| Literature DB >> 24424500 |
Veronica Andreo1, Markus Neteler2, Duccio Rocchini3, Cecilia Provensal4, Silvana Levis5, Ximena Porcasi6, Annapaola Rizzoli7, Mario Lanfri8, Marcelo Scavuzzo9, Noemi Pini10, Delia Enria11, Jaime Polop12.
Abstract
We use a Species Distribution Modeling (SDM) approach along with Geographic Information Systems (GIS) techniques to examine the potential distribution of hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (HPS) caused by Andes virus (ANDV) in southern Argentina and, more precisely, define and estimate the area with the highest infection probability for humans, through the combination with the distribution map for the competent rodent host (Oligoryzomys longicaudatus). Sites with confirmed cases of HPS in the period 1995-2009 were mostly concentrated in a narrow strip (~90 km × 900 km) along the Andes range from northern Neuquén to central Chubut province. This area is characterized by high mean annual precipitation (~1,000 mm on average), but dry summers (less than 100 mm), very low percentages of bare soil (~10% on average) and low temperatures in the coldest month (minimum average temperature -1.5 °C), as compared to the HPS-free areas, features that coincide with sub-Antarctic forests and shrublands (especially those dominated by the invasive plant Rosa rubiginosa), where rodent host abundances and ANDV prevalences are known to be the highest. Through the combination of predictive distribution maps of the reservoir host and disease cases, we found that the area with the highest probability for HPS to occur overlaps only 28% with the most suitable habitat for O. longicaudatus. With this approach, we made a step forward in the understanding of the risk factors that need to be considered in the forecasting and mapping of risk at the regional/national scale. We propose the implementation and use of thematic maps, such as the one built here, as a basic tool allowing public health authorities to focus surveillance efforts and normally scarce resources for prevention and control actions in vast areas like southern Argentina.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24424500 PMCID: PMC3917439 DOI: 10.3390/v6010201
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Viruses ISSN: 1999-4915 Impact factor: 5.048
Figure 1Training and test samples for the occurrence of hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (HPS) in Argentina. Training data in circles; test data in triangles. Filled symbols are the presence and empty symbols the absence of occurrence.
Univariate statistics for the environmental variables considered in sites with and without HPS cases by Andes virus in southern Argentina.
| Variable | Description and units | HPS | Mean | SD | Median | K | B |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALT | Elevation above sea level | 0 | 739.39 | 825.78 | 518.50 | 4,364.5 *** | 0.000018 ns |
| 1 | 749.03 | 358.73 | 726.00 | ||||
| BARE | Percentage of bare soil cover | 0 | 34.26 | 33.94 | 26.00 | 8,506 *** | −0.0447 *** |
| 1 | 7.51 | 14.46 | 0.00 | ||||
| HERB | Percentage of grass cover | 0 | 56.13 | 29.12 | 61.00 | 5,991.5 ns | −0.0024 ns |
| 1 | 54.28 | 23.18 | 59.00 | ||||
