| Literature DB >> 28584951 |
Annelise Tran1,2,3, Grégory L'Ambert4, Gilles Balança5, Sophie Pradier6, Vladimir Grosbois5, Thomas Balenghien7, Thierry Baldet5, Sylvie Lecollinet8, Agnès Leblond9,10, Nicolas Gaidet-Drapier5.
Abstract
West Nile disease, caused by the West Nile virus (WNV), is a mosquito-borne zoonotic disease affecting humans and horses that involves wild birds as amplifying hosts. The mechanisms of WNV transmission remain unclear in Europe where the occurrence of outbreaks has dramatically increased in recent years. We used a dataset on the competence, distribution, abundance, diversity and dispersal of wild bird hosts and mosquito vectors to test alternative hypotheses concerning the transmission of WNV in Southern France. We modelled the successive processes of introduction, amplification, dispersal and spillover of WNV to incidental hosts based on host-vector contact rates on various land cover types and over four seasons. We evaluated the relative importance of the mechanisms tested using two independent serological datasets of WNV antibodies collected in wild birds and horses. We found that the same transmission processes (seasonal virus introduction by migratory birds, Culex modestus mosquitoes as amplifying vectors, heterogeneity in avian host competence, absence of 'dilution effect') best explain the spatial variations in WNV seroprevalence in the two serological datasets. Our results provide new insights on the pathways of WNV introduction, amplification and spillover and the contribution of bird and mosquito species to WNV transmission in Southern France.Entities:
Keywords: Camargue; Southern France; West Nile virus; arboviral transmission; disease ecology; geographic information system; modelling; spatial epidemiology
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28584951 PMCID: PMC5662683 DOI: 10.1007/s10393-017-1249-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecohealth ISSN: 1612-9202 Impact factor: 3.184
Mechanisms of WNV Transmission Between Hosts and Vectors, with Associated Predictions and Findings from this Study.
| Period of the epidemiological cycle | Mechanisms | Definition and predicted patterns | Code | References | Findings from this studya | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Introduction | Seasonal introduction by migratory birds | Migratory birds may introduce WNV in spring from endemic areas (North or sub-Saharan Africa) or in summer from epidemic areas (Eastern Europe) | Southern spring migrants |
| (Rappole et al. | ++ |
| Eastern summer migrants |
| ++ | ||||
| WNV persistence in overwintering infected mosquitoes | Vectorial transmission stops during winter with mosquito’s diapause and may restart in spring when infected mosquitoes become active. WNV may persist in overwintering ornithophilic mosquitoes. Only two abundant ornithophilic mosquito species with a vector competence for WNV are found in the study area ( |
|
| (Farajollahi et al. | − | |
|
|
| − | ||||
| Both species |
| + | ||||
| Amplification | Transmission to birds involves a single or few species of vectors | WNV amplification may involve one or both competent ornithophilic mosquito species according to differences in their feeding behaviour, competence and habitat preferences. |
|
| (Balenghien et al. | ++ |
|
|
| − | ||||
| Both species |
| + | ||||
| Heterogeneity in avian host competence | Field and experimental studies suggest great differences between bird species in attractiveness to vectors and WNV infectiousness. In the study area, WNV have been isolated in only two bird species (House sparrows, | House sparrows and black-billed magpies only |
| (Jourdain et al. | - | |
| All bird species involved, heterogeneous competences among bird species |
| (Komar et al. | ++ | |||
| All bird species involved, homogenous competences among bird species |
| + | ||||
| Avian host species diversity | In a heterogeneously competent bird community, high-species diversity may reduce transmission through a dilution effect because a lower proportion of mosquito would bite the most competent host species | Absence of ‘dilution effect’ |
| (Ezenwa et al. | ++ | |
| ‘Dilution effect’: diversity reduces the probability of transmission |
| − | ||||
| Dispersal | WNV-infected wild birds may disperse the virus over long distances as they move across the study area in accordance with their flying ability and propensity. | (Jourdain et al. | ||||
| Spillover | Only some vector species are likely to act as ‘bridge vectors’ | One or both mosquito species may be responsible for transmitting WNV from birds to incidental hosts (horses in the study area). |
|
| (Mouchet et al. | − |
|
|
| − | ||||
| Both species |
| + | ||||
| All steps | Density-dependent transmission process | Transmission rate should increase with the local abundance of avian hosts and mosquito vectors through an increased host–vector contact rate | (McCallum et al. | |||
aThe hypothesis is supported by the confrontation of one dataset (+), two datasets (++) or none (−).
