↓ Skip to main content

Anopheles rufipes implicated in malaria transmission both indoors and outdoors alongside Anopheles funestus and Anopheles arabiensis in rural south-east Zambia

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, March 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Anopheles rufipes implicated in malaria transmission both indoors and outdoors alongside Anopheles funestus and Anopheles arabiensis in rural south-east Zambia
Published in
Malaria Journal, March 2023
DOI 10.1186/s12936-023-04489-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kochelani Saili, Christiaan de Jager, Onyango P. Sangoro, Theresia E. Nkya, Freddie Masaninga, Mwansa Mwenya, Andy Sinyolo, Busiku Hamainza, Emmanuel Chanda, Ulrike Fillinger, Clifford M. Mutero

Abstract

The primary malaria vector-control interventions, indoor residual spraying and long-lasting insecticidal nets, are effective against indoor biting and resting mosquito species. Consequently, outdoor biting and resting malaria vectors might elude the primary interventions and sustain malaria transmission. Varied vector biting and resting behaviour calls for robust entomological surveillance. This study investigated the bionomics of malaria vectors in rural south-east Zambia, focusing on species composition, their resting and host-seeking behaviour and sporozoite infection rates. The study was conducted in Nyimba District, Zambia. Randomly selected households served as sentinel houses for monthly collection of mosquitoes indoors using CDC-light traps (CDC-LTs) and pyrethrum spray catches (PSC), and outdoors using only CDC-LTs for 12 months. Mosquitoes were identified using morphological taxonomic keys. Specimens belonging to the Anopheles gambiae complex and Anopheles funestus group were further identified using molecular techniques. Plasmodium falciparum sporozoite infection was determined using sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. From 304 indoor and 257 outdoor light trap-nights and 420 resting collection, 1409 female Anopheles species mosquitoes were collected and identified morphologically; An. funestus (n = 613; 43.5%), An. gambiae sensu lato (s.l.)(n = 293; 20.8%), Anopheles pretoriensis (n = 282; 20.0%), Anopheles maculipalpis (n = 130; 9.2%), Anopheles rufipes (n = 55; 3.9%), Anopheles coustani s.l. (n = 33; 2.3%), and Anopheles squamosus (n = 3, 0.2%). Anopheles funestus sensu stricto (s.s.) (n = 144; 91.1%) and Anopheles arabiensis (n = 77; 77.0%) were the dominant species within the An. funestus group and An. gambiae complex, respectively. Overall, outdoor CDC-LTs captured more Anopheles mosquitoes (mean = 2.25, 95% CI 1.22-3,28) than indoor CDC-LTs (mean = 2.13, 95% CI 1.54-2.73). Fewer resting mosquitoes were collected with PSC (mean = 0.44, 95% CI 0.24-0.63). Sporozoite infectivity rates for An. funestus, An. arabiensis and An. rufipes were 2.5%, 0.57% and 9.1%, respectively. Indoor entomological inoculation rates (EIRs) for An. funestus s.s, An. arabiensis and An. rufipes were estimated at 4.44, 1.15 and 1.20 infectious bites/person/year respectively. Outdoor EIRs for An. funestus s.s. and An. rufipes at 7.19 and 4.31 infectious bites/person/year, respectively. The findings of this study suggest that An. rufipes may play an important role in malaria transmission alongside An. funestus s.s. and An. arabiensis in the study location.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 16%
Other 2 8%
Lecturer 2 8%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 8%
Researcher 2 8%
Other 5 20%
Unknown 8 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 24%
Environmental Science 3 12%
Engineering 3 12%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 9 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 17 August 2023.
All research outputs
#3,147,416
of 24,282,284 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#741
of 5,804 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,637
of 410,482 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#14
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,282,284 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,804 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 410,482 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.