| Literature DB >> 34103094 |
Aaron L Morris1, Azra Ghani2, Neil Ferguson2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mosquito control has the potential to significantly reduce malaria burden on a region, but to influence public health policy must also show cost-effectiveness. Gaps in our knowledge of mosquito population dynamics mean that mathematical modelling of vector control interventions have typically made simplifying assumptions about key aspects of mosquito ecology. Often, these assumptions can distort the predicted efficacy of vector control, particularly next-generation tools such as gene drive, which are highly sensitive to local mosquito dynamics.Entities:
Keywords: Gene drive; Malaria; Modelling; Mosquitos; Parameter estimation; Population biology; Public health; Vector control
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34103094 PMCID: PMC8188720 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-021-04789-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Fig. 1Model schematic showing transitions between stages, points of mortality and density-dependent mortality, immigration and egg-laying. Each arrow represents a Poisson draw, binomial or series of binomial events based on fitted probability parameters
Fig. 2Model fits to Garki Project data for non-clumped egg-laying when fitting a power to density dependence with 95% credible intervals. Red points show counts of adult female mosquitoes (M) aggregated over individual villages for the first recorded rainy season in the data; for villages 4 and 5, a second rainy season denoted by S2 is also fitted to. Parameters for simulations were obtained from the median posteriors estimated by pMCMC fitting and 95% credible intervals from repeated samples of the joint posterior estimate
Model parameters with priors, posterior estimates and 95% credible intervals for linear and fitted power density dependence, clumped and non-clumped egg-laying
| Parameter | Description | Unit | Prior | Prior distribution | Posterior clumped | Posterior non-clumped |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fitted power | Fitted power | |||||
| Duration of gonotrophic cycle | Days | 3 | Fixed | – | – | |
| Number of eggs laid per day per adult | Eggs day−1 | 1–35 | Uniform | – | 11.502 (2.544–26.585) 1.305 (1–2.372) | |
| Clutch size | Eggs | 1–35 | Uniform | 12.049 (2.945–28.051) 3.19 (1.563–5.925) | – | |
| Development rate early larval instars | Days−1 | 0.150 (0.09–0.207) | Normal | 0.15 (0.091–0.209) 0.147 (0.085–0.205) | 0.149 (0.091–0.205) 0.140 (0.081–0.202) | |
| Development rate late larval instars | Days−1 | 0.240 (0.037–0.428) | Normal | 0.223 (0.102–0.373) 0.216 (0.100–0.374) | 0.217 (0.100–0.391) 0.181 (0.100–0.343) | |
| Development rate pupae | Days−1 | 1.00 (0.566–1.458) | Normal | 0.884 (0.325–1.499) 0.855 (0.246–1.442) | 0.826 (0.214–1.400) 0.639 (0.200–1.299) | |
| Per capita mortality rate of early instars | Days−1 | 0.035 (0.022–0.047) | Normal | 0.035 (0.022–0.048) 0.035 (0.022–0.048) | 0.035 (0.022–0.048) 0.036 (0.022–0.048) | |
| Per capita mortality rate of late instars | Days−1 | 0.035 (0.022–0.047) | Normal | 0.036 (0.023–0.049) 0.035 (0.023–0.048) | 0.036 (0.023–0.049) 0.035 (0.023–0.049) | |
| Per capita mortality rate of pupae | Days−1 | 0.25 (0.184–0.318) | Normal | 0.251 (0.184–0.317) 0.252 (0.184–0.319) | 0.253 (0.184–0.317) 0.255 (0.188–0.321) | |
| Per capita mortality rate of adults | Days−1 | 0.091 (0.0812–0.101) | Normal | 0.090 (0.08–0.099) 0.089 (0.078–0.099) | 0.089 (0.080—0.099) 0.089 (0.079–0.100) | |
| Period of rainfall contributing to carrying capacity | Days | 7.00 (2.000–12.000) | Normal | 12 (8–16) 14 (8–19) | 12 (8–15) 15 (11–19) | |
| Fitted power | – | – | – | 0.322 (0.165–0.576) – | 0.251 (0.171–0.352) – | |
| Effect of density dependence on late instars relative to early instars | – | 13.06 (8.137–18.029) | Normal | 13.317 (8.48–18.196) 13.016 (7.925–18.066) | 13.441 (9.144–18.802) 13.027 (8.037–18.071) | |
| Proportion of population sampled by trapping | – | – | – | 0.029 (0.004–0.068) 0.024 (0.005–0.064) | 0.03 (0.005–0.076) 0.026 (0.004–0.076) | |
| Level of overdispersion | – | – | – | 0.016 (0.002–0.04) 0.013 (0.002–0.036) | 0.016 (0.002–0.044) 0.014 (0.002–0.043) | |
| Immigration | Females per | 1–8 | Uniform | 1.032 (0.213–3.897) 1.500 (0.264–4.569) | 0.924 (0.161–3.156) 1.258 (0.224–4.478) | |
| Discrete time step | Days−1 | 0.25 | – | – | – |
Credible intervals were obtained by repeatedly sampling from the joint posterior distribution
Fig. 3Model fits to Garki Project data for clumped egg-laying when fitting a power to density dependence with 95% credible intervals. Red points show counts of adult female mosquitoes (M) aggregated over individual villages for the first recorded rainy season in the data; for villages 4 and 5, a second rainy season denoted by S2 is also fitted to. Parameters for simulations were obtained from the median posteriors estimated by pMCMC fitting and 95% credible intervals from repeated samples of the joint posterior estimate
Fig. 4Cross-correlation plots between and showing the corresponding two dimensions of parameter space explored by the pMCMC algorithm; the hexagon colour and count value represent the number of accepted parameter proposals
Rm estimates with 95% credible intervals for clumped and non-clumped egg-laying under linear and fitted power density dependence
| Clumped | Non-clumped | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Linear | Fitted power | Linear | Fitted power | |
| Simulated | 3.099 (2.027–4.408) | 13.532 (3.775–26.543) | 3.407 (2.506–4.883) | 31.958 (10.891–71.342) |
| Analytical | 4.007 (2.6–6.148) | 16.314 (4.588–34.256) | 5.449 (3.778–7.721) | 45.321 (13.708–90.157) |
Rm is calculated in two ways, numerically by simulating the model for a single female mosquito until its death in a system empty of other adults and recording the number of female offspring surviving to adulthood, and analytically as described in the methods. For the Rm estimate simulations, the median parameters from the pMCMC posterior estimates were used. To estimate 95% credible intervals, 500 parameter sets were randomly taken from the pMCMC results and the Rm simulation run 50 times with these values and a mean taken. The credible intervals were then estimated from the resulting 500 mean values
Fig. 5Repeat of model by Deredec et al. [20] using parameters estimated by our analysis, Rm was derived both analytically and numerically for all density and egg-laying scenarios. The model estimates the number of HEGs needed in relation to their homing rate (a measure of efficacy) for successful elimination of a mosquito population. The bold centre line is the parameter estimates from the median of the posterior; the shaded bands represent the 95% credible intervals