↓ Skip to main content

Host associations of mosquitoes at eastern equine encephalitis virus foci in Connecticut, USA

Overview of attention for article published in Parasites & Vectors, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Host associations of mosquitoes at eastern equine encephalitis virus foci in Connecticut, USA
Published in
Parasites & Vectors, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13071-016-1765-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

John J. Shepard, Theodore G. Andreadis, Michael C. Thomas, Goudarz Molaei

Abstract

Eastern equine encephalitis virus (EEEV) is a highly pathogenic mosquito-borne arbovirus, with active transmission foci in freshwater hardwood swamps in eastern North America, where enzootic transmission is maintained between the ornithophilic mosquito, Culiseta melanura, and wild passerine birds. The role of other locally abundant mosquito species in virus transmission and their associations with vertebrate hosts as sources of blood meals within these foci are largely unknown but are of importance in clarifying the dynamics of enzootic and epidemic/epizootic transmission. Blood-engorged mosquitoes were collected from resting boxes at four established EEEV foci in Connecticut during 2010-2011. Mosquitoes were identified to species, and the identity of vertebrate hosts was determined based on mitochondrial cytochrome b and/or cytochrome c oxidase subunit I gene sequences of polymerase chain reaction products. The vertebrate hosts of 378 (50.3 % of engorged mosquitoes) specimens, representing 12 mosquito species, were identified. Culiseta morsitans (n = 54; 67.5 %), Culex restuans (n = 4; 66.7 %), and Cx. pipiens (n = 2; 100 %) acquired blood meals exclusively from avian hosts, whereas Aedes cinereus (n = 6; 66.7 %), Ae. canadensis (n = 2; 100 %), and Ae. stimulans (n = 1; 100 %) obtained blood meals solely from mammals. Species that fed opportunistically on both avian and mammalian hosts included: Ae. thibaulti (n = 21 avian, and n = 181 mammalian; 57.2 %), Anopheles punctipennis (n = 8 and n = 40; 44.0 %), An. quadrimaculatus (n = 1 and n = 23; 35.7 %), Coquillettidia perturbans (n = 3 and n = 3; 46.2 %) and Ae. abserratus (n = 1 and n = 2; 23.1 %). Culex territans obtained blood meals from avian and amphibian hosts (n = 18 and n = 5; 26.6 %). Mixed blood meals originating from both avian and mammalian hosts were identified in An. quadrimaculatus (n = 1), and Cx. territans (n = 2). Our findings indicate that wood thrush, tufted titmouse, and a few other avian species serve as hosts for mosquitoes, and likely contribute to amplification of EEEV. Our study supports the role of Cs. morsitans in enzootic transmission of EEEV among avian species. Culex territans will seek blood from multiple vertebrate classes, suggesting that this species may contribute to epizootic transmission of the virus. Our findings support roles for Cq. perturbans and An. quadrimaculatus as epidemic/epizootic vectors to humans, horses, and white-tailed deer. Despite its abundance, the potential of Ae. thibaulti to serve as a "bridge vector" for EEEV remains unclear in the absence of any definitive knowledge on its competency for the virus. The contribution of white-tailed deer to the dynamics of EEEV transmission is not fully understood, but findings indicate repeated exposure due to frequent feeding by vector competent mosquito species.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 17%
Researcher 7 17%
Student > Master 7 17%
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 6 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 33%
Environmental Science 6 14%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 7%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 8 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 September 2016.
All research outputs
#13,784,610
of 22,884,315 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#2,602
of 5,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,529
of 336,882 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#59
of 132 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,884,315 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,475 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,882 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 132 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.