Current and future distribution of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) in WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region

Abstract

BackgroundAedes-borne diseases as dengue, zika, chikungunya and yellow fever are an emerging problem worldwide, being transmitted by Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus. Lack of up to date information about the distribution of Aedes species hampers surveillance and control. Global databases have been compiled but these did not capture data in the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR), and any models built using these datasets fail to identify highly suitable areas where one or both species may occur. The first objective of this study was therefore to update the existing Ae. aegypti (Linnaeus, 1762) and Ae. albopictus (Skuse, 1895) compendia and the second objective was to generate species distribution models targeted to the EMR. A final objective was to engage the WHO points of contacts within the region to provide feedback and hence validate all model outputs.MethodsThe Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus compendia provided by Kraemer et al. (Sci Data 2:150035, 2015; Dryad Digit Repos, 2015) were used as starting points. These datasets were extended with more recent species and disease data. In the next step, these sets were filtered using the Köppen–Geiger classification and the Mahalanobis distance. The occurrence data were supplemented with pseudo-absence data as input to Random Forests. The resulting suitability and maximum risk of establishment maps were combined into hard-classified maps per country for expert validation.ResultsThe EMR datasets consisted of 1995 presence locations for Ae. aegypti and 2868 presence locations for Ae. albopictus. The resulting suitability maps indicated that there exist areas with high suitability and/or maximum risk of establishment for these disease vectors in contrast with previous model output. Precipitation and host availability, expressed as population density and night-time lights, were the most important variables for Ae. aegypti. Host availability was the most important predictor in case of Ae. albopictus. Internal validation was assessed geographically. External validation showed high agreement between the predicted maps and the experts’ extensive knowledge of the terrain.ConclusionMaps of distribution and maximum risk of establishment were created for Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus for the WHO EMR. These region-specific maps highlighted data gaps and these gaps will be filled using targeted monitoring and surveillance. This will increase the awareness and preparedness of the different countries for Aedes borne diseases.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12942-018-0125-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Physicians’ knowledge, attitudes and practices towards Zika virus infection in Jordan

“…Yet, recent evidence revealed the presence of A. albopictus in Jordan [6,7]. This species was also reported in other neighboring Middle Eastern countries such as Israel and Turkey [7]. A. aegypti, although not reported in Jordan, has a high probability of occurrence in northern Jordan.…”

“…According to the Centers for Disease control and Prevention (CDC), Jordan is considered as a country with no mosquitoes (A. aegypti) that spread Zika [5]. Yet, recent evidence revealed the presence of A. albopictus in Jordan [6,7]. This species was also reported in other neighboring Middle Eastern countries such as Israel and Turkey [7].…”

“…A. aegypti, although not reported in Jordan, has a high probability of occurrence in northern Jordan. Northern Jordan resides in close proximity to Syria, Israel and Lebanon where this species has been detected [7]. Besides, other Aedestransmitted infections (dengue and chikungunya fever) were reported in neighboring countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, and Oman [7].…”

A new multiplex RT-qPCR method for the simultaneous detection and discrimination of Zika and chikungunya viruses

“…Urbanization, globalization, and global warming (Gubler, 2011;Messina et al, 2015;Whitehorn and Farrar, 2010) have enhanced the expansion of the Aedes aegypti and Aedesalbopictus vectors from their geographic origin to other regions, including Europe (Caminade et al, 2012;Charrel et al, 2014;Deblauwe et al, 2015;Ducheyne et al, 2018;ECDC;Grard et al, 2014;Kraemer et al, 2015;Medlock et al, 2012;Renault et al, 2007;Renault et al, 2007;Rocklöv et al, 2016;Schaffner and Mathis, 2014;Wilder-Smith et al, 2017;Wong et al, 2013). Consequently, three million people are living in Aedes-infested regions (Wilder-Smith et al, 2017), greatly enhancing the risk for ZIKV and CHIKV infections in areas where the local population is immunologically naïve.…”

Predicting the success of an invader: Niche shift versus niche conservatism

“…Among recent biological invasions, the Asian tiger mosquito, Aedes (Stegomyia) albopictus (Skuse 1894), has been the focus of a large number of species distribution modeling studies at various spatial scales (Caminade et al, 2012;Dickens, Sun, Jit, Cook, & Carrasco, 2018;Ducheyne et al, 2018;ECDC, 2009ECDC, , 2012Fischer, Thomas, Niemitz, Reineking, & Beierkuhnlein, 2011;Kraemer et al, 2015;Medlock, Avenell, Barrass, & Leach, 2006;Roiz, Neteler, Castellani, Arnoldi, & Rizzoli, 2011). These studies depicted a consensus of the geographical determinants of Ae.…”