↓ Skip to main content

Development and field evaluation of the sentinel mosquito arbovirus capture kit (SMACK)

Overview of attention for article published in Parasites & Vectors, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 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
Development and field evaluation of the sentinel mosquito arbovirus capture kit (SMACK)
Published in
Parasites & Vectors, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13071-015-1114-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brian J. Johnson, Tim Kerlin, Sonja Hall-Mendelin, Andrew F. van den Hurk, Giles Cortis, Stephen L. Doggett, Cheryl Toi, Ken Fall, Jamie L. McMahon, Michael Townsend, Scott A. Ritchie

Abstract

Although sentinel animals are used successfully throughout the world to monitor arbovirus activity, ethical considerations and cross-reactions in serological assays highlight the importance of developing viable alternatives. Here we outline the development of a passive sentinel mosquito arbovirus capture kit (SMACK) that allows for the detection of arboviruses on honey-baited nucleic acid preservation cards (Flinders Technology Associates; FTA®) and has a similar trap efficacy as standard light traps in our trials. The trap efficacy of the SMACK was assessed against Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) miniature light traps (standard and ultraviolet) and the Encephalitis Vector Survey (EVS) trap in a series of Latin square field trials conducted in North Queensland, Australia. The ability of the SMACK to serve as a sentinel arbovirus surveillance tool was assessed in comparison to Passive Box Traps (PBT) during the 2014 wet season in the Cairns, Australia region and individually in the remote Northern Peninsula Area (NPA) of Australia during the 2015 wet season. The SMACK caught comparable numbers of mosquitoes to both CDC light traps (mean capture ratio 0.86: 1) and consistently outperformed the EVS trap (mean capture ratio 2.28: 1) when CO2 was supplied by either a gas cylinder (500 ml/min) or dry ice (1 kg). During the 2014 arbovirus survey, the SMACK captured significantly (t 6 = 2.1, P = 0.04) more mosquitoes than the PBT, and 2 and 1 FTA® cards were positive for Ross River virus and Barmah Forest virus, respectively, while no arboviruses were detected from PBTs. Arbovirus activity was detected at all three surveillance sites during the NPA survey in 2015 and ca. 27 % of FTA® cards tested positive for either Murray Valley encephalitis virus (2 detections), West Nile virus (Kunjin subtype; 13 detections), or both viruses on two occasions. These results demonstrate that the SMACK is a versatile, simple, and effective passive arbovirus surveillance tool that may also be used as a traditional overnight mosquito trap and has the potential to become a practical substitute for sentinel animal programs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Saint Kitts and Nevis 1 1%
Unknown 87 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 18%
Student > Master 13 15%
Other 5 6%
Student > Bachelor 4 4%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 16 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 27 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 15%
Immunology and Microbiology 9 10%
Environmental Science 5 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 4%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 21 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 05 September 2016.
All research outputs
#15,383,207
of 22,886,568 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#3,389
of 5,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,957
of 278,061 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#89
of 157 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,886,568 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 278,061 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 157 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.