| Literature DB >> 33008441 |
María Gabriela Quintana1,2,3,4, María Soledad Santini5,6,7, Regino Cavia5,6,8, Mariela Florencia Martínez9, Domingo Javier Liotta9,10, María Soledad Fernández5,6,11, Adriana Alicia Pérez11, José Manuel Direni Mancini12,5,6, Sofía Lorian Moya9,5,6, Magalí Gabriela Giuliani9,6, Oscar Daniel Salomón9,5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In South America, cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) and visceral leishmaniasis (VL) are emerging diseases, expanding in the border area of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay. Outbreaks of CL were reported since the 1990s, with Nyssomyia whitmani as the main vector in this region. Regarding VL, urban reports started in 2010 with Lutzomyia longipalpis as the main vector. The aim of this study was to evaluate environmental determinants related to the main vectors of leishmaniasis, to contribute to the prevention and control response to the emergence of VL and CL in the Argentina-Brazil-Paraguay border region.Entities:
Keywords: Argentina; Border area; Lutzomyia longipalpis; Nyssomyia whitmani
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33008441 PMCID: PMC7532651 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-020-04379-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Fig. 1Study area (a, b) and distribution of the sampling sites (c–f) of phlebotomines in Puerto Iguazú Department, Misiones, Argentina
Sites with the presence of phlebotomines (%) and abundance total of individuals captured (%) by species, urban-periurban locality (Puerto Iguazú, Puerto Libertad), rural, rural and forest environments (Cooperativa, San Cayetano), province of Misiones, 2014–2015, Argentina
| Site | Puerto Iguazú ( | Puerto Libertad ( | Rural ( | Forest ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species | Presencea | Abundance | Presencea | Abundance | Presencea | Abundance | Pressencea | Abundance |
| 16 (29.09) | 277 (49.03) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| 2 (3.64) | 6 (1.06) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| 2 (3.64) | 2 (0.35) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 3 (15.79) | 4 (17.39) | 2 (33.33) | 2 (35.71) | |
| 16 (29.09) | 254 (44.96) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 5 (26.32) | 15 (65.22) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| 5 (9.09) | 7 (1.24) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 2 (10.53) | 4 (17.39) | 2 (33.33) | 3 (50) | |
| 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (16.67) | 1 (14.29) | |
| 3 (5.45) | 4 (0.71) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| 1 (1.82) | 1 (0.18) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| 2 (3.64) | 8 (1.42) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| Cortelezzii complex | 2 (3.64) | 2 (0.35) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| XXb | 2 (3.64) | 4 (0.71) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Total | 25 (45.45) | 565 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 7 (36.84) | 23 (100) | 2 (33.33) | 6 (100) |
aThe presence by species was determined such as the appearance of at least one specimen on any of the sampling nights
bNot identified to the species level due to deterioration of the specimens
Description of the environmental variables evaluated at the micro- and mesoscale on the Argentine side of the border with Paraguay and Brazil
| Scale | Variable | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mesoscale | Tree_25-50-100-250 | Percentage of tree cover at different buffers | 0 to 100 |
| Herbaceous_25-50-100-250 | Percentage of herbaceous cover at different buffers | 0 to 100 | |
| Soil_25-50-100-250 | Percentage of soil cover at different buffers | 0 to 100 | |
| Urban_25-50-100-250 | Percentage of impervious cover at different buffers | 0 to 100 | |
| Water_25-50-100-250 | Percentage of water cover at different buffers | 0 to 100 | |
| Crops_25-50-100-250 | Percentage of crops cover at different buffers | 0 to 100 | |
| N_cob_25-50-100-250 | Cover number | 1 to 6 | |
| Shannon_25-50-100-250 | Diversity index | 0 to 5 | |
| Ndvi_25-50-100-250 | Average value of the NDVI index | 0 to 1 | |
| Ndwi_25-50-100-250 | Average value of the NDWI index | 0 to 1 | |
| Paved road | Presence/absence | Yes/No | |
| Drinking water service | Presence/absence | Yes/No | |
| Electrical energy | Presence/absence | Yes/No | |
