BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Genetic engineering and similar technologies offer promising new approaches to controlling human diseases by blocking transmission from vectors. However, in spatially structured populations, imperfect coverage of the vector will leave pockets in which the parasite may persist. Movement by humans may disrupt this local persistence and facilitate eradication when these pockets are small, spreading parasite reproduction outside unprotected areas and into areas that block its reproduction. Here, we consider the sensitivity of this process to biological details: do simple generalities emerge that may facilitate interventions? METHODOLOGY: We develop formal mathematical models of this process similar to standard Ross-Macdonald models, but (i) specifying spatial structure of two patches, with vector transmission blocked in one patch but not in the other, (ii) allowing temporary human movement (travel instead of migration) and (iii) considering two different modes of mosquito biting. RESULTS: We find that there is no invariant effect of disrupting spatial structure with travel. For both biting models, travel out of the unprotected patch has different consequences than travel by visitors into the patch, but the effects are reversed between the two biting models. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Overall, the effect of human travel on the maintenance of vector-borne diseases in structured habitats must be considered in light of the actual biology of mosquito abundances, biting dynamics and human movement patterns. Lay summary: Genetic interventions against pathogens transmitted by insect vectors are promising methods of controlling infectious diseases. These interventions may be imperfect, leaving pockets where the parasite persists. How will human movement between protected and unprotected areas affect persistence? Mathematical models developed here show that the answer is ecology-dependent, depending on vector biting behavior.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Genetic engineering and similar technologies offer promising new approaches to controlling human diseases by blocking transmission from vectors. However, in spatially structured populations, imperfect coverage of the vector will leave pockets in which the parasite may persist. Movement by humans may disrupt this local persistence and facilitate eradication when these pockets are small, spreading parasite reproduction outside unprotected areas and into areas that block its reproduction. Here, we consider the sensitivity of this process to biological details: do simple generalities emerge that may facilitate interventions? METHODOLOGY: We develop formal mathematical models of this process similar to standard Ross-Macdonald models, but (i) specifying spatial structure of two patches, with vector transmission blocked in one patch but not in the other, (ii) allowing temporary human movement (travel instead of migration) and (iii) considering two different modes of mosquito biting. RESULTS: We find that there is no invariant effect of disrupting spatial structure with travel. For both biting models, travel out of the unprotected patch has different consequences than travel by visitors into the patch, but the effects are reversed between the two biting models. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Overall, the effect of human travel on the maintenance of vector-borne diseases in structured habitats must be considered in light of the actual biology of mosquito abundances, biting dynamics and human movement patterns. Lay summary: Genetic interventions against pathogens transmitted by insect vectors are promising methods of controlling infectious diseases. These interventions may be imperfect, leaving pockets where the parasite persists. How will human movement between protected and unprotected areas affect persistence? Mathematical models developed here show that the answer is ecology-dependent, depending on vector biting behavior.
Authors: Valentino M Gantz; Nijole Jasinskiene; Olga Tatarenkova; Aniko Fazekas; Vanessa M Macias; Ethan Bier; Anthony A James Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-11-23 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: C Cosner; J C Beier; R S Cantrell; D Impoinvil; L Kapitanski; M D Potts; A Troyo; S Ruan Journal: J Theor Biol Date: 2009-03-03 Impact factor: 2.691
Authors: Tom L Schmidt; Nicholas H Barton; Gordana Rašić; Andrew P Turley; Brian L Montgomery; Inaki Iturbe-Ormaetxe; Peter E Cook; Peter A Ryan; Scott A Ritchie; Ary A Hoffmann; Scott L O'Neill; Michael Turelli Journal: PLoS Biol Date: 2017-05-30 Impact factor: 8.029
Authors: Benjamin R Evans; Panayiota Kotsakiozi; Andre Luis Costa-da-Silva; Rafaella Sayuri Ioshino; Luiza Garziera; Michele C Pedrosa; Aldo Malavasi; Jair F Virginio; Margareth L Capurro; Jeffrey R Powell Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-09-10 Impact factor: 4.379