| TREE | Percentage of tree cover | 0 | 9.61 | 15.65 | 3.00 | 1,909.5 *** | 0.05215 *** |
| 1 | 38.21 | 28.50 | 32.00 | ||||
| BIO1 | Annual mean temperature | 0 | 131.02 | 53.56 | 135.50 | 8,256 *** | −0.0217 *** |
| 1 | 89.00 | 15.34 | 89.00 | ||||
| BIO2 | Mean diurnal range | 0 | 135.33 | 19.65 | 136.50 | 7,854 *** | −0.0308 *** |
| 1 | 125.31 | 12.61 | 123.00 | ||||
| BIO3 | Isothermality | 0 | 49.91 | 3.82 | 49.00 | 3,203.5 *** | 0.13419 ** |
| 1 | 51.66 | 1.87 | 52.00 | ||||
| BIO4 | Temperature seasonality | 0 | 4,817.7 | 691.50 | 4,823.0 | 8,748 *** | −0.0015 *** |
| 1 | 4,284.7 | 317.77 | 4,248.0 | ||||
| BIO5 | Maximum temp of the warmest month | 0 | 273.58 | 60.68 | 296.00 | 8,334.5 *** | −0.0153 *** |
| 1 | 228.61 | 23.10 | 224.00 | ||||
| BIO6 | Minimum temp of the coldest month | 0 | 5.10 | 43.74 | 1.50 | 6,935.5 *** | −0.0124 ** |
| 1 | −11.46 | 10.41 | -11.00 | ||||
| BIO7 | Temperature annual range (BIO5-BIO6) | 0 | 268.48 | 35.24 | 270.00 | 8,749 *** | −0.0302 *** |
| 1 | 240.07 | 18.52 | 237.00 | ||||
| BIO8 | Mean temp of the wettest quarter | 0 | 141.24 | 95.40 | 152.00 | 8,886.5 *** | −0.0207 *** |
| 1 | 39.57 | 15.67 | 41.00 | ||||
| BIO9 | Mean temp of the driest quarter | 0 | 112.47 | 39.82 | 109.50 | 2,965 *** | 0.0273 *** |
| 1 | 143.26 | 18.64 | 142.00 | ||||
| BIO10 | Mean temp of the warmest quarter | 0 | 191.63 | 56.51 | 203.00 | 8,519.5 *** | −0.0201 *** |
| 1 | 144.44 | 18.17 | 143.00 | ||||
| BIO11 | Mean temp of the coldest quarter | 0 | 68.54 | 51.69 | 69.00 | 7,706.5 *** | −0.0201 *** |
| 1 | 34.49 | 12.78 | 35.00 | ||||
| BIO12 | Annual precipitation | 0 | 494.92 | 338.62 | 402.50 | 1,705 *** | 0.00386 *** |
| 1 | 976.97 | 309.86 | 1,011.0 | ||||
| BIO13 | Precipitation of the wettest month | 0 | 75.13 | 48.68 | 63.50 | 1,182.5 *** | 0.0351 *** |
| 1 | 168.69 | 52.52 | 170.00 | ||||
| BIO14 | Precipitation of the driest month | 0 | 15.34 | 14.54 | 11.00 | 1,835.5 *** | 0.0623 *** |
| 1 | 28.67 | 11.41 | 26.00 | ||||
| BIO15 | Precipitation seasonality | 0 | 48.94 | 23.73 | 45.50 | 3,915 *** | 0.0200 ** |
| 1 | 58.02 | 7.70 | 58.00 | ||||
| BIO16 | Precipitation of the wettest quarter | 0 | 201.12 | 131.03 | 177.50 | 1,081 *** | 0.01396 *** |
| 1 | 455.36 | 131.42 | 476.00 | ||||
| BIO17 | Precipitation of the driest quarter | 0 | 54.09 | 49.44 | 40.00 | 1,728.5 *** | 0.02017 *** |
| 1 | 105.52 | 40.98 | 101.00 | ||||
| BIO18 | Precipitation of the warmest quarter | 0 | 151.59 | 128.00 | 88.00 | 5,584 ns | −0.00410 ** |
| 1 | 105.84 | 41.44 | 101.00 | ||||
| BIO19 | Precipitation of the coldest quarter | 0 | 94.67 | 98.46 | 56.00 | 438 *** | 0.0159 *** |
| 1 | 431.13 | 129.22 | 451.00 |
BARE: % of bare soil cover; HERB: % of grass cover; TREE: % of woody cover; HPS (0): HPS absence; HPS (1): HPS presence; SD: standard deviation; K: Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared statistic; B: univariate binomial Generalized Linear Model parameter (parameter significance according to a t-test on parameter SD with 245 degrees of freedom); *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05; p < 0.1; ns: not significant, p > 0.1.
Multivariate binomial GLM models for HPS by Andes virus occurrence in southern Argentina.
