Evaluation of the contribution of media derived from various animal livers on the production of Lucilia sericata

Erdal Polat; Zahra Bahararjmand; Kübra Tugtekin; Merve Cil; Emre Deymenci; Serhat Sirekbasan

doi:10.53063/synsint.2024.43221

Erdal Polat ¹
Zahra Bahararjmand ²
Kübra Tugtekin ³
Merve Cil ⁴
Emre Deymenci ⁵
Serhat Sirekbasan ⁶

¹ Department of Medical Microbiology, İstanbul University-Cerrahpaşa School of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey
² Department of Biophysics, İstanbul University-Cerrahpaşa School of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey
³ Department of Medical Biology, İstanbul University-Cerrahpaşa School of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey
⁴ Institute of Forensic Sciences and Legal Medicine, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Istanbul, Turkey
⁵ Dogus University, School of Vocational, Department of Pathology Laboratory Techniques, Istanbul, Turkey
⁶ Department of Medical Laboratory Techniques, Şabanözü Vocational School, Çankırı Karatekin University, Çankırı, Turkey

https://doi.org/10.53063/synsint.2024.43221

Abstract

The effects of liver from different animals and agar- media on the production of Lucilia sericata (Meigen 1826) larvae were investigated to determine the best medium for producing larvae for wound therapy. The research was conducted in two phases. The best liver for generating L. sericata larvae was determined in the first phase, using media with beef, porcine, lamb, and chicken livers gelled with agar. In the first phase of the research, it was established that chicken liver was acceptable since the number of flies emerging from puparia was the highest at 80.75%. The preparation and content of the best medium for developing L. sericata larvae were determined in the second phase using chicken liver, raw, cooked, agar, and agar + salt. The number of flies emerging from puparia on the medium with chicken liver + salt + agar was 95.7% in the second phase, followed by 95% of flies coming out of the pupa in the medium prepared with chicken liver and agar. Finally, as the number of flies developing in these two mediums was not significantly different, we believe that the chicken liver and agar medium are most suitable for developing larvae.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Keywords: Lucilia sericata, Maggot, Different mediums, Medium comparison

References

[1] B.A. Holloway, Morphological characters to identify adult Lucilia sericata (Meigen, 1826) and L. cuprina (Wiedemann, 1830) (Diptera: Calliphoridae), New Zeal. J. Zool. 18 (1991) 413–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/03014223.1991.10422847.

[2] K.Y. Mumcuoglu, Clinical Applications for Maggots in Wound Care, Am. J. Clin. Dermatol. 2 (2001) 219–227. https://doi.org/10.2165/00128071-200102040-00003.

[3] E. Polat, Larva debridement therapy (LDT), Turkiye Aile Hekim. Derg. 14 (2010) 188–191. https://doi.org/10.2399/tahd.10.188.

[4] A. Brown, A. Horobin, D.G. Blount, P.J. Hill, J. English, et al., Blow fly Lucilia sericata nuclease digests DNA associated with wound slough/eschar and with Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm, Med. Vet. Entomol. 26 (2012) 432–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2915.2012.01029.x.

[5] F.K. Tombulturk, G. Kanigur-Sultuybek, A molecular approach to maggot debridement therapy with Lucilia sericata and its excretions/secretions in wound healing, Wound Repair Regen. 29 (2021) 1051–1061. https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12961.

[6] M. Benecke, Arthropods and Corpses, Humana Press Inc., Totowa, NJ. (2005). https://doi.org/10.1385/1-59259-872-2:207.

[7] G.O. Kondakci, O. Bulbul, M.S. Shahzad, E. Polat, H. Cakan, et al., STR and SNP analysis of human DNA from Lucilia sericata larvae’s gut contents, Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. Suppl. Ser. 2 (2009) 178–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2009.08.147.

[8] A. Kerridge, H. Lappin-Scott, J.R. Stevens, Antibacterial properties of larval secretions of the blowfly, Lucilia sericata, Med. Vet. Entomol. 19 (2005) 333–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2915.2005.00577.x.

[9] L. Huberman, N. Gollop, K.Y. Mumcuoglu, C. Block, R. Galun, Antibacterial properties of whole body extracts and haemolymph of Lucilia sericata maggots, J. Wound Care. 16 (2007) 123–127. https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2007.16.3.27011.

[10] S. Thomas, M. Jones, K. Wynn, T. Fowler, The current status of maggot therapy in wound healing, Br. J. Nurs. 22 (2001) 10–12. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2001.10.Sup5.12322.

[11] D.C.W. Chan, D.H.F. Fong, J.Y.Y. Leung, N.G. Patil, G.K.K. Leung, Maggot debridement therapy in chronic wound care, Hong Kong Med. J. 13 (2007) 382–386.

[12] R.A. Sherman, Mechanisms of maggot-induced wound healing: What do we know, and where do we go from here? Evidence-based Complement, Altern. Med. 2014 (2014) 592419. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/592419.

[13] M. Tanyüksel, Ö. Koru, R.E. Araz, H.Z.G. Kilbaş, S. Yildiz,et al., Kronik yaralarin tedavisinde steril Lucilia sericata larva uygulamalari, Gulhane Med. J. 56 (2014) 218–222. https://dx.doi.org/10.5455/gulhane.173024.

