| Literature DB >> 29166907 |
Sadie J Ryan1,2,3,4, Catherine A Lippi5,6, Philipp H Boersch-Supan7,8,9, Naveed Heydari10, Mercy Silva11, Jefferson Adrian10, Leonardo F Noblecilla12, Efraín B Ayala13, Mayling D Encalada14, David A Larsen15, Jesse T Krisher16, Lyndsay Krisher17,18, Lauren Fregosi7,15, Anna M Stewart-Ibarra10.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quantifying mosquito biting rates for specific locations enables estimation of mosquito-borne disease risk, and can inform intervention efforts. Measuring biting itself is fraught with ethical concerns, so the landing rate of mosquitoes on humans is often used as a proxy measure. Southern coastal Ecuador was historically endemic for malaria (Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax), although successful control efforts in the 2000s eliminated autochthonous transmission (since 2011). This study presents an analysis of data collected during the elimination period.Entities:
Keywords: Anopheles albimanus; Anopheles punctimacula; Bite rate; Culex; Ecuador; Malaria
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29166907 PMCID: PMC5700746 DOI: 10.1186/s12936-017-2121-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 3.469
Glossary of terms related to mosquito biting activity used in the literature
| Source | Term | Definition | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Field collection | Human biting rate | The number of actively biting or blood fed female mosquitoes divided by the number of study participants per night, sometimes estimated from human landing catch | [ |
| Human biting density | Sum of female mosquitoes caught in a sampling period divided by the total number of houses sample | [ | |
| Human landing rate | Number of mosquito bites per night estimated from number of female mosquitoes landing on subjects | [ | |
| Biting rate/biting activity/bite trends | Sum of female mosquitoes landing on volunteers averaged for different portions of survey period | [ | |
| Human landing catch | Human bait used to capture female mosquitoes as they attempt to feed, usually with an aspirator | [ | |
| Human landing collection | Human bait used to capture female mosquitoes as they attempt to feed, usually with an aspirator | [ | |
| Human landing count | Human bait used to capture female mosquitoes as they attempt to feed, usually with an aspirator | [ | |
| Human biting catch | Female mosquitoes captured in the act of biting | [ | |
| Man-landing catch | Human subjects act as both baits and traps for female mosquitoes | [ | |
| Laboratory collection | Mosquito biting rate | The number of female mosquitoes that attempted feeding on a human study participant during an observation period under laboratory or experimental conditions | [ |
| Derived model parameters | Biting rate | Parameter used in estimating malaria | [ |
| Entomological inoculation rate | Malaria transmission estimated from human bite rate | [ |
Fig. 1Data on mosquito biting rates were collected in five cities located in Ecuador’s (a) southern coastal El Oro province (b). Although the proportion of bites recorded relative to sampling effort for Anopheles albimanus, An. punctimacula, and Culex spp. varied between cities, all three taxa of interest were detected across study sites (c)
Species and location effects of a hurdle model of hourly biting rates
| Count model rate ratio | Zero model odds ratio | |
|---|---|---|
| Intercept ( | 4.74 (3.05–7.36)*** | 4.04 (2.39–6.82)*** |
|
| 1.38 (0.79–2.42) | 3.31 (1.58–6.92)** |
|
| 0.6 (0.31–1.18) | 0.65 (0.31–1.36) |
| Location outdoors | 1.55 (1.36–1.75)*** | 2.32 (2.03–2.64)*** |
|
| 0.79 (0.66–0.94)** | 0.58 (0.48–0.7)*** |
|
| 0.9 (0.71–1.13) | 0.8 (0.66–0.97)* |
Model coefficients are presented as incidence rate ratios for the count model (which models hourly bites conditional on being bitten), and as odds ratios for the zero model (which models the probability of being bitten). A full table including the species-specific temporally resolved model coefficients is presented in the supplementary materials. Coefficients in this are representative for January at 6 p.m. local time and relative to An. albimanus bite rates. Values in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals. Significance levels are * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001
Fig. 3Hourly bite rates by species and location as predicted by the hurdle model across all months and hours of the night
Predicted average nightly bite rates (bites/hour) and associated 95% confidence intervals
| Month |
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Indoors | Outdoors | Indoors | Outdoors | Indoors | Outdoors | |
| Jan | 4.85 (2.57–8.01) | 8.06 (4.98–12.52) | 3.59 (1.53–6.06) | 5.26 (2.51–8.69) | 9.28 (5.85–11.99) | 11.31 (7.34–14.64) |
| Feb | 1.93 (0.78–3.58) | 3.73 (1.84–6.32) | 0.68 (0.19–1.27) | 1.29 (0.38–2.37) | 8.12 (5.28–10.43) | 9.8 (6.51–12.63) |
| Mar | 9.73 (5.42–15.88) | 15.96 (10.05–24.75) | 1.03 (0.34–1.77) | 1.69 (0.64–2.85) | 2.69 (1.33–3.8) | 3.45 (1.8–4.69) |
| Apr | 3.3 (1.66–5.54) | 5.6 (3.34–8.78) | 0.38 (0.11–0.68) | 0.71 (0.21–1.28) | 3.89 (2.24–5.01) | 4.81 (2.9–6.13) |
| May | 3.13 (1.6–5.21) | 5.26 (3.18–8.19) | 0.07 (0.03–0.11) | 0.13 (0.05–0.18) | 0.93 (0.39–1.49) | 1.23 (0.55–1.9) |
| Jun | 5.31 (3.18–8.29) | 8.31 (5.5–12.48) | 0.24 (0.08–0.4) | 0.43 (0.14–0.72) | 4.4 (2.93–5.54) | 5.25 (3.58–6.63) |
| Jul | 2.85 (1.49–4.67) | 4.71 (2.9–7.24) | 1.69 (0.78–2.67) | 2.39 (1.24–3.72) | 0.77 (0.35–1.18) | 0.99 (0.47–1.46) |
| Aug | 1.69 (0.65–3.22) | 3.38 (1.59–5.88) | 0.58 (0.17–1.05) | 1.06 (0.33–1.9) | 2.47 (1.19–3.53) | 3.18 (1.63–4.38) |
| Sep | 7.27 (3.56–12.53) | 12.68 (7.41–20.35) | 1.87 (0.53–3.52) | 3.34 (1.08–6.11) | 3.35 (1.6–4.8) | 4.35 (2.2–5.99) |
| Oct | 6.59 (3.44–11.02) | 11.1 (6.77–17.44) | 2.98 (0.71–6.01) | 5.88 (1.56–11.54) | 1.24 (0.57–1.87) | 1.6 (0.78–2.33) |
| Nov | 3.14 (1.38–5.63) | 5.77 (3.09–9.51) | 1.32 (0.33–2.59) | 2.58 (0.71–4.95) | 3.32 (1.7–4.57) | 4.23 (2.28–5.61) |
| Dec | 1.9 (0.95–3.15) | 3.19 (1.9–4.93) | 1.06 (0.37–1.79) | 1.69 (0.68–2.79) | 2.16 (0.83–3.6) | 2.99 (1.21–4.8) |
Fig. 2Raw observations of average hourly bite rates by species and location