| Literature DB >> 30318019 |
Qiu-An Hu1,2,3, Yi Zhang4,5,6, Yun-Hai Guo1,2,3, Shan Lv1,2,3, Shang Xia1,2,3, He-Xiang Liu1,2,3, Yuan Fang1,2,3, Qin Liu1,2,3, Dan Zhu1,2,3, Qi-Ming Zhang7, Chun-Li Yang1,2,3, Guang-Yi Lin8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Angiostrongyliasis is a food-borne parasitic zoonosis. Human infection is caused by infection with the third-stage larvae of Angiostrongylus cantonensis. The life cycle of A. cantonensis involves rodents as definitive hosts and molluscs as intermediate hosts. This study aims to investigate on the infection status and characteristics of spatial distribution of these hosts, which are key components in the strategy for the prevention and control of angiostrongyliasis.Entities:
Keywords: Angiostrongylus cantonensis; Pomacea canaliculata; Rat definitive host; Snail intermediate host; Spatial analysis
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30318019 PMCID: PMC6192004 DOI: 10.1186/s40249-018-0482-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Infect Dis Poverty ISSN: 2049-9957 Impact factor: 4.520
Fig. 1Geographical location of Nanao Island and the villages involved in the study
Fig. 2Collection of snails and screening of Angiostrongylus cantonensis
Summary of the investigations on the snail intermediate hosts
| Sampling village | Number of collected snails | Number of examined snails | Number of infected snails | Density (number/m2) | Infection rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gongqian | 644 | 283 | 9 | 8.00 | 3.18 |
| Liudu | 886 | 486 | 24 | 9.92 | 4.94 |
| Jinshan | 662 | 421 | 39 | 3.54 | 9.26 |
| Total | 2192 | 1190 | 72 | 6.66 | 6.05 |
Fig. 3Capture of rats and screening of Angiostrongylus cantonensis
Summary of the investigations on the rat definitive hosts
| Sampling village | Number of mouse cages | Number of captured rats | Number of infected rats | Density (number/cage) | Infection rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gongqian | 289 | 71 | 29 | 0.25 | 40.85 |
| Liudu | 117 | 13 | 2 | 0.11 | 15.38 |
| Jinshan | 130 | 26 | 1 | 0.20 | 3.85 |
| Total | 536 | 110 | 32 | 0.21 | 29.09 |
Fig. 4Semivariogram of infection rate of Angiostrongylus cantonensis in Pomacea canaliculata
Fig. 5Semivariogram of infection rate of Angiostrongylus cantonensis in rats
Scanning of Angiostrongylus cantonensis infection rate in Pomacea canaliculata
| Cluster | Cluster | Radius | Population | Positives | RR | LLR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 23.454220 N, 117.094280 E | 49 | 59 | 18 | 6.39 | 16.33 | 0.000 |
| 2 | 23.447210 N, 117.127850 E | 2.4 | 53 | 12 | 4.29 | 7.63 | 0.003 |
| 3 | 23.454330 N, 117.100740 E | – | 12 | 5 | 7.33 | 5.51 | 0.033 |
| 4 | 23.429340 N, 117.027880 E | – | 29 | 6 | 3.64 | 3.26 | 0.300 |
| 5 | 23.453960 N, 117.092300 E | – | 8 | 3 | 6.42 | 3.00 | 0.368 |
| 6 | 23.455660 N, 117.099530 E | – | 23 | 4 | 2.98 | 1.66 | 0.893 |
| 7 | 23.455690 N, 117.101070 E | – | 26 | 4 | 2.63 | 1.35 | 0.954 |
| 8 | 23.448060 N, 117.127360 E | 7.1 | 61 | 7 | 1.99 | 1.25 | 0.970 |
| 9 | 23.448060 N, 117.127360 E | – | 33 | 4 | 2.06 | 0.81 | 0.998 |
RR Relative risk, LLR Log likelihood ratio
Scanning of Angiostrongylus cantonensis infection rate in rats
| Cluster ID | Cluster | Radius | Population | Positives | RR | LLR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 23.429990 N, 117.026060 E | 36 | 23 | 13 | 2.59 | 3.19 | 0.279 |
| 2 | 23.430870 N, 117.025420 E | 69 | 27 | 12 | 1.84 | 1.32 | 0.955 |
RR Relative risk, LLR Log likelihood ratio
Fig. 6An overview of the sampling site and cluster areas of positive samples
