Natural sugar feeding rates of Anopheles mosquitoes collected by different methods in western Kenya

Omondi, Seline; Kosgei, Jackline; Agumba, Silas; Polo, Brian; Yalla, Nick; Moshi, Vincent; Abong’o, Bernard; Ombok, Maurice; McDermott, Daniel P.; Entwistle, Julian; Samuels, Aaron M.; Kuile, Feiko O. Ter; Gimnig, John E.; Ochomo, Eric

doi:10.1038/s41598-022-25004-9

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…State-of-the-art methodology ensuring a reliable low detection limit and high resolution for sugar compounds via UHPLC-MS allowed us to dissect the diet component by analysing the crops of C. pipiens . In previous studies, the total carbohydrates of the mosquito diets were analysed via cold anthrone test [ [22] , [23] , [24] ], whereas proteins, lipids, and other nutrients also including carbohydrates were analysed by gas chromatography - mass spectrometry (GC-MS) through a derivatization process [ [25] , [26] , [27] , [28] ]. In other studies, a number of environmental pollutants such as pesticides were detected in the crop and midgut of the mosquitoes [ 29 ]; as well as in fruits and plants [ 30 , 31 ] by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unveil the sugar diet and associated environmental compounds in the crop of the mosquito Culex pipiens

Leyva,

Brustolin,

Müller

et al. 2024

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unveil the sugar diet and associated environmental compounds in the crop of the mosquito Culex pipiens

Leyva,

Brustolin,

Müller

et al. 2024

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Each compound had only one trap type placed in three different positions: indoors, outdoors close and outdoors far. These locations were selected to enable a comprehensive assessment of where sugar fed mosquitoes were likely to be captured, as has been described in detail in a separate article [22]. Indoor light traps were placed next to a person under a bed net at a height of 1.5m.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Different Trapping Methods to Collect Malaria Vectors Indoors and Outdoors in Western Kenya

Kosgei,

Gimnig,

Moshi

et al. 2023

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Enhanced vector surveillance, is one of the 4 pillars of the WHO’s global vector control response (2017–2030). Human landing catches are the gold standard for entomological surveys but are difficult to implement and expose collectors to mosquito bites and potentially to malaria infection. Other surveillance tools such as light traps, pyrethrum spray catches and aspiration are less expensive and do not expose collectors to potentially infectious mosquitoes, but they are difficult to implement outdoors and/or to assess duration of collection/standardize collection effort. This study evaluated four mosquito trapping methods that may be cheaper, easier, and less risky to implement compared to human landing catch. Methods Three mosquito sampling methods (UV light traps, CDC light traps and Prokopack aspiration) were evaluated against human landing catches in two villages of Rarieda sub-county, in Siaya County, western Kenya. UV light traps, CDC light traps and human landing catches were conducted in three locations: inside houses, 10 meters from the house and 10 meters from the compound boundary. These were done every hour from 17:00 until 07:00. Prokopack aspiration was done indoors and outdoors of houses adjacent to the light trap and HLC houses from 07:00 until 11:00. Analyses of mosquito densities, species abundance and sporozoite infection prevalence were performed across all sampling methods. Species within the An. gambiae and An. funestus species complexes were identified using PCR. ELISAs were used to determine mosquito sporozoite infection prevalence. Data analysis was done in R statistical software. Results A total of 5,370 male and female Anopheles mosquitoes were sampled from 608 trapping efforts. An. funestus constituted 70.3% (n = 3,877) of the sampled Anopheles mosquitoes while An. coustani was 19.7% and An. gambiae s.l. was much lower at 7.2%. 93.8% of An. funestus s.l. samples processed through PCR were An. funestus s.s. and 97.8% of An. gambiae s.l. were confirmed to be An. arabiensis. Only An. funestus samples were positive for sporozoites, with a species specific sporozoite infection prevalence of 3.1%. Indoor aspiration captured the highest number of An. funestus (mean = 6.74; RR = 7.49 compared to indoor HLC, 95% CI 3.95–14.22, P < 0.001) followed by indoor UV-LT, (mean = 3.7; RR = 3.6, 95% CI 2.02–6.42, P < 0.001) and indoor CDC-LT (mean = 1.74; RR = 1.85, 95% CI 1.02–3.33, P = 0.042). In pairwise comparisons, significantly different numbers of An. funestus were collected by all indoor methods with the most collected by aspiration and the fewest by HLC. For An. arabiensis, indoor UV-LT and indoor CDC-LT each captured an average of 0.18 per trap-night which were significantly higher than HLC indoors. Outdoors, UV-LT collected significantly higher numbers of Anopheles mosquitoes across all species analyzed (An. funestus: mean = 1.69, RR = 4.27 compared to outdoor HLC, 95% CI 2.20–8.31, P < 0.001; An. arabiensis: mean = 0.22, RR = 15.64, 95% CI 1.97-124.36, P = 0.009; An. coustani: mean = 3.74, RR = 10.48, 95% CI 4.37–25.14, P < 0.001) when compared to outdoor HLC. Hourly biting in UV-LT and CDC-LT indicated different peaks compared to HLC for An. funestus collected indoors. Conclusions Anopheles funestus remains the predominant malaria vector in the region and was primarily caught indoors. Anopheles arabiensis were trapped in similar both indoors and outdoors while and An. coustani were mostly collected outdoors with UV-LTs. UV-LT and CDC-LT collected higher numbers of the primary Anopheles mosquitoes indoors and outdoors except for An. funestus indoors where aspiration was the most efficient method. The UV-LT generally collected more mosquitoes than the CDC-LT indicating UV-LTs may be an efficient tool for monitoring populations of Anopheles mosquitoes. Differences in hourly biting by different collection methods indicate the need to further investigate the behaviour of An. funestus.

