| Literature DB >> 25924877 |
Eunice A Owino1,2, Rosemary Sang3, Catherine L Sole4, Christian Pirk5, Charles Mbogo6, Baldwyn Torto7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effective surveillance and estimation of the biting fraction of Aedes aegypti is critical for accurate determination of the extent of virus transmission during outbreaks and inter-epidemic periods of dengue and chikungunya fever. Here, we describe the development and use of synthetic human odor baits for improved sampling of adult Ae. aegypti, in two dengue and chikungunya fevers endemic areas in Kenya; Kilifi and Busia counties.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25924877 PMCID: PMC4418051 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-015-0866-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Figure 1The study sites; Kilifi district in the coast and Busia district in western Kenya.
Major and inor GC/EAD active compounds in the volunteers’ feet and trunk odors
|
|
|
|---|---|
| Propionic acid (1) | 6.2 |
| Hexanal (2) | 6.5 |
| 3-methylbutyric acid (3) | 7.7 |
| Heptanal (4) | 9.1 |
| Hexanoic acid (5) | 10.8 |
| Octanal (6) | 11.2 |
| Nonanal (7) | 13.0 |
| Decanal (8) | 14.6 |
| Undecanal (9) | 16.2 |
| 6, 10-dimethyl-5,9-undecadien - 2-one (geranyl acetone) (10) | 18.1 |
|
| |
| 2-methybutyric acid | 7.9 |
| Pentanoic acid | 8.7 |
| 1-octen - 3- ol | 10.8 |
| 6-methyl-5-hepten-2-one | 10.9 |
| 3,7-dimethyl- 1,6-octadien- 3-ol (linalool) | 13.0 |
| 2-ethylhexanoic acid | 13.3 |
| [ | 14.0 |
| Nonanoic acid | 15.5 |
| Dodecanal | 17.5 |
| Hexadecanoic acid | 23.5 |
| Octadecanoic acid | 25.6 |
RT-retention time.
Figure 2Representative GC/EAD profiles showing EAD- active components identified from; the feet- Panel 1 and trunk - Panel 2, of volunteers. Panel A- GC/EAD responses from F1 generation Ae. aegypti from Rabai, Kilifi. Panel B – GC/EAD responses from inbred 66th generation Ae. aegypti from Rabai, Kilifi. EAD-active components; 1- propionic acid, 2- hexanal, 3- methyl butyric acid, 4- heptanal, 5- hexanoic acid, 6- octanal, 7- nonanal, 8- decanal, 9- undecanal, 10- 6,10-dimethyl-5,9-undecadien-2-one (geranyl acetone).
Figure 3The mean number ± S.E of Aedes aegypti captured by the various BG sentinel traps baited with different baits in Busia and Kilifi County. Blend 1; Acids - propionic + 3-methylbutyric acid, Blend 2; Aldehydes - nonanal + octanal, Blend 3; Blend 1 + Blend 2, Blend 4; Blend 2 + hexanoic acid. The different panels show comparisons at the two locations; Panel A - Experiment 1 in Busia, Panel B - Experiment 1in Kilifi and Panel C - Experiment 2 in Kilifi. Error bars indicate standard error of the mean.
Comparisons of captured by BG sentinel traps baited with different odor baits relative to the control (BG sentinel trap baited with the BG commercial lure) in Experiment 1 in Busia and Kilifi
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Busia | Blend 3 | 0.75(0.43-1.55) | 0.40 | Kilifi | Blend 3 | 0.91(0.35-2.41) | 0.858 |
| Busia | Blend 2 | 1.3(0.61-2.75) | 0.49 | Kilifi | Blend 2 | 1.23(0.47-3.24) | 0.665 |
| Busia | Blend 1 | 0.62(0.29-1.35) | 0.23 | Kilifi | Blend 1 | 0.61(0.23—1.6) | 0.307 |
| Busia | Volunteer 1 feet odors | 1.12(0.53-2.4) | 0.76 | Kilifi | Volunteer 2 feet odors | 1.09(0.42-4-2.8) | 0.849 |
| Busia | Volunteer 1 trunk odors | 1.01(0.48-2.15) | 0.97 | Kilifi | Volunteer 2 trunk odors | 0.91(0.35—2.41) | 0.858 |
Estimated incidence rate ratio (IRR); confidence interval (CI) and corresponding P-values based on comparison to the control (BG lure baited trap) following generalized linear model (GLM) with negative binomial error structure and log link in R 3.1.0 software. The IRR for the control is 1; values above this indicate better performance while values below indicate under performance relative to the control. Blend 1; propionic acid and 3-methylbutyric acid, Blend 2; nonanal + octanal. Blend 3; Blend 1 + Blend 2.
Comparisons of trapped by BG sentinel traps baited with different odor baits relative to the control (BG sentinel trap baited with the BG commercial lure) in Experiment 2 in Kilifi County
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Kilifi | Carbon dioxide only | 0.57(0.21 – 1.52) | 0.255 |
| Kilifi | Blend 2 | 1.33 (0.50 -3.57) | 0.552 |
| Kilifi | Blend 4 | 0.95(0.36- 2.56) | 0.931 |
| Kilifi | Hexanoic acid | 2.2 (0.82- 5.87) | 0.109 |
Estimated incidence rate ratio (IRR); confidence interval (CI) and corresponding P-values based on comparison to the BG lure following generalized linear model (GLM) with negative binomial error structure and log link in R 3.1.0 software. The IRR for the control is 1; values above this indicate better performance while values below indicate under performance relative to the control.
Comparisons of catch percentages per trap by sex and abdominal status with corresponding p values and catch indices (CI) in Experiment 2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1028 | 587 | 985 | 1377 | 2262 |
| ♀ | 55.4 | 61.8 | 60 | 67.4 | 54.2 |
| ♂ | 44.6 | 38.2 | 40 | 32.6 | 45.8 |
|
| 0.9 | 0.3 | 0.9 | 1.5 | 4.9 |
|
| 1 | 0.3 | 1 | 1.6 | 5.4 |
|
| - | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.047* |
|
| 4.7 | 0 | 0.7 | 3.2 | 5.8 |
|
| 1 | 0 | 0.15 | 0.7 | 1.23 |
|
| - | 0.11 | 0.07 | 0.804 | 0.97 |
Catch percentages, Catch indices (CI) and corresponding p values. Asterisks on p values indicate significant difference of the catch percentage with the catch percentage of the control (trap baited with the BG commercial lure). The P-values are based on pair-wise comparison following chi-square goodness-of-fit in R 3.1.0 software.♂-Male Ae. aegypti, ♀- female Ae. aegypti.