Linne 1758 (Diptera: Tabanidae). Pak. J. Zool. 2017, 49, 1013–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Prudhomme, J.; Cassan, C.; Hide, M.; Toty, C.; Rahola, N.; Vergnes, B.; Dujardin, J.P.; Alten, B.; Sereno, D.; Bañuls, A.L. Ecology and Morphological Variations in Wings of Phlebotomus Ariasi (Diptera: Psychodidae) in the Region of Roquedur (Gard, France): A Geometric Morphometrics Approach. Parasit. Vectors 2016, 9, 578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Limsopatham, K.; Tanajitaree, C.; Sanit, S.; Sukontason, K.; Somboon, P.; Amendt, J.; Feddern, N.; Sukontason, K.L. Wing Morphometrics as a Tool for the Identification of Forensic Important Lucilia spp. (Diptera: Calliphoridae). Acta Trop. 2022, 226, 106242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. García-Sánchez, A.M.; Zurita, A.; Cutillas, C. Morphometrics as a Complementary Tool in the Differentiation of Two Cosmopolitan Flea Species: Ctenocephalides felis and Ctenocephalides canis. Insects 2022, 13, 707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Chaiphongpachara, T.; Tubsamut, P. Geometric Morphometry of Pupae to Identify Four Medically Important Flies (Order: Diptera) in Thailand. Biodiversitas 2019, 20, 1504–1509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Lorenz, C.; Almeida, F.; Almeida-Lopes, F.; Louise, C.; Pereira, S.N.; Petersen, V.; Vidal, P.O.; Virginio, F.; Suesdek, L. Geometric Morphometrics in Mosquitoes: What Has Been Measured? Infect. Genet. Evol. 2017, 54, 205–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ruangsittichai, J.; Apiwathnasorn, C.; Dujardin, J.P. Interspecific and Sexual Shape Variation in the Filariasis Vectors Mansonia dives and Ma. bonneae. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2011, 11, 2089–2094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Buttachon, S.; Arikit, S.; Nuchchanart, W.; Puangmalee, T. Geometric Morphometric Analysis and Molecular Identification of Coconut Mite, Aceria guerreronis Keifer (Acari: Eriophyidae) Collected from Thailand. Insects 2022, 13, 1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Zubrii, N.A.; Filippov, B.Y.; Kondakov, A.V.; Khruleva, O.A.; Rybalov, L.B.; Vikhreva, D.V. DNA Barcoding versus Morphological Variability of Pterostichus brevicornis Brevicornis (Kirby, 1837) (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in the Arctic and Subarctic. Insects 2022, 13, 204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Rattanarithikul, R.; Harrison, B.A.; Panthusiri, P.; Coleman, R.E. Illustrated Keys to the Mosquitoes of Thailand. I. Background; Geographic Distribution; Lists of Genera, Subgenera, and Species; and a Key to the Genera. Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Public Health 2005, 36, 1. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  35. Demari-Silva, B.; Suesdek, L.; Sallum, M.A.M.; Marrelli, M.T. Wing Geometry of Culex Coronator (Diptera: Culicidae) from South and Southeast Brazil. Parasit. Vectors 2014, 7, 174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Goodall, C.R. Procrustes Methods in the Statistical Analysis of Shape. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 1991, 53, 285–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Rohlf, F.J. Shape Statistics: Procrustes Superimpositions and Tangent Spaces. J. Classif. 1999, 16, 197–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kumar, N.P.; Rajavel, A.R.; Natarajan, R.; Jambulingam, P. DNA Barcodes Can Distinguish Species of Indian Mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). J. Med. Entomol. 2007, 44, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Dujardin, S.; Dujardin, J.P. Geometric Morphometrics in the Cloud. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2019, 70, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hall, T.A. BIOEDIT: A User-Friendly Biological Sequence Alignment Editor and Analysis Program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symp. Ser. 1999, 41, 95–98. [Google Scholar]