| Garbage collection service | Presence/absence | Yes/No | |
| Public sewer connection | Presence/absence | Yes/No | |
| Street lighting | Presence/absence | Yes/No | |
| Servic_index | An index of public services was constructed from the presence of 6 services from 0 (no service) to 1 (all services) | 0 to 1 | |
| Microscale | Houses garbage | Area covered with garbage from an area > 1 m2, to < 1 m2, to an area without garbage | 0, 1, 2 |
| Fallen leaves and fruits | Area covered with fallen leaves and fruits from an area > 1 m2, to < 1 m2, to an area without fallen leaves and fruits | 0, 1, 2 | |
| Flooded land | Area flooded > 1 m2, or < 1 m2, or no flooded area | 0, 1, 2 | |
| Land | Presence in 10 × 10 m around the trap | Yes/No | |
| Lawn | Presence in 10 × 10 m around the trap | Yes/No | |
| Shrubs | Presence in 10 × 10 m around the trap | Yes/No | |
| Trees | Presence in 10 × 10 m around the trap | Yes/No | |
| Cement | Presence in 10 × 10 m around the trap | Yes/No | |
| Chicks | Presence/absence | Yes/No | |
| Insecticide | Use of insecticides | Yes/No | |
| Hosted people | No. of people sleeping the night before sampling | 0 to 15 | |
| Rodents | Presence/absence (by recall of householders) | Yes/No | |
| Weasels | Presence/absence (by recall of householders) | Yes/No | |
| Small mammals | Presence/absence, mix rodents + weasels (by recall of householders) | Yes/No | |
| Chickens | Presence/absence | Yes/No | |
| Rchickens | The variable was recoded based on the no. of chickens ( | 0, 1, 2 | |
| Dogs | Presence/absence | Yes/No | |
| Ndogs | No. of dogs | 0 to 8 | |
| Rdogs | The variable was recoded based on “Ndogs” ( | 0, 1, 2 | |
| Positive baits | Proportion of positive baits | 0 to 1 | |
| Baits | Refers to which blood sources were present around the trap (1 × 1 m): 0 (none), 1 (dogs present), 2 (chickens present) and 3 (dogs and chickens present) |
Fig. 2Rarefaction curves based on sampling effort by site for four different environments comparing species richness
Fig. 3Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) for species of the Phlebotominae and environmental variables (100-m radius area). In the figure on the right, the distribution of the different environments is represented. Abbreviations: Br, Brumptomyia sp.; Nn, Ny. neivai; Lu, Lu. longipalpis; Pm, Pi. monticola; Ec, Ev. cortellessii-sallesi; Nw, Ny. whitmani
Parameter estimates of the zero-inflated negative binomial models for Lutzomyia longipalpis abundance
| Variable | Negative binomial | Zero-inflated | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient | SE | Coefficient | SE | |||
| Intercept | − 4.44 | 1.55 | 0.004 | − 1.95 | 1.32 | 0.14 |
| Mesoscale | ||||||
| Mean NDWI in 250-m radius area | 17.84 | 7.51 | 0.018 | |||
| Drinking water service | 1.01 | 0.36 | 0.005 | |||
| Garbage collection service | 3.21 | 1.19 | 0.007 | |||
| Public sewer connection | 0.74 | 0.34 | 0.032 | |||
| Microscale | ||||||
| No dogs or chickens | ||||||
| Dogs | 2.98 | 0.95 | 0.002 | |||
| Chickens | 3.45 | 0.95 | < 0.001 | |||
| Both | 2.68 | 1.00 | 0.007 | |||
Notes: Parameters estimated are shown in the linear predictor scale. AIC: 191.44 (null model: 214.44); 85 residuals degrees of freedom
Fig. 4Spatial predictions for the abundance (number of individuals collected during three nights) of Lu. longipalpis (a–c) and Ny. whitmani (d–f). a With all urban services and with dogs and chickens present. b With all urban services and only dogs present. c Wit all urban services and only chickens present. d Without garbage collection, 5 hosted people and with chickens. e With collection of waste, 5 hosted people and chickens. f With collection of waste, 10 hosted people and chickens
Parameter estimates of the zero-inflated negative binomial models for Nyssomyia whitmani abundance
| Variable | Negative binomial | Zero-inflated | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient | SE | Coefficient | SE | |||
| Intercept | − 7.72 | 1.89 | < 0.001 | − 0.44 | 0.41 | 0.28 |
| Mesoscale | ||||||
| Tree percentage in 50-m radius area | 0.04 | 0.01 | < 0.001 | |||
| Garbage collection service | 3.09 | 1.42 | 0.030 | |||
| Microscale | ||||||
| Log (no. of hosted people) | 1.99 | 0.88 | 0.023 | |||
| Chickens presence | 1.47 | 0.63 | 0.019 | |||
Notes: Parameters estimated are shown in the linear predictor scale. AIC: 187.98 (null model: 207.85); 83 residuals degrees of freedom