| Literature DB >> 34407870 |
Cornelius Mweempwa1,2, Kalinga Chilongo3, Kyoko Hayashida4, Boniface Namangala5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tsetse flies (Diptera: Glossinidae) transmit trypanosomiasis (sleeping sickness in humans and nagana in livestock). Several studies have indicated that age, sex, site of capture, starvation and microbiome symbionts, among others, are important factors that influence trypanosome infection in tsetse flies. However, reasons for a higher infection rate in females than in males still largely remain unknown. Considering that tsetse species and sexes of larger body size are the most mobile and the most available to stationary baits, it was hypothesized in this study that the higher trypanosome prevalence in female than in male tsetse flies was a consequence of females being larger than males.Entities:
Keywords: Glossina morsitans morsitans; Prevalence of trypanosomes; Tsetse sampling methods; Wing length
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34407870 PMCID: PMC8371877 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-021-04907-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Status of trypanosomes presence in Glossina morsitans morsitans in eastern Zambia
| Study site | Cold season | Hot season | Rainy season | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negative | Positive | Negative | Positive | Negative | Positive | |
| Chisulo | 73 | 23 | 13 | 8 | 113 | 42 |
| Lusandwa | 243 | 121 | 71 | 30 | 427 | 180 |
| Zinaka | 302 | 18 | 103 | 13 | 385 | 30 |
| Total | 618 | 162 | 187 | 51 | 925 | 252 |
Fig. 1Mean wing length in male and female Glossina morsitans morsitans in eastern Zambia
Fig. 2Prevalence of trypanosomes in Glossina morsitans morsitans in eastern Zambia
Multilevel binary logistic regression permutation models with special reference to the wing length and the sex variables
| Logistic model | Predictor | Coefficient | AIC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0 whole data set | ||||
| Full model ( | Trap method | − 0.1 | 0.562 | 2100.9 |
| Hot season | 0.2 | 0.317 | ||
| Rainy season | − 0.1 | 0.673 | ||
| Male sex | − 0.2 | 0.090 | ||
| Wing length | 0.1 | 0.370 | ||
| Model without wing length predictor | Trap method | 0.0 | 0.799 | 2099.7 |
| Hot season | 0.2 | 0.348 | ||
| Rainy season | 0.0 | 0.701 | ||
| Male sex | − 0.3 | 0.010* | ||
| Model without sex predictor | Trap method | − 0.1 | 0.526 | 2101.8 |
| Hot season | 0.2 | 0.311 | ||
| Rainy season | − 0.1 | 0.631 | ||
| Wing length | 0.1 | 0.032* | ||
| 2.0 one-method data set: fly round | ||||
| Full model ( | Hot season | 0.2 | 0.273 | 1863.7 |
| Rainy season | − 0.1 | 0.478 | ||
| Male sex | − 0.2 | 0.146 | ||
| Wing length | 0.1 | 0.545 | ||
| Model without wing length predictor | Hot season | 0.2 | 0.296 | 1862.1 |
| Rainy season | − 0.1 | 0.467 | ||
| Male sex | − 0.3 | 0.024* | ||
| Model without sex variable | Hot season | 0.2 | 0.256 | 1863.8 |
| Rainy season | − 0.1 | 0.482 | ||
| Wing length | 0.1 | 0.069 | ||
*P < 0.05 significance level
Likelihood ratio test results between the full and the less-than-full models for each data
| Data set | Test no. | Models | AIC | Pr(> Chisq) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whole data ( | Full model | 2100.9 | ||
| 1 | No sex and wing length variables model | 2104.4 | 0.024* | |
| 2 | No wing length variable model | 2099.7 | 0.371 | |
| 3 | No sex variable model | 2101.8 | 0.091 | |
| Fly round-only data ( | Full model | 1863.7 | ||
| 1 | No sex and wing length variables model | 1865.1 | 0.067 | |
| 2 | No wing length variable model | 1862.1 | 0.546 | |
| 3 | No sex variable model | 1863.8 | 0.147 | |
| Females-only data set ( | Full model | 725.8 | ||
| No wing length variable model | 723.8 | 0.915 | ||
| Males-only data set ( | Full model | 1334.6 | ||
| No wing length variable model | 1334.7 | 0.152 |