| Literature DB >> 24587059 |
Vincent O Nyasembe1, David P Tchouassi1, Hillary K Kirwa1, Woodbridge A Foster2, Peter E A Teal3, Christian Borgemeister4, Baldwyn Torto1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent malaria vector control measures have considerably reduced indoor biting mosquito populations. However, reducing the outdoor biting populations remains a challenge because of the unavailability of appropriate lures to achieve this. This study sought to test the efficacy of plant-based synthetic odor baits in trapping outdoor populations of malaria vectors. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDING: Three plant-based lures ((E)-linalool oxide [LO], (E)-linalool oxide and (E)-β-ocimene [LO + OC], and a six-component blend comprising (E)-linalool oxide, (E)-β-ocimene, hexanal, β-pinene, limonene, and (E)-β-farnesene [Blend C]), were tested alongside an animal/human-based synthetic lure (comprising heptanal, octanal, nonanal, and decanal [Blend F]) and worn socks in a malaria endemic zone in the western part of Kenya. Mosquito Magnet-X (MM-X) and lightless Centre for Disease Control (CDC) light traps were used. Odor-baited traps were compared with traps baited with either solvent alone or solvent + carbon dioxide (controls) for 18 days in a series of randomized incomplete-block designs of days × sites × treatments. The interactive effect of plant and animal/human odor was also tested by combining LO with either Blend F or worn socks. Our results show that irrespective of trap type, traps baited with synthetic plant odors compared favorably to the same traps baited with synthetic animal odors and worn socks in trapping malaria vectors, relative to the controls. Combining LO and worn socks enhanced trap captures of Anopheles species while LO + Blend F recorded reduced trap capture. Carbon dioxide enhanced total trap capture of both plant- and animal/human-derived odors. However, significantly higher proportions of male and engorged female Anopheles gambiae s.l. were caught when the odor treatments did not include carbon dioxide. CONCLUSION AND SIGNIFICANCE: The results highlight the potential of plant-based odors and specifically linalool oxide, with or without carbon dioxide, for surveillance and mass trapping of malaria vectors.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24587059 PMCID: PMC3933673 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0089818
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Total number of each mosquito species/genusof both sexes caught by each type of trap.
| Species | CDC | MM-X | χ2 |
|
|
| 229 | 1655 | 2155.65 | <0.001 |
|
| 230 | 867 | 737.46 | <0.001 |
| Other | 11 | 1010 | 1951.03 | <0.001 |
|
| 1205 | 7847 | 9297.50 | <0.001 |
|
| 4201 | 5080 | 166.12 | <0.001 |
| Other mosquito spp. | 15 | 238 | 389.60 | <0.001 |
Total anopheline trap captures with plant and animal odor compounds and worn socks in the presence or absence of carbon dioxide using MM-X traps.
| Species | Treatment | N | Without CO2 | With CO2 | ||||
| n | IRR (95% CI) |
| n | IRR (95% CI) |
| |||
|
| Control | 18 | 23 | 1.0 | 47 | 1.0 | ||
| LO | 18 | 188 | 8.9 (5.85–14.48) | <0.001 | 275 | 10 (7.05–15.59) | <0.001 | |
| LO+OC | 18 | 88 | 3.8 (2.40–6.32) | <0.001 | 228 | 8.5 (5.80–12.93) | <0.001 | |
| Blend C | 18 | 64 | 3.0 (1.90–5.11) | <0.001 | 185 | 6.9 (4.66–10.49) | <0.001 | |
| Blend F | 18 | 53 | 3.6 (2.40–5.94) | <0.001 | 228 | 8.4 (5.78–12.87) | <0.001 | |
| Socks | 18 | 76 | 3.7 (2.41–6.02) | <0.001 | 248 | 9.7 (6.44–14.97) | <0.001 | |
|
| Control | 18 | 12 | 1.0 | 33 | 1.0 | ||
| LO | 18 | 61 | 5.1 (2.84–9.91) | <0.001 | 115 | 3.5 (2.40–5.21) | <0.001 | |
| LO+OC | 18 | 33 | 2.9 (1.56–5.86) | <0.01 | 127 | 3.7 (2.57–5.56) | <0.001 | |
| Blend C | 18 | 51 | 4.3 (2.35–8.36) | <0.001 | 127 | 3.8 (2.66–5.73) | <0.001 | |
| Blend F | 18 | 59 | 4.9 (2.74–9.60) | <0.001 | 86 | 2.7 (2.01–5.35) | <0.001 | |
| Socks | 18 | 35 | 3.1 (1.54–5.79) | <0.001 | 98 | 2.9 (2.04–4.70) | <0.001 | |
IRR = incidence rate ratio, CI = confidence interval, N = number of replicates, n = total number of mosquitoes caught, LO = (E)-linalool oxide and OC = β-ocimene. NB: Control (solvent or solvent + CO2) was used as reference.