  41. Larkin, M.A.; Blackshields, G.; Brown, N.P.; Chenna, R.; Mcgettigan, P.A.; McWilliam, H.; Valentin, F.; Wallace, I.M.; Wilm, A.; Lopez, R.; et al. Clustal W and Clustal X Version 2.0. Bioinformatics 2007, 23, 2947–2948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Kumar, S.; Stecher, G.; Li, M.; Knyaz, C.; Tamura, K. MEGA X: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis across Computing Platforms. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2018, 35, 1547–1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Chan, A.; Chiang, L.; Hapuarachchi, H.C.; Tan, C.; Pang, S.; Lee, R.; Lee, K.; Ng, L. DNA Barcoding: Complementing Morphological Identification of Mosquito Species in Singapore. Parasit. Vectors 2014, 7, 569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Chonephetsarath, S.; Raksakoon, C.; Sumruayphol, S.; Dujardin, J.P.; Potiwat, R. The Unequal Taxonomic Signal of Mosquito Wing Cells. Insects 2021, 12, 376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Garzón, M.J.; Grech, M.; Lizuain, A.; Schweigmann, N. Geometric Morphometrics for the Differentiation of Females of the Pipiens Assemblage in Argentina. J. Vector Ecol. 2020, 45, 150–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Sauer, F.G.; Jaworski, L.; Erdbeer, L.; Heitmann, A.; Schmidt-Chanasit, J.; Kiel, E.; Lühken, R. Geometric Morphometric Wing Analysis Represents a Robust Tool to Identify Female Mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) in Germany. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 17613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Sontigun, N.; Samerjai, C.; Sukontason, K.; Wannasan, A.; Amendt, J.; Tomberlin, J.K.; Sukontason, K.L. Wing Morphometrics as a Tool in Species Identification of Forensically Important Blow Flies of Thailand. Acta Trop. 2019, 190, 312–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Insects 14 00078 g001 550
Figure 1. Locations of the sample collection sites (a) and Lutzia larval collection method used in this study (b). Lutzia mosquito samples were gathered from six provinces in four geographical regions of Thailand, including Trat (1), Chachoengsao (2) in the eastern region (green), Ubon Ratchathani (3) in the northeastern (red), Ranong (4) in the southern region (blue), Kanchanaburi (5), and Ratchaburi (6) in the western region (yellow). This map was made available by the USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/, accessed on 1 October 2022.
Figure 1. Locations of the sample collection sites (a) and Lutzia larval collection method used in this study (b). Lutzia mosquito samples were gathered from six provinces in four geographical regions of Thailand, including Trat (1), Chachoengsao (2) in the eastern region (green), Ubon Ratchathani (3) in the northeastern (red), Ranong (4) in the southern region (blue), Kanchanaburi (5), and Ratchaburi (6) in the western region (yellow). This map was made available by the USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/, accessed on 1 October 2022.
Insects 14 00078 g001
Insects 14 00078 g002 550
Figure 2. Four adult female Lutzia species used in the study: Lt. chiangmaiensis, Lt. fuscana, Lt. halifaxii, and Lt. vorax. Lutzia fuscana, Lt. halifaxii, and Lt. vorax have different abdominal terga characteristics: Lt. fuscana has entirely pale light-yellow scales on the terga V–VIII and entirely dark scales or narrow apical pale bands on the terga II–IV; Lt. halifaxii has fully covered dark scales on the abdominal terga and occasional lateral pale patches on the last few segments; Lt. vorax has apical pale stripes that are rather wide and around the same width; and Lt. chiangmaiensis has abdominal terga characteristics like those of Lt. vorax but with different wing vein positions.
Figure 2. Four adult female Lutzia species used in the study: Lt. chiangmaiensis, Lt. fuscana, Lt. halifaxii, and Lt. vorax. Lutzia fuscana, Lt. halifaxii, and Lt. vorax have different abdominal terga characteristics: Lt. fuscana has entirely pale light-yellow scales on the terga V–VIII and entirely dark scales or narrow apical pale bands on the terga II–IV; Lt. halifaxii has fully covered dark scales on the abdominal terga and occasional lateral pale patches on the last few segments; Lt. vorax has apical pale stripes that are rather wide and around the same width; and Lt. chiangmaiensis has abdominal terga characteristics like those of Lt. vorax but with different wing vein positions.
