↓ Skip to main content

Underestimation of foraging behaviour by standard field methods in malaria vector mosquitoes in southern Africa

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Underestimation of foraging behaviour by standard field methods in malaria vector mosquitoes in southern Africa
Published in
Malaria Journal, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12936-014-0527-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Smita Das, Tyler C Henning, Limonty Simubali, Harry Hamapumbu, Lukwa Nzira, Edmore Mamini, Aramu Makuwaza, Mbanga Muleba, Douglas E Norris, Jennifer C Stevenson

Abstract

Defining the anopheline mosquito vectors and their foraging behaviour in malaria endemic areas is crucial for disease control and surveillance. The standard protocol for molecular identification of host blood meals in mosquitoes is to morphologically identify fed mosquitoes and then perform polymerase chain reaction (PCR), precipitin tests, or ELISA assays. The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which the feeding rate and human blood indices (HBIs) of malaria vectors were underestimated when molecular confirmation by PCR was performed on both visually fed and unfed mosquitoes. In association with the Southern Africa International Centers of Excellence in Malaria Research (ICEMR), mosquito collections were performed at three sites: Choma district in southern Zambia, Nchelenge district in northern Zambia, and Mutasa district in eastern Zimbabwe. All anophelines were classified visually as fed or unfed, and tested for blood meal species using PCR methods. The HBIs of visually fed mosquitoes were compared to the HBIs of overall PCR confirmed fed mosquitoes by Pearson's Chi-Square Test of Independence. The mosquito collections consisted of Anopheles arabiensis from Choma, Anopheles funestus s.s., Anopheles gambiae s.s. and Anopheles leesoni from Nchelenge, and An. funestus s.s. and An. leesoni from Mutasa. The malaria vectors at all three sites had large human blood indices (HBI) suggesting high anthropophily. When only visually fed mosquitoes tested by PCR for blood meal species were compared to testing those classified as both visually fed and unfed mosquitoes, it was found that the proportion blooded was underestimated by up to 18.7%. For most Anopheles species at each site, there was a statistically significant relationship (P < 0.05) between the HBIs of visually fed mosquitoes and that of the overall PCR confirmed fed mosquitoes. The impact on HBI of analysing both visually fed and unfed mosquitoes varied from site to site. This discrepancy may be due to partial blood feeding behaviour by mosquitoes, digestion of blood meals, sample condition, and/or expertise of entomology field staff. It is important to perform molecular testing on all mosquitoes to accurately characterize vector feeding behaviour and develop interventions in malaria endemic areas.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Madagascar 1 2%
Unknown 40 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 16%
Student > Bachelor 7 16%
Student > Master 6 14%
Researcher 6 14%
Other 2 5%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 11 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 7%
Mathematics 2 5%
Sports and Recreations 2 5%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 13 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 12 April 2015.
All research outputs
#10,021,908
of 12,524,647 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#3,159
of 3,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,333
of 224,338 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,524,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,658 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 224,338 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.