Japanese Encephalitis (JE) is the most important cause of human encephalitis throughout Asia and the Pacific. Although JE is a vector-borne disease, it has been demonstrated experimentally that transmission between pigs can occur through direct contact. Whether pig-to-pig transmission plays a role in the natural epidemiological cycle of JE remains unknown. To assess whether direct transmission between pigs may occur under field conditions, we built two mathematical models of JE transmission incorporating vector-borne transmission alone or a combination of vector-borne and direct transmission. We used Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) techniques to estimate the parameters of the models. We fitted the models to (i) two serological datasets collected longitudinally from two pig cohorts (C1 and C2) during two periods of four months on a farm on the outskirts of Phnom-Penh, Cambodia and to (ii) a cross-sectional (CS) serological survey dataset collected from 505 swine coming from eight different provinces of Cambodia. In both cases, the model incorporating both vector-borne and direct transmission better explained the data. We computed the value of the basic reproduction number R0 (2.93 for C1, 2.66 for C2 and 2.27 for CS), as well as the vector-borne reproduction number Rpv and the direct transmission reproduction number Rpp. We then determined the contribution of direct transmission on R0 (11.90% for C1, 11.62% for C2 and 7.51% for CS). According to our results, the existence of pig-to-pig transmission is consistent with our swine serological data. Thus, direct transmission may contribute to the epidemiological cycle of JE in Cambodia. These results need to be confirmed in other eco-climatic settings, in particular in temperate areas where pig-to-pig transmission may facilitate the persistence of JE virus (JEV) during cold seasons when there are no or few mosquitoes.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 August 2018.
All research outputs
#14,888,076
of 23,100,534 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#125,378
of 197,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,512
of 301,794 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,060
of 3,328 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,100,534 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 197,129 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 301,794 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,328 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