Insects 14 00078 g002
Insects 14 00078 g003 550
Figure 3. Eighteen landmarks on the wing vein structure of Lutzia mosquito for GM analyses in this study.
Figure 3. Eighteen landmarks on the wing vein structure of Lutzia mosquito for GM analyses in this study.
Insects 14 00078 g003
Insects 14 00078 g004 550
Figure 4. Allometric relationship between the wing centroid size (CS) and wing shape of Lutzia mosquito specimens. The linear regression prediction is shown by the orange dotted line; the y-axis shows the wing shape, and the x-axis shows the wing CS.
Figure 4. Allometric relationship between the wing centroid size (CS) and wing shape of Lutzia mosquito specimens. The linear regression prediction is shown by the orange dotted line; the y-axis shows the wing shape, and the x-axis shows the wing CS.
Insects 14 00078 g004
Insects 14 00078 g005 550
Figure 5. Superimposed wireframe graph showing the superposition of the average wing shape of each Lutzia species, including Lt. chiangmaiensis, Lt. fuscana, Lt. halifaxii, and Lt. vorax.
Figure 5. Superimposed wireframe graph showing the superposition of the average wing shape of each Lutzia species, including Lt. chiangmaiensis, Lt. fuscana, Lt. halifaxii, and Lt. vorax.
Insects 14 00078 g005
Insects 14 00078 g006 550
Figure 6. Discriminant space produced by the discriminant analysis of the wing shape of Lt. chiangmaiensis, Lt. fuscana, Lt. halifaxii, and Lt. vorax. Four Lutzia species’ wing shape variations are represented by each polygon, and each dot inside the polygons represents each individual sample.
Figure 6. Discriminant space produced by the discriminant analysis of the wing shape of Lt. chiangmaiensis, Lt. fuscana, Lt. halifaxii, and Lt. vorax. Four Lutzia species’ wing shape variations are represented by each polygon, and each dot inside the polygons represents each individual sample.
Insects 14 00078 g006
Insects 14 00078 g007 550
Figure 7. Hierarchical clustering tree based on the Mahalanobis distances between average group shapes showing wing shape similarity among Lutzia species. The percentages of bootstrap values based on 1000 replicates are shown above the branches.
Figure 7. Hierarchical clustering tree based on the Mahalanobis distances between average group shapes showing wing shape similarity among Lutzia species. The percentages of bootstrap values based on 1000 replicates are shown above the branches.
Insects 14 00078 g007
Insects 14 00078 g008 550
Figure 8. Neighbor-joining (NJ) phylogenetic tree based on Kimura 2-parameter (K2P) distances derived from the 40 COI barcoding sequences of four Lutzia species. Eight sequences from the GenBank database (accession numbers OL743067 and OL743071 for Lt. chiangmaiensis; OL743060 and OL743063 for Lt. fuscana; MK271008 and MK271009 for Lt. halifaxii; OL743058 and OL743059 for Lt. vorax) were used as reference species sequences (red stars). Culex gelidus (accession number: OL743067) was used as an outgroup. The bootstrap values (1000 replicates) below 50% are not shown.
Figure 8. Neighbor-joining (NJ) phylogenetic tree based on Kimura 2-parameter (K2P) distances derived from the 40 COI barcoding sequences of four Lutzia species. Eight sequences from the GenBank database (accession numbers OL743067 and OL743071 for Lt. chiangmaiensis; OL743060 and OL743063 for Lt. fuscana; MK271008 and MK271009 for Lt. halifaxii; OL743058 and OL743059 for Lt. vorax) were used as reference species sequences (red stars). Culex gelidus (accession number: OL743067) was used as an outgroup. The bootstrap values (1000 replicates) below 50% are not shown.
Insects 14 00078 g008
Table
Table 1. Number of Lutzia mosquitoes collected in this study.
Table 1. Number of Lutzia mosquitoes collected in this study.
