Low potential for mechanical transmission of Ebola virus via house flies (Musca domestica)

Haddow, Andrew D.; Nasar, Farooq; Schellhase, Christopher W.; Moon, Roger D.; Padilla, Susana; Zeng, Xiankun; Wollen-Roberts, Suzanne E.; Shamblin, Joshua D.; Grimes, Elizabeth C.; Zelko, Justine; Linthicum, Kenneth J.; Bavari, Sina; Pitt, M. Louise M.; Trefry, John C.

doi:10.1186/s13071-017-2149-x

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The majority of these viruses were of veterinary importance including the Senecavirus A whose natural hosts are pigs and cows [ 65 ]; the porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus which causes a disease of pigs called porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS), also referred to as the blue-ear pig disease; Avian influenza virus and Newcastle disease virus which cause diseases in birds including poultry [ 66 , 67 ]. In addition, one study demonstrates the ability of the house fly to carry the Ebola virus in laboratory experiments [ 68 ]. However, its role in the transmission of the virus is still to be confirmed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of human pathogens carried by the housefly (Musca domestica L.)

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe synanthropic house fly, Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae), is a mechanical vector of pathogens (bacteria, fungi, viruses, and parasites), some of which cause serious diseases in humans and domestic animals. In the present study, a systematic review was done on the types and prevalence of human pathogens carried by the house fly.MethodsMajor health-related electronic databases including PubMed, PubMed Central, Google Scholar, and Science Direct were searched (Last update 31/11/2017) for relevant literature on pathogens that have been isolated from the house fly.ResultsOf the 1718 titles produced by bibliographic search, 99 were included in the review. Among the titles included, 69, 15, 3, 4, 1 and 7 described bacterial, fungi, bacteria+fungi, parasites, parasite+bacteria, and viral pathogens, respectively. Most of the house flies were captured in/around human habitation and animal farms. Pathogens were frequently isolated from body surfaces of the flies. Over 130 pathogens, predominantly bacteria (including some serious and life-threatening species) were identified from the house flies. Numerous publications also reported antimicrobial resistant bacteria and fungi isolated from house flies.ConclusionsThis review showed that house flies carry a large number of pathogens which can cause serious infections in humans and animals. More studies are needed to identify new pathogens carried by the house fly.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-018-5934-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of human pathogens carried by the housefly (Musca domestica L.)

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To date, peer-reviewed research does not support the role of insects in the transmission of EBOV to humans. [10][11][12][13] Additionally, our searches did not find any peer-reviewed evidence suggesting EBOV is transmitted to humans by "stings." The Knowledge Panel indicates the information contained was sourced from the "Mayo Clinic and others."…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inaccuracies in Google’s Health-Based Knowledge Panels Perpetuate Widespread Misconceptions Involving Infectious Disease Transmission

Haddow

Clarke

2021

The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.Google health-based Knowledge Panels were designed to provide users with high-quality basic medical information on a specific condition. However, any errors contained within Knowledge Panels could result in the widespread distribution of inaccurate health information. We explored the potential for inaccuracies to exist within Google’s health-based Knowledge Panels by focusing on a single well-studied pathogen, Ebola virus (EBOV). We then evaluated the accuracy of those transmission modes listed within the Google Ebola Knowledge Panel and investigated the pervasiveness of any misconceptions associated with inaccurate transmission modes among persons living in Africa. We found that the Google Ebola Knowledge Panel inaccurately listed insect bites or stings as modes of EBOV transmission. Our scoping review found 27 articles and reports that revealed that 9 of 11 countries where misconceptions regarding insect transmission of EBOV have been reported are locations of current (i.e., Democratic Republic of Congo and Guinea) or previous EBOV outbreaks. We found reports that up to 26.6% (155/582) of study respondents in Democratic Republic of Congo believed mosquito bite avoidance would prevent EBOV; in other locations of previous large-scale EBOV outbreaks (e.g., Guinea), up to 61.0% (304/498) of respondents believed insects were involved in EBOV transmission. Our findings highlight the potential for errors to exist within the health information contained in Google’s health-based Knowledge Panels. Such errors could perpetuate misconceptions or misinformation, leading to mistrust of health workers and aid agencies and in turn undermining public health education or outbreak response efforts.

show abstract

“…As mentioned earlier, houseflies belonging to the families Muscidae and Calliphoridae can transmit microbial organisms, which besides bacteria also include fungi and even viruses [ 74 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 ]. In addition, there is evidence that some of these transmitted microorganisms are resistant to antimicrobials [ 119 , 120 , 121 ].…”

Section: The Role Of Insects Rodents and Pets In Amr Persistencementioning

confidence: 99%

Insects, Rodents, and Pets as Reservoirs, Vectors, and Sentinels of Antimicrobial Resistance

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews the occurrence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in insects, rodents, and pets. Insects (e.g., houseflies, cockroaches), rodents (rats, mice), and pets (dogs, cats) act as reservoirs of AMR for first-line and last-resort antimicrobial agents. AMR proliferates in insects, rodents, and pets, and their skin and gut systems. Subsequently, insects, rodents, and pets act as vectors that disseminate AMR to humans via direct contact, human food contamination, and horizontal gene transfer. Thus, insects, rodents, and pets might act as sentinels or bioindicators of AMR. Human health risks are discussed, including those unique to low-income countries. Current evidence on human health risks is largely inferential and based on qualitative data, but comprehensive statistics based on quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) are still lacking. Hence, tracing human health risks of AMR to insects, rodents, and pets, remains a challenge. To safeguard human health, mitigation measures are proposed, based on the one-health approach. Future research should include human health risk analysis using QMRA, and the application of in-silico techniques, genomics, network analysis, and ’big data’ analytical tools to understand the role of household insects, rodents, and pets in the persistence, circulation, and health risks of AMR.

show abstract

Low potential for mechanical transmission of Ebola virus via house flies (Musca domestica)

Cited by 11 publications

References 10 publications

A systematic review of human pathogens carried by the housefly (Musca domestica L.)

A systematic review of human pathogens carried by the housefly (Musca domestica L.)

Inaccuracies in Google’s Health-Based Knowledge Panels Perpetuate Widespread Misconceptions Involving Infectious Disease Transmission

Insects, Rodents, and Pets as Reservoirs, Vectors, and Sentinels of Antimicrobial Resistance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About