Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 9, Number 3—March 2003
Correction

Correction, Vol. 8, No. 12

Main Article

Table 2

Infection and transmission rates for California mosquito species orally infected with 107.1±0.1 PFU/mL of West Nile virus (WNV)

Species Source by county Day when transmission was attempted No. tested Infection ratea Transmission rateb
Culex tarsalis Yolo 7 30 87 60
14 1 100 100
Kern 7 15 93 40
14 35 74 60
Riverside 7 49 94 10
14 55 85 62
Cx. pipiens quinquefasciatus Kern 7 50 86 4
14 50 58 52
Riverside 7 60 8 0
14 60 13 2
Orange 14 58 28 19
Cx. p. pipiens Shasta 7 45 80 9
14 50 66 36
Cx. stigmatosoma San Bernardino 7 17 100 0
14 31 100 71
Cx. erythrothorax Orange 7 15 67 0
14 48 77 19
Riverside 7 15 100 33
14 25 100 64
Ochlerotatus dorsalis San Luis Obispo 7 30 50 13
14 29 41 34
Oc. melanimon Kern 7 50 46 18
14 60 48 20
Oc. sierrensis Lake 7 40 5 3
14 50 14 6
Aedes vexans Riverside 14 22 32 23
Culiseta inornata Kern 14 28 75 21

aPercent of mosquito bodies positive for WNV.
bPercent of transmission attempts positive for WNV.

Main Article

Page created: June 19, 2012
Page updated: June 19, 2012
Page reviewed: June 19, 2012
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
file_external