Total anopheline trap captures with plant and animal odor compounds and worn socks in the presence or absence of carbon dioxide using CDC traps.
| Species | Treatment | N | Without CO2 | With CO2 | ||||
| n | IRR (95% CI) |
| n | IRR (95% CI) |
| |||
|
| Control | 18 | 11 | 1.0 | 17 | 1.0 | ||
| LO | 18 | 19 | 1.4 (0.68–3.04) | 0.36 | 80 | 3.9 (2.34–7.05) | <0.001 | |
| LO+OC | 18 | 13 | 1.0 (0.44–2.25) | 1.00 | 85 | 4.9 (2.97–8.76) | <0.001 | |
| Blend C | 18 | 38 | 3.2 (1.71–6.33) | <0.001 | 55 | 2.9 (1.70–5.34) | <0.001 | |
| Blend F | 18 | 30 | 2.5 (1.31–5.08) | <0.01 | 80 | 5.0 (3.01–8.87) | <0.001 | |
| Socks | 18 | 9 | 0.9 (0.40–2.09) | 0.83 | 77 | 4.8 (2.89–8.55) | <0.001 | |
|
| Control | 18 | 9 | 1.0 | 10 | 1.0 | ||
| LO | 18 | 14 | 1.1 (0.49–2.41) | 0.84 | 42 | 2.7 (1.46–5.28) | <0.01 | |
| LO+OC | 18 | 13 | 0.9 (0.40–2.09) | 0.84 | 61 | 4.4 (2.48–8.37) | <0.001 | |
| Blend C | 18 | 13 | 1.0 (0.44–2.25) | 1.00 | 31 | 2.0 (1.05–4.02) | <0.05 | |
| Blend F | 18 | 15 | 1.3 (0.59–2.72) | 0.57 | 28 | 2.2 (1.14–4.30) | <0.05 | |
| Socks | 18 | 9 | 0.8 (0.35–1.93) | 0.67 | 26 | 2.3 (1.23–4.57) | <0.05 | |
IRR = incidence rate ratio, CI = confidence interval, N = number of replicates, n = total number of mosquitoes caught, LO = (E)-linalool oxide and OC = β-ocimene. NB: Control (solvent or solvent + CO2) was used as a reference.
Figure 1Trapping efficacies of carbon dioxide and linalool oxide for An. gambiae s.l. and An. funestus s.l.
. Number of replicates = 18; bars capped with asterisks are significantly different from their respective controls as determined by general linear model with negative-binomial error structure and log link in R 2.15.1 software; ** = P<0.01, *** = P<0.001.
Interactive effect of plant and animal/human lures on anopheline trap captures using MM-X traps.
| Species | Treatment | N | Without CO2 | With CO2 | ||||
| n | IRR (95% CI) |
| n | IRR (95% CI) |
| |||
|
| Socks | 9 | 48 | 1.0 | 166 | 1.0 | ||
| LO | 9 | 90 | 1.7 (1.21–2.49) | <0.01 | 237 | 1.4 (1.15–1.71) | <0.001 | |
| Blend F | 9 | 69 | 1.4 (0.95–2.02) | 0.09 | 181 | 1.1 (0.88–1.34) | 0.42 | |
| LO+Blend F | 9 | 62 | 1.3 (0.90–1.94) | 0.15 | 152 | 0.9 (0.73–1.14) | 0.43 | |
| LO+Socks | 9 | 79 | 1.4 (1.00–2.11) | <0.05 | 256 | 1.5 (1.27–1.88) | <0.001 | |
|
| Socks | 9 | 23 | 1.0 | 34 | 1.0 | ||
| LO | 9 | 26 | 1 (0.56–1.79) | 1.00 | 32 | 0.9 (0.54–1.44) | 0.62 | |
| Blend F | 9 | 36 | 1.5 (0.91–2.61) | 0.18 | 78 | 2.3(1.55–3.47) | <0.001 | |
| LO+Blend F | 9 | 11 | 0.4 (0.17–0.82) | <0.05 | 36 | 1.1 (0.66–1.70) | 0.81 | |
| LO+Socks | 9 | 28 | 1.2 (0.67–2.06) | 0.57 | 33 | 1 (0.60–1.57) | 0.90 | |
IRR = incidence rate ratio, CI = confidence interval, N = number of replicates, n = total number of mosquitoes caught, LO = (E)-linalool oxide and OC = β-ocimene. Worn socks were used as reference.
Figure 2Proportions of male and engorged female An. gambiae s.l. caught by different odor treatments.
The bars show the proportions of male and engorged (blood-fed + semi-gravid/gravid) female An. gambiae s.l.; numbers embedded in the bars are the total of mosquitoes caught by each of the odor treatment; LO = (E)-linalool oxide; OC = β-ocimene; the different treatments were compared to socks (control); bars capped with asterisks are significantly different from their respective controls as determined by chi square test of proportions in R 2.15.1 software * = P<0.05, ** = P<0.01, *** = P<0.001.
Figure 3Proportions of male and engorged female An. funestus s.l. caught by different odor treatments.
The bars show the proportions of male and engorged (blood-fed + semi-gravid/gravid) female An. funestus s.l.; numbers embedded in the bars are the total of mosquitoes caught by each of the odor treatment; LO = (E)-linalool oxide; OC = -β-ocimene; the different treatments were compared to socks (control); bars capped with asterisks are significantly different from their respective controls as determined by chi square test of proportions using R 2.15.1 software * = P<0.05, ** = P<0.01, *** = P<0.001.