| Title |
Duplex Real-Time PCR Assay Distinguishes Aedes aegypti From Ae. albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) Using DNA From Sonicated First-Instar Larvae
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Medical Entomology, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1093/jme/tjx125 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Linda Kothera, Brian Byrd, Harry M Savage |
| Abstract |
Aedes aegypti (L.) and Ae. albopictus (Skuse) are important arbovirus vectors in the United States, and the recent emergence of Zika virus disease as a public health concern in the Americas has reinforced a need for tools to rapidly distinguish between these species in collections made by vector control agencies. We developed a duplex real-time PCR assay that detects both species and does not cross-amplify in any of the other seven Aedes species tested. The lower limit of detection for our assay is equivalent to ∼0.03 of a first-instar larva in a 60-µl sample (0.016 ng of DNA per real-time PCR reaction). The assay was sensitive and specific in mixtures of both species that reflected up to a 2,000-fold difference in DNA concentration. In addition, we developed a simple protocol to extract DNA from sonicated first-instar larvae, and used that DNA to test the assay. Because it uses real-time PCR, the assay saves time by not requiring a separate visualization step. This assay can reduce the time needed for vector control agencies to make species identifications, and thus inform decisions about surveillance and control. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 16% |
| Unknown | 9 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 26% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 16% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 16% |
| Unknown | 10 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 06 October 2017.
All research outputs
#3,983,020
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Entomology
#479
of 3,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,460
of 316,993 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Entomology
#10
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,114 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
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 316,993 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.