Figure 1Schematic host–vector transmission process used to evaluate the distribution of West Nile virus occurrence in our analysis. (1) Land cover determines the distribution of hosts and vectors. (2) Transmission (in red) occurs as a result of hosts and vectors co-occurrence in space and time, their abundance and competence and host diversity (Color figure online).
Figure 2Location of the study area, Camargue region, Southern France, and results of seroprevalence studies of West Nile virus infection in magpies and horses.
Figure 3Conceptual representation of the different steps to model and evaluate different possible West Nile virus (WNV) scenarios in a geographic information system environment. (a) Potential sites for WNV introduction, amplification/dispersal and spillover are mapped; (b) maps of introduction, amplification/dispersal and spillover sites are combined to map WNV circulation and spillover indices; (c) different scenarios are evaluated by confrontation of WNV circulation and spillover indices with seroprevalence data measured in magpies and horses.
Summary of the Selection Statistics for the Top Regression Models Evaluating the Variation in Seroprevalence in Magpies and Horses in Relation to West Nile Virus Circulation and Spillover Indices, Resulting from the Different Scenarios of Introduction, Amplification/Dispersal and Spillover, Camargue Area, Southern France.
| Model | Scenario | Component mechanisms | AIC |
| Coefficients [95% CI] | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Introduction | Amplification | Spillover | Intercept | Age class: adult | WNV circulation index | WNV spillover index | ||||||
| Vector | Host | ‘Dilution effect’ | ||||||||||
| Seroprevalence in magpies versus WNV circulation indexa | I1bA321 | Eastern summer migrants |
| All bird species, heterogeneous competences | Absence of ‘dilution effect’ | 171.3 | 0.30 | −15.23 [−15.47; −14.99] | 2.51 [2.47; 2.55] ( | 0.12 [0.12; 0.13] ( | ||
| I1aA121 | Southern spring migrants |
| All bird species, heterogeneous competences | Absence of ‘dilution effect’ | 173.0 | 0.13 | −14.05 [−14.29; −13.80] | 2.48 [2.45; 2.52] ( | 0.13 [0.129; 0.134] ( | |||
| Seroprevalence in horses versus WNV spillover indexb | I1aA121S3 | Southern spring migrants |
| All bird species, heterogeneous competences | Absence of ‘dilution effect’ |
| 725.5 | 0.57 | −5.17 [−5.20; −5.14] | 0.074 [0.073; 0.074] ( | 0.064 [0.064; 0.065] ( | |
aModels are ordered from best to worst among a set of 75 candidate models. These two first models can be considered having substantial support (∆AIC ≤ 2) and fit well the data (Pearson χ2 goodness-of-fit test = 317–342, ddl = 536, p = 1, H0: ‘the model fits the data’ cannot be rejected).
bModels are ordered from best to worst among a set of 93 candidate models. The first model can be unambiguously selected as the best model (Pearson χ2 goodness-of-fit test = 1053, ddl = 1066, p = 0.61, H0: ‘the model fits the data’ cannot be rejected).
Relative Importance of the Different Hypotheses of Introduction, Amplification/Dispersal and Spillover of West Nile Virus Explaining Variations in Magpies and Horses Seroprevalence Data, Camargue Area, Southern France, Based on Their Normalized Akaike Weights (w AIC).
| Step | Hypothesis | Code | Magpies seroprevalence data | Horses seroprevalence data | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Introduction |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Eastern summer migrants |
|
|
| ||||
| Virus overwintering |
|
| 0.36 (45) | <10−3 (15) | 0.053 | 0.046 (27) | |
|
|
| 0.13 (15) | 0.002 (12) | ||||
| Both species |
| 0.23 (15) | 0.002 (15) | ||||
| Amplification | Vector amplification |
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
| 0.13 (25) | <10−4 (27) | ||||
| Both species |
|
| 0.15 (24) | ||||
| Host amplification | Magpies and sparrows |
| <10−5 (30) | <10−3 (0) | |||
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| All bird species, homogenous competences |
| <10−3 (15) | 0.37 (24) | ||||
| Diversity effects |
|
|
|
| |||
| ‘Dilution effect’ |
| 0.19 (30) | 0.03 (33) | ||||
| Spillover | Spillover |
|
| - | 0.01 (31) | ||
|
|
| - | 0.01 (31) | ||||
|
|
|
|
| ||||
Bold text depicts the hypothesis with the higher support from the data.
n number of scenarios including the tested hypothesis.
Figure 4Map of areas with the highest risk of West Nile virus (WNV) spillover derived from scenario I A S and location of clinical infection in equines, Camargue region, Southern France, 2015.