↓ Skip to main content

Filling gaps on ivermectin knowledge: effects on the survival and reproduction of Anopheles aquasalis, a Latin American malaria vector

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Filling gaps on ivermectin knowledge: effects on the survival and reproduction of Anopheles aquasalis, a Latin American malaria vector
Published in
Malaria Journal, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12936-016-1540-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vanderson S. Sampaio, Tatiana P. Beltrán, Kevin C. Kobylinski, Gisely C. Melo, José B. P. Lima, Sara G. M. Silva, Íria C. Rodriguez, Henrique Silveira, Maria G. V. B. Guerra, Quique Bassat, Paulo F. P. Pimenta, Marcus V. G. Lacerda, Wuelton M. Monteiro

Abstract

Strategies designed to advance towards malaria elimination rely on the detection and treatment of infections, rather than fever, and the interruption of malaria transmission between mosquitoes and humans. Mass drug administration with anti-malarials directed at eliminating parasites in blood, either to entire populations or targeting only those with malaria infections, are considered useful strategies to progress towards malaria elimination, but may be insufficient if applied on their own. These strategies assume a closer contact with populations, so incorporating a vector control intervention tool to those approaches could significantly enhance their efficacy. Ivermectin, an endectocide drug efficacious against a range of Anopheles species, could be added to other drug-based interventions. Interestingly, ivermectin could also be useful to target outdoor feeding and resting vectors, something not possible with current vector control tools, such as impregnated bed nets or indoor residual spraying (IRS). Anopheles aquasalis susceptibility to ivermectin was assessed. In vivo assessments were performed in six volunteers, being three men and three women. The effect of ivermectin on reproductive fitness and mosquito survivorship using membrane feeding assay (MFA) and direct feeding assay (DFA) was assessed and compared. The ivermectin lethal concentration (LC) values were LC50 = 47.03 ng/ml [44.68-49.40], LC25 = 31.92 ng/ml [28.60-34.57] and LC5 = 18.28 ng/ml [14.51-21.45]. Ivermectin significantly reduced the survivorship of An. aquasalis blood-fed 4 h post-ingestion (X (2) [N = 880] = 328.16, p < 0.001), 2 days post-ingestion (DPI 2) (X (2) [N = 983] = 156.75, p < 0.001), DPI 7 (X (2) [N = 935] = 31.17, p < 0.001) and DPI 14 (X (2) [N = 898] = 38.63, p < 0.001) compared to the blood fed on the untreated control. The average number of oviposited eggs per female was significantly lower in LC5 group (22.44 [SD = 3.38]) than in control (34.70 [SD = 12.09]) (X (2) [N = 199] = 10.52, p < 0.001) as well as the egg hatch rate (LC5 = 74.76 [SD = 5.48]) (Control = 81.91 [SD = 5.92]) (X (2) [N = 124] = 64.24, p < 0.001). However, no differences were observed on the number of pupae that developed from larvae (Control = 34.19 [SD = 10.42) and group (LC5 = 33.33 [SD = 11.97]) (X (2) [N = 124] = 0.96, p > 0.05). Ivermectin drug reduces mosquito survivorship when blood fed on volunteer blood from 4 h to 14 days post-ingestion controlling for volunteers' gender. Ivermectin at mosquito sub-lethal concentrations (LC5) reduces fecundity and egg hatch rate but not the number of pupae that developed from larvae. DFA had significantly higher effects on mosquito survival compared to MFA. The findings are presented and discussed through the prism of malaria elimination in the Amazon region.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 64 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 18%
Student > Master 11 17%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Other 5 8%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 6 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 37%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 18%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 8%
Environmental Science 4 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 9 14%

Attention Score in Context

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 06 October 2016.
All research outputs
#4,287,080
of 8,482,675 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#1,962
of 2,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,506
of 254,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#78
of 113 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,482,675 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,979 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 254,079 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 113 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.