| Model | Variables | AIC | ΔAIC |
|---|---|---|---|
| m1 | BARE + BIO3 + BIO6 + BIO18 + BIO12 | 76.07 | 0.00 |
| m2 | BARE + BIO3 + BIO6 + BIO18 + BIO19 | 76.76 | 0.69 |
| m3 | BARE + BIO3 + BIO6 + BIO18 + BIO19 + TREE | 78.32 | 2.25 |
| m4 | BIO3 + BIO6 + BIO12 + BIO18 | 79.79 | 3.71 |
| m5 | BARE + BIO3 + BIO4 + BIO6 + BIO18 + BIO19 + TREE | 79.86 | 3.78 |
| m6 | BIO3 + BIO4 + BIO6 + BIO12 + BIO18 | 80.69 | 4.62 |
| m7 | BIO3 + BIO6 + BIO18 + BIO19 + TREE | 80.71 | 4.63 |
| m8 | HERB + BIO3 + BIO6 + BIO18 + BIO12 | 81.45 | 5.38 |
| m9 | BARE + BIO3 + BIO4 + BIO6 + BIO15 + BIO18 + BIO19 + TREE | 81.86 | 5.78 |
| m10 | BIO9 + BIO19 | 88.12 | 12.04 |
| m11 | BIO12 + BIO19 | 98.20 | 22.13 |
| m12 | BIO4 + BIO19 | 100.42 | 24.35 |
BARE: % of bare soil cover; HERB: % of grass cover; TREE: % of woody cover; BIO1: Mean annual temperature; BIO3: Isothermality; BIO4: Temperature seasonality; BIO6: Minimum temperature of the coldest month; BIO9: Mean temperature of the dry season; BIO12: Mean annual precipitation; BIO15: Precipitation seasonality; BIO18: Precipitation of the warmest quarter; BIO19: Precipitation of the coldest quarter; AIC: Akaike’s information criterion value; ΔAIC: difference between each model AIC and the one of the lowest AIC.
Figure 2Predicted potential geographic distribution of HPS caused by Andes virus (ANDV) in southern Argentina. (a) binomial generalized linear model; (b) Maximum Entropy (MaxEnt) model.
Comparison of the models’ performance using different criteria for threshold selection. All criteria in the last line for generalized linear model (GLM) and maximum entropy algorithm (MaxEnt) predictions yielded the same cut-off probability. Min, minimum; Sens, sensitivity; Specif, specificity; Max, maximum; Max prop correct, maximum proportion of presence and absence records correctly identified; K, Kappa index; ROC, receiver operating characteristic.
| Criteria | Threshold | Sensitivity | Specificity | False positive rate | False negative rate | Positive predictive value | Negative predictive value | K |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| Min occurrence prediction | 0.019 | 1.000 | 0.742 | 0.258 | 0.000 | 0.560 | 1.00 | 0.59 |
| Mean occurrence prediction | 0.869 | 0.754 | 0.989 | 0.011 | 0.246 | 0.958 | 0.925 | 0.80 |
| 10% omission | 0.550 | 0.902 | 0.962 | 0.038 | 0.098 | 0.887 | 0.968 | 0.86 |
| Sens = Specif, Max Sens + Specif, Max prop correct, Max K, Min ROC plot distance | ||||||||
|
| ||||||||
| Min occurrence prediction | 0.093 | 1.000 | 0.505 | 0.495 | 0.000 | 0.399 | 1.000 | 0.33 |
| Mean occurrence prediction | 0.799 | 0.738 | 0.989 | 0.011 | 0.262 | 0.957 | 0.920 | 0.79 |
| 10% omission | 0.730 | 0.902 | 0.968 | 0.032 | 0.098 | 0.902 | 0.968 | 0.87 |
| Sens = Specif | 0.570 | 0.951 | 0.952 | 0.048 | 0.049 | 0.866 | 0.983 | 0.87 |
| Max Sens+Specif, Max prop correct, Max K, Min ROC plot distance |
Figure 3MaxEnt binary (above) and reclassified (below) maps for HPS cases by ANDV and O. longicaudatus presence in southern Argentina. (a,c) HPS by ANDV; (b,d) O. longicaudatus.
Figure 4(a) Risk map for HPS caused by Andes virus in southern Argentina; (b) zoomed map of Patagonia covering HPS occurrence. Training (black circles) and test (white triangles) HPS presence records.
Threshold-dependent measures used for assessing the predictive performance of models. TP, the number of presence points correctly classified as present; TN, the number of absence points correctly classified as absent; FP, the number of actual absence points classified as present; FN, the number of actual presence points classified as absent; P, the total number of actual presences; N, the total number of actual absences.
| Performance measure | Definition | Formula |
|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity (True positive rate) | Proportion true presences correctly predicted | TP/P |
| Specificity (True negative rate) | Proportion true absences correctly predicted | TN/N |
| False positive rate | FP/N | |
| False negative rate | FN/P | |
| Positive predictive value (Precision) | Percentage of predicted presences that were real | TP/(TP + FP) |
| Negative predictive value | Percentage of predicted absences that were real | TN/(TN + FN) |
Figure 5Schematic representation of the methodological workflow.