| Literature DB >> 27118141 |
Nayana Gunathilaka1,2, Thanuja Denipitiya3, Menaka Hapugoda3, Wimaladharma Abeyewickreme4, Rajitha Wickremasinghe5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies of host preference patterns in blood-feeding anopheline mosquitoes are crucial to incriminating malaria vectors. However, little information is available on host preferences of Anopheles mosquitoes in Sri Lanka.Entities:
Keywords: Anopheles; Malaria; Mosquitoes
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27118141 PMCID: PMC4845499 DOI: 10.1186/s12936-016-1279-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Fig. 1Map showing sentinel sites in the District of Trincomalee
Species-specific primers used
| Species | Accession no. | Position | Primer sequence F: forward 5′–3′ and R: reverse 5′–3′) | Size of amplified product (bp) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bovine | J01394 | 8107/8127 | F: GCCATATACTCTCCTTGGTGACA | 271 |
| 8377/8357 | R: GTAGGCTTGGGAATAGTACGA | |||
| Cat | NC001700 | 7413/7434 | F: TTCTCAGGATATACCCTTGACA | 180 |
| 7571/7592 | R: GAAAGAGCCCATTGAGGAAATC | |||
| Pig | AF039170 | 93/115 | F: GCCTAAATCTCCCCTCAATGGTA | 212 |
| 304/281 | R: ATGAAAGAGGCAAATAGATTTTCG | |||
| Monkey | AF312703 | 320/339 | F: CCTCTTTCCTGCTGCTAATG | 222 |
| 522/541 | R: TTTGATACTGGGATATGGCG | |||
| Chicken | X52392 | 9062/9086 | F: GGGACACCCTCCCCCTTAATGACA | 266 |
| 9327/9307 | R: GGAGGGCTGGAAGAAGGAGTG | |||
| Human | J01415 | 5967/5988 | F: TTCGGCGCATGAGCTGGAGTCC | 228 |
| 6173/6194 | R: TATGCGGGGAAACGCCATATCG | |||
| Dog | U96639 | 5466/5487 | F: GAACTAGGTCAGCCCGGTACTT | 153 |
| 5597/5618 | R: CGGAGCACCAATTATTAACGGC | |||
| Rat | NC001665 | 6022/6043 | F: CGGCCACCCAGAAGTGTACATC | 196 |
| 6196/6217 | R: GGCTCGGGTGTCTACATCTAGG |
Vertebrate host species identified and human blood index (HBI) for each mosquito species
| Mosquito species | Host detected | Human blood index (HBI) |
|---|---|---|
|
|
| 0.36 |
|
|
| 0.07 |
|
|
| 0.27 |
|
|
| 0.04 |
|
|
| 0.15 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 0.08 |
|
|
| 0.04 |
|
|
| 0.166 |
|
|
| 0 |
Forage ratios (FR) of Anopheles mosquitoes
| Reference number | Mosquito species | Forage ratio (FR) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Human | Bovine | Cat | Dog | Pig | Chicken | ||
| 1 |
| 1.01 | 18.67 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 |
| 0.13 | 6.05 | 0.78 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3 |
| 0.53 | 15.72 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 |
| 0.12 | 55.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 5 |
| 0.46 | 23.80 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 6 |
| 0 | 16.84 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 7 |
| 0.00 | 47.94 | 2.46 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 8 |
| 0.00 | 49.94 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 9 |
| 0.13 | 16.56 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 10 |
| 0.07 | 4.22 | 0 | 0 | 6.68 | 0 |
| 11 |
| 0.40 | 14.11 | 1.62 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 12 |
| 0.00 | 38.41 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Host feeding index (HFI) for each pair of vertebrate hosts fed upon by Anopheles
| Host 1 (X) | Host 2 (Y) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Human | Bovine | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.00 |
| Cat | 0.80 | 0.16 | 0.44 | 0.11 | 0.34 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.20 | 0.11 | 0.25 | 0.00 | |
| Pig | 0.06 | 0.01 | 0.37 | 0.03 | 0.08 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | |
| Bovine | Human | 18.51 | 47.30 | 29.94 | 285.9 | 64.81 | 8.56 | 301.5 | 364.3 | 1.00 | 58.68 | 35.54 | 251.2 |
| Cat | 27.63 | 7.74 | 13.07 | 32.81 | 22.31 | 0.47 | 1.85 | 23.56 | 2.24 | 6.32 | 13.94 | 16.25 | |
| Pig | 1.06 | 0.28 | 11.20 | 7.81 | 5.31 | 0.40 | 13.50 | 16.31 | 0.75 | 0.66 | 0.87 | 11.25 | |
| Cat | Human | 0.00 | 6.11 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.32 | 0.00 |
| Bovine | 0.00 | 0.11 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Pig | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Pig | Human | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 89.20 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Bovine | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.58 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Cat | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 9.60 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Fig. 2Principal coordinates (PCO) analysis of the forage ratio (FR) of anopheline mosquitoes based on PCO1 and PCO2 scores
Fig. 3Dendrogram showing the clustering of anopheline mosquitoes based on the forage ratios (FRs)
Fig. 4Non-metric multi-dimensional scaling (NMDS) analysis of mean value of the forage ratios (FRs) of different anopheline species