Infection rates of Pomacea canaliculata with Angiostrongylus cantonensis using different variables estimated by OLS approach
| Variable | Coefficient | SE |
|
| Robust_SE | Robust_ | Robust_ | VIF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 6.8602 | 8.1193 | 0.8449 | 0.4042 | 6.0446 | 1.1349 | 0.2646 | – |
| Season | 0.7449 | 0.5753 | 1.2948 | 0.2044 | 0.5014 | 1.4856 | 0.1469 | 1.0257 |
| Environment | −0.2110 | 1.9554 | − 0.1079 | 0.9148 | 1.7820 | − 0.1184 | 0.9067 | 1.0460 |
| Distance | −2.7890 | 2.2998 | −1.2127 | 0.2339 | 1.9624 | −1.4213 | 0.1646 | 1.0222 |
| Density | 0.1857 | 0.3042 | 0.6104 | 0.5458 | 0.2584 | 0.7185 | 0.4775 | 1.0614 |
AIC = 306.0523, AICC = 308.7620, R2 = 0.0864, R2 adjusted = 0.0243, σ2 = 154.6894
OLS Ordinary least squares, SE Standard error, VIF Variance inflation factor
Infection rates of rats with Angiostrongylus cantonensis using different variables estimated by OLS approach
| Variable | Coefficient | SE |
|
| Robust_SE | Robust_ | Robust_ | VIF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | −16.6792 | 16.3587 | −1.0196 | 0.3128 | 10.3744 | −1.6078 | 0.1142 | – |
| Season | 1.7161 | 1.4141 | 1.2136 | 0.2306 | 1.3195 | 1.3006 | 0.1994 | 1.3183 |
| Environment | 6.3547 | 3.9842 | 1.5950 | 0.1170 | 3.6805 | 1.7266 | 0.0904 | 1.1972 |
| Distance | −3.1430 | 5.8266 | −0.5394 | 0.5920 | 3.1362 | −1.0022 | 0.3210 | 1.1584 |
| Density | 61.0019 | 25.8755 | 2.3575 | 0.0224* | 25.5840 | 2.3844 | 0.0209* | 1.3275 |
AIC = 529.8539, AICC = 531.6039, R2 = 0.2976, R2 adjusted = 0.2414, σ2 = 790.7322
OLS Ordinary least squares, SE Standard error, VIF Variance inflation factor
*Statistical significance
Infection rates of Pomacea canaliculata with Angiostrongylus cantonensis using different variables estimated by GWR approach
| Variable | Min | P25 | M | P75 | Max | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | −0.0060 | 0.0807 | 0.0808 | 0.0888 | 0.0929 | 0.0381 |
| Seasons | 0.0070 | 0.0071 | 0.0075 | 0.0077 | 0.0113 | 0.0017 |
| Environmental types | −0.0074 | −0.0074 | −0.0065 | − 0.0058 | 0.0037 | 0.0043 |
| Distance | −0.0308 | −0.3016 | − 0.0293 | −0.0292 | − 0.0031 | 0.0110 |
| Density | −0.0008 | 0.0021 | 0.0023 | 0.0027 | 0.0028 | 0.0014 |
R2 = 0.1307, R2 adjusted = 0.1345, AIC = −30.9822, RSS = 0.4857, σ2 = 0.0171
GWR: Geographically weighted regression; P25: The 25th percentile; M: Median; P75: The 75th percentile; SD: Standard deviation
Infection rates of rats with Angiostrongylus cantonensis using different variables estimated by GWR approach
| Variable | Min | P25 | M | P75 | Max | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | −0.2600 | − 0.2580 | −0.2575 | 0.0395 | 0.1290 | 0.1668 |
| Seasons | 0.0019 | 0.0020 | 0.0379 | 0.0382 | 0.0383 | 0.0179 |
| Environmental types | −0.0145 | 0.0266 | 0.0683 | 0.0684 | 0.0688 | 0.0303 |
| Distance | −0.0833 | −0.0831 | − 0.0822 | −0.0309 | − 0.0307 | 0.0246 |
| Density | −0.0560 | 0.0410 | 0.6670 | 0.6677 | 0.6703 | 0.3323 |
R2 = 0.4411, R2 adjusted = 0.3195, AICC = 27.0182, RSS = 3.1458, σ2 = 0.0709
GWR: Geographically weighted regression; P25: The 25th percentile; M: Median; P75: The 75th percentile; SD: Standard deviation
Comparison between OLS and GWR models
| Host | Approach |
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| OLS | 308.7620 | 0.0864 | 0.0243 | 154.6894 |
| GWR | −30.9822 | 0.1307 | 0.1345 | 0.0171 | |
| Rat species | OLS | 531.6039 | 0.2976 | 0.2414 | 790.7322 |
| GWR | 27.0182 | 0.4411 | 0.3195 | 0.0709 |
OLS Ordinary least squares, GWR Geographically weighted regression, AICC Corrected Akaike information criterion