[14] G. Daeschlein, K.Y. Mumcuoglu, O. Assadian, B. Hoffmeister, A. Kramer, In vitro antibacterial activity of Lucilia sericata maggot secretions, Skin Pharmacol. Physiol. 20 (2007) 112–115. https://doi.org/10.1159/000097983.

[15] D. Bonn, Maggot therapy: an alternative for wound infection, Lancet. 356 (2000) 1174. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)72870-1.

[16] D. Jaklič, A. Lapanje, K. Zupančič, D. Smrke, N. Gunde-Cimerman, Selective antimicrobial activity of maggots against pathogenic bacteria, J. Med. Microbiol. 57 (2008) 617–625. https://doi.org/10.1099/jmm.0.47515-0.

[17] E. Polat, D. Bolaban, S. Sirekbasan, In-vivo and In-Vitro Examination of the Effect of Lucilia Sericata Larvae and Secretions on the Bacteria in Open Wounds, Cyprus J. Med. Sci. 5 (2020) 113–116. https://doi.org/10.5152/cjms.2020.1094.

[18] M.R. de Lourdes Chávez-Briones, Hernández-Cortés, P. Díaz-Torres, A. Niderhauser-García, J. Ancer-Rodríguez, et al., Identification of Human Remains by DNA Analysis of the Gastrointestinal Contents of Fly Larvae, J. Forensic Sci. 58 (2013) 248–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2012.02279.x.

[19] D. Marchetti, E. Arena, I. Boschi, S. Vanin, Human DNA extraction from empty puparia, Forensic Sci. Int. 229 (2013) e26–e29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.03.043.

[20] M. Kökdener, Adli bilimlerde entomolojinin uygulanması, Turk. bull. entomol. 6 (2016) 269. https://doi.org/10.16969/teb.90382.

[21] M. Kökdener, E. Polat, Survey of Forensically Important Calliphoridae in Samsun, Bull. Leg. Med. 21 (2016) 67–71. https://doi.org/10.17986/blm.2016220390.

[22] M. Kökdener, A.F. Yılmaz, The Effects of Gunshot Residue Components (Pb, Ba, and Sb) on the Life History Traits of Lucilia sericata (Diptera: Calliphoridae), J. Med. Entomol. 58 (2021) 2130–2137. https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tjab123.

[23] J.D. Tenquist, Rearing of lucilia sericata (Diptera: Calliphoridae) on a modified musca domestica medium, New Zeal. Entomol. 5 (1971) 30–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/00779962.1971.9722950.

[24] K. Clark, L. Evans, R. Wall, Growth rates of the blowfly, Lucilia sericata, on different body tissues, Forensic Sci. Int. 156 (2006) 145–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2004.12.025.

[25] H. Genç, General principles of insect nutritional ecology, Trak. Univ. J. Soc. Sci. 7 (2006) 53–57.

[26] R. A. Sherman, J.M. Tran, A simple, sterile food source for rearing the larvae of Lucilia sericata (Diptera: Calliphoridae), Med. Vet. Entomol. 9 (1995) 393–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2915.1995.tb00011.x.

[27] S.I. Tachibana, H. Numata, An artificial diet for blowfly larvae, Lucilia sericata (Meigen) (Diptera: Calliphoridae), Appl. Entomol. Zool. 36 (2001) 521–523. https://doi.org/10.1303/aez.2001.521.

[28] B. Ujvari, J.F. Wallman, T. Madsen, M. Whelan, A.J. Hulbert, Experimental studies of blowfly (Calliphora stygia) longevity: A little dietary fat is beneficial but too much is detrimental, Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A: Mol. Integr. Physiol. 154 (2009) 383–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2009.07.012.

[29] L.C. Rueda, L.G. Ortega, N.A. Segura, V.M. Acero, F. Bello, Lucilia sericata strain from Colombia: Experimental colonization, life tables and evaluation of two artificial diets of the blowfly Lucilia sericata (Meigen) (Diptera: Calliphoridae), Bogotá, Colombia strain. Biol. Res. 43 (2010) 197–203.

[30] K.C.N. Rabêlo, P.J. Thyssen, R.L. Salgado, M.S.C. Araújo, S.D. Vasconcelos, Bionomics of two forensically important blowfly species Chrysomya megacephala and Chrysomya putoria (Diptera: Calliphoridae) reared on four types of diet, Forensic Sci. Int. 210 (2011) 257–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.03.022.

[31] Z.A. El-Moaty, A.E.M. Kheirallah, Developmental variation of the blow fly Lucilia sericata (Meigen, 1826) (Diptera: Calliphoridae) by different substrate tissue types, J. Asia. Pac. Entomol. 16 (2013) 297–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aspen.2013.03.008.

[32] R.A.E.H. Mohamed, F.M.A.A. Galil, L.A. Al-Keridis, L.A. Al-Shuraym, F.A. AL-mekhlafi, S.K. Alhag, Effect of diets on the developmental rate of calliphorid fly of forensic importance Chrysomya megacephala (Fabricius, 1794), J. Asia. Pac. Entomol. 24 (2021) 832–836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aspen.2021.07.007.

[33] A.P. Noblesse, A.W. Meeds, L.M. Weidner, Blow Flies (Diptera: Calliphoridae) and the American Diet: Effects of Fat Content on Blow Fly Development, J. Med. Entomol. 59 (2022) 1191–1197. https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tjac040.

View more references

Cited By