↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of a protocol for remote identification of mosquito vector species reveals BG-Sentinel trap as an efficient tool for Anopheles gambiae outdoor collection in Burkina Faso

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, April 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
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 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
Evaluation of a protocol for remote identification of mosquito vector species reveals BG-Sentinel trap as an efficient tool for Anopheles gambiae outdoor collection in Burkina Faso
Published in
Malaria Journal, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12936-015-0674-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marco Pombi, Wamdaogo M Guelbeogo, Maria Calzetta, N’Fale Sagnon, Vincenzo Petrarca, Vincenzo La Gioia, Alessandra della Torre

Abstract

Feasibility and costs of monitoring efforts aimed to monitor mosquito species are strictly dependent on the presence of skilled entomologists directly in the field. However, in several contexts this is not possible or easy to organize, thus limiting the possibility to obtain crucial information on presence/abundance of potential disease vectors and of new invasive species. Digital imaging approaches could be extremely useful in the frame of medical entomology to overcome this limit. This work describes a surveillance approach to collect and morphologically identify host-seeking malaria vectors based on remote transmission of digital images of specimens collected with ad hoc modified traps. CDC light trap (CDC) and the BG-Sentinel trap (BG), both baited with BG-lure and CO2, were modified in order to have collected mosquitoes immobilized on a bi-dimensional surface. The performance of the two traps in the field was comparatively tested by Latin-square experiments in two villages of Burkina Faso under low and high mosquito densities. The efficiency of identifications based the inspection of digital images versus microscopic identifications of collected specimens was compared. A total of 1,519 mosquitoes belonging to 16 species were collected, of which 88.5% were microscopically identified as Anopheles gambiae s.l. (mainly Anopheles coluzzii, 85.7%). During dry season BG collected 15 times more females than CDC outdoors, whereas indoors the BG collected 0.4 times less than CDC. During rainy season the ratio BG/CDC