ProvinceTotal Number of Lutzia Mosquitoes Collected
Lt. chiangmaiensisLt. fuscanaLt. halifaxiiLt. vorax
Eastern Thailand
   Trat813326
   Chachoengsao530–4
Northeastern Thailand
   Ubon Ratchathani5––4
Southern Thailand
   Ranong––15–
Western Thailand
   Kanchanaburi15––5
   Ratchaburi1215–10
   Total45584729
Table
Table 2. Pairwise Mahalanobis distance and significant differences in the wing shape of Lt. chiangmaiensis, Lt. fuscana, Lt. halifaxii, and Lt. vorax.
Table 2. Pairwise Mahalanobis distance and significant differences in the wing shape of Lt. chiangmaiensis, Lt. fuscana, Lt. halifaxii, and Lt. vorax.
Lutzia SpeciesPairwise Mahalanobis Distance
Lt. chiangmaiensisLt. fuscanaLt. halifaxiiLt. vorax
Lt. chiangmaiensis0.00
Lt. fuscana4.55 *0.00
Lt. halifaxii5.34 *4.05 *0.00
Lt. vorax8.45 *10.25 *9.99 *0.00
Comparing the wing shape between species, superscript asterisks after pairwise Mahalanobis distance values indicate statistically significant differences between Lutzia species at p-value < 0.05.
Table
Table 3. Identification error and percentage of correct classification based on the wing shape of Lt. chiangmaiensis, Lt. fuscana, Lt. halifaxii, and Lt. vorax calculated by a cross-validated reclassification test.
Table 3. Identification error and percentage of correct classification based on the wing shape of Lt. chiangmaiensis, Lt. fuscana, Lt. halifaxii, and Lt. vorax calculated by a cross-validated reclassification test.
Lutzia SpeciesClassified as Total
(Individuals) 		Correct Identifications (%)
Lt. chiangmaiensis
(Individuals) 		Lt. fuscana
(Individuals) 		Lt. halifaxii
(Individuals) 		Lt. vorax
(Individuals)
Lt. chiangmaiensis371204092.50%
Lt. fuscana047305094%
Lt. halifaxii123904292.86%
Lt. vorax0002525100%
Table
Table 4. Average percentage intra- and interspecific K2P distances of four Lutzia species based on the COI barcoding sequences calculated using the Kimura 2-parameter distance algorithm.
Table 4. Average percentage intra- and interspecific K2P distances of four Lutzia species based on the COI barcoding sequences calculated using the Kimura 2-parameter distance algorithm.
Lutzia SpeciesAverage Percentage Genetic Divergences (Min–Max)
Lt. chiangmaiensisLt. fuscanaLt. halifaxiiLt. vorax
Lt. chiangmaiensis0.19%
(0.00–0.71)
Lt. fuscana1.86%
(1.43–2.45)		0.60%
(0.00–1.14)
Lt. halifaxii1.70%
(1.57–2.16)		0.48%
(0.00–0.85)		0.35%
(0.00–0.57)
Lt. vorax5.11%
(4.81–5.44)		4.96%
(4.22–5.60)		4.74%
(4.38–5.29)		0.76%
(0.00–1.43)
The red values are intraspecific genetic distances, while the black values are the interspecific genetic distances.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Laojun, S.; Changbunjong, T.; Chaiphongpachara, T. Evaluation of Modern Techniques for Species Identification of Lutzia Mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand: Geometric Morphometrics and DNA Barcoding. Insects 2023, 14, 78. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14010078

AMA Style

Laojun S, Changbunjong T, Chaiphongpachara T. Evaluation of Modern Techniques for Species Identification of Lutzia Mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand: Geometric Morphometrics and DNA Barcoding. Insects. 2023; 14(1):78. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14010078

Chicago/Turabian Style

Laojun, Sedthapong, Tanasak Changbunjong, and Tanawat Chaiphongpachara. 2023. "Evaluation of Modern Techniques for Species Identification of Lutzia Mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand: Geometric Morphometrics and DNA Barcoding" Insects 14, no. 1: 78. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14010078

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