Relationship between Exposure to Vector Bites and Antibody Responses to Mosquito Salivary Gland Extracts

Mosquito-borne diseases are major health problems worldwide. Serological responses to mosquito saliva proteins may be useful in estimating individual exposure to bites from mosquitoes transmitting these diseases. However, the relationships between the levels of these IgG responses and mosquito density as well as IgG response specificity at the genus and/or species level need to be clarified prior to develop new immunological markers to assess human/vector contact. To this end, a kinetic study of antibody levels against several mosquito salivary gland extracts from southeastern French individuals living in three areas with distinct ecological environments and, by implication, distinct Aedes caspius mosquito densities were compared using ELISA. A positive association was observed between the average levels of IgG responses against Ae. caspius salivary gland extracts and spatial Ae. caspius densities. Additionally, the average level of IgG responses increased significantly during the peak exposure to Ae. caspius at each site and returned to baseline four months later, suggesting short-lived IgG responses. The species-specificity of IgG antibody responses was determined by testing antibody responses to salivary gland extracts from Cx. pipiens, a mosquito that is present at these three sites at different density levels, and from two other Aedes species not present in the study area (Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus). The IgG responses observed against these mosquito salivary gland extracts contrasted with those observed against Ae. caspius salivary gland extracts, supporting the existence of species-specific serological responses. By considering different populations and densities of mosquitoes linked to environmental factors, this study shows, for the first time, that specific IgG antibody responses against Ae. caspius salivary gland extracts may be related to the seasonal and geographical variations in Ae. caspius density. Characterisation of such immunological-markers may allow the evaluation of the effectiveness of vector-control strategies or estimation of the risk of vector-borne disease transmission

Examining Landscape Factors Influencing Relative Distribution of Mosquito Genera and Frequency of Virus Infection

Mosquito-borne infections cause some of the most debilitating human diseases, including yellow fever and malaria, yet we lack an understanding of how disease risk scales with human-driven habitat changes. We present an approach to study variation in mosquito distribution and concomitant viral infections on the landscape level. In a pilot study we analyzed mosquito distribution along a 10-km transect of a West African rainforest area, which included primary forest, secondary forest, plantations, and human settlements. Variation was observed in the abundance of Anopheles, Aedes,Culex, and Uranotaenia mosquitoes between the different habitat types. Screening of trapped mosquitoes from the different habitats led to the isolation of five uncharacterized viruses of the families Bunyaviridae, Coronaviridae, Flaviviridae, and Rhabdoviridae, as well as an unclassified virus. Polymerase chain reaction screening for these five viruses in individual mosquitoes indicated a trend toward infection with specific viruses in specific mosquito genera that differed by habitat. Based on these initial analyses, we believe that further work is indicated to investigate the impact of anthropogenic landscape changes on mosquito distribution and accompanying arbovirus infection

The dominant Anopheles vectors of human malaria in Africa, Europe and the Middle East: occurrence data, distribution maps and bionomic précis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This is the second in a series of three articles documenting the geographical distribution of 41 dominant vector species (DVS) of human malaria. The first paper addressed the DVS of the Americas and the third will consider those of the Asian Pacific Region. Here, the DVS of Africa, Europe and the Middle East are discussed. The continent of Africa experiences the bulk of the global malaria burden due in part to the presence of the <it>An. gambiae </it>complex. <it>Anopheles gambiae </it>is one of four DVS within the <it>An. gambiae </it>complex, the others being <it>An. arabiensis </it>and the coastal <it>An. merus </it>and <it>An. melas</it>. There are a further three, highly anthropophilic DVS in Africa, <it>An. funestus</it>, <it>An. moucheti </it>and <it>An. nili</it>. Conversely, across Europe and the Middle East, malaria transmission is low and frequently absent, despite the presence of six DVS. To help control malaria in Africa and the Middle East, or to identify the risk of its re-emergence in Europe, the contemporary distribution and bionomics of the relevant DVS are needed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A contemporary database of occurrence data, compiled from the formal literature and other relevant resources, resulted in the collation of information for seven DVS from 44 countries in Africa containing 4234 geo-referenced, independent sites. In Europe and the Middle East, six DVS were identified from 2784 geo-referenced sites across 49 countries. These occurrence data were combined with expert opinion ranges and a suite of environmental and climatic variables of relevance to anopheline ecology to produce predictive distribution maps using the Boosted Regression Tree (BRT) method.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The predicted geographic extent for the following DVS (or species/suspected species complex*) is provided for Africa: <it>Anopheles </it>(<it>Cellia</it>) <it>arabiensis</it>, <it>An. </it>(<it>Cel.</it>) <it>funestus*</it>, <it>An. </it>(<it>Cel.</it>) <it>gambiae</it>, <it>An. </it>(<it>Cel.</it>) <it>melas</it>, <it>An. </it>(<it>Cel.</it>) <it>merus</it>, <it>An. </it>(<it>Cel.</it>) <it>moucheti </it>and <it>An. </it>(<it>Cel.</it>) <it>nili*</it>, and in the European and Middle Eastern Region: <it>An. </it>(<it>Anopheles</it>) <it>atroparvus</it>, <it>An. </it>(<it>Ano.</it>) <it>labranchiae</it>, <it>An. </it>(<it>Ano.</it>) <it>messeae</it>, <it>An. </it>(<it>Ano.</it>) <it>sacharovi</it>, <it>An. </it>(<it>Cel.</it>) <it>sergentii </it>and <it>An. </it>(<it>Cel.</it>) <it>superpictus*</it>. These maps are presented alongside a bionomics summary for each species relevant to its control.</p