| Literature DB >> 31146762 |
Emmanuel P Mwanga1, Salum A Mapua2, Doreen J Siria2, Halfan S Ngowo2,3, Francis Nangacha2, Joseph Mgando2, Francesco Baldini3, Mario González Jiménez4, Heather M Ferguson3, Klaas Wynne4, Prashanth Selvaraj5, Simon A Babayan3, Fredros O Okumu2,3,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The propensity of different Anopheles mosquitoes to bite humans instead of other vertebrates influences their capacity to transmit pathogens to humans. Unfortunately, determining proportions of mosquitoes that have fed on humans, i.e. Human Blood Index (HBI), currently requires expensive and time-consuming laboratory procedures involving enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) or polymerase chain reactions (PCR). Here, mid-infrared (MIR) spectroscopy and supervised machine learning are used to accurately distinguish between vertebrate blood meals in guts of malaria mosquitoes, without any molecular techniques.Entities:
Keywords: Anopheles arabiensis; Ifakara; Malaria; Mid-infrared spectroscopy; Mosquito blood meals; Supervised machine learning; Vector surveillance
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31146762 PMCID: PMC6543689 DOI: 10.1186/s12936-019-2822-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Fig. 1Differences between NIR and MIR spectra obtained from dried mosquito samples collected using ATR-FTIR spectrometer. Compared to near-infrared (NIR), mid-infrared (MIR) allows detection of changes in chemical composition of the samples. Its wavelengths are more sensitive to fundamental vibration of molecular bonds and the different isolated peaks contain information of different chemical components in the mosquito cuticle
Fig. 2Mid-infrared ALPHA spectrometer with attenuated total reflectance (ATR), and single reflexion diamond platinum crystal, installed at the VectorSphere, Ifakara Health Institute, Tanzania. A control computer is included for the operator
Fig. 3Schematic illustration of the processes of data splitting, model training, cross-validation and evaluation of performance of final model
Fig. 4Prediction accuracies for different classification algorithms. Models tested include k-nearest neighbours (KNN), logistic regression (LR), support vector machines (SVM), naïve Bayes (NB), XGBoost (XGB), random forest (RF), Multilayer perceptron (MLP). Based on prediction accuracy and precision achieved, the best performing model was LR
Fig. 5Prediction accuracies obtained by the final logistic regression (LR) model for different vertebrate blood meal sources. Distribution around the prediction accuracy indicates standard deviation in the 100 bootstrapped models and is used to assess model precision
Fig. 6Normalized confusion matrix for the trained model (training set = 1332 spectra; test set = 444 spectra; total spectra = 1776). Each row represents instances in actual class (true label), while each column represents instances in predicted class (predicted label). From the top left to bottom right, the blue line highlights final prediction accuracies in each class
Fig. 7Normalized confusion matrix for final model evaluation (training data = 1776 spectra; validation data = 198 spectra; total spectra = 1974). Each row represents instances in actual class (true label), while each column represents instances in predicted class (predicted label). From the top left to bottom right, the blue line highlights final prediction accuracies in each class