show abstract

“…In order to assess the proportion of male and female sugar feeding ahead of ATSB trials, other studies have used the cold anthrone method to detect sugar uptake in anopheline species [39]. Another approach used consisted in collecting the content of light-traps baited with owers at 1h time intervals to infer the timing of feeding on natural sugar by male and female An.…”

Section: )mentioning

confidence: 99%

Scalable camera traps for measuring the attractiveness of sugar baits to control malaria and dengue mosquitoes

Meza,

Tenywa,

Ashall

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Attractive targeted sugar baits (ATSBs) are one of the new promising interventions that can complement existing vector control tools. However, there is need to provide reproducible and quantitative information on the level of attractiveness of ATSBs under field conditions. To do so, we customized camera traps for close-up imaging and integrated them into a rugged ATSB monitoring station for day and night-time recording of mosquitoes landing on the baits. Methods The camera traps were evaluated, in a semi-field system and then in the field in rural Tanzania. In semi-field 2m x 5m x 2m net chambers, the camera trap was set up to record mosquitoes landing on either an attractive sugar bait (ASB), a blank ASB or 20% sucrose (w/v). Next, 198 mosquitoes (33 males and 33 females of Anopheles arabiensis, Anopheles funestus and Aedes aegypti) were released into each chamber and allowed to seek a sugar-meal for 72h, with the camera recording images of mosquitoes present on the ASB at 1min intervals. In the field 16 camera traps were set in 16 households, 7 with ASB attractant, 7 with ASB blank and 2 with 20% sucrose (w/v). Human landing catch (HLC) was performed on the same nights as the camera trap recordings. Results Under the semi-field conditions, there were significantly more mosquitoes that visited the ASBs than the blank baits, with An. funestus visiting more frequently than An. arabiensis. There were no significant differences between females and male An. arabiensis visits, but female An. funestus visited more than their conspecific males. The duration of visits did not vary between the ASB and the blanks, nor between the mosquito species. Moreover, mosquitoes visited the ASB or sucrose equally, with An. arabiensis visiting the baits more than An. funestus. Female mosquitoes visited the baits more than the males. There was no significant difference in visit duration between all species. In the field study, a mean of 70 An. arabiensis were caught per person per night by HLC compared to 1 individual recorded per night on ASBs. There were significantly more visits by mosquitoes to the ASB than the ASB blanksand sucrose solution, with more An. arabiensisvisiting the baits than An. funestus or C. quinquefasciatus. Females of all species visited baits significantly more than males. Again, the duration of visits was similar between An. arabiensis, An. funestusand C. quinquefasciatus. Ae. aegypti very rarely visited ASBs in the semi-field experiments and none were observed on baits in the field. Conclusions The use of camera traps to record still images of mosquitoes present on ASBs provides robust, reproducible and quantitative information on their attractiveness under different environmental conditions. Therefore, camera traps are powerful tools for evaluating and improving the ATSB technology.

show abstract

Natural sugar feeding rates of Anopheles mosquitoes collected by different methods in western Kenya

Cited by 6 publications

References 41 publications

Unveil the sugar diet and associated environmental compounds in the crop of the mosquito Culex pipiens

Unveil the sugar diet and associated environmental compounds in the crop of the mosquito Culex pipiens

Comparison of Different Trapping Methods to Collect Malaria Vectors Indoors and Outdoors in Western Kenya

Scalable camera traps for measuring the attractiveness of sugar baits to control malaria and dengue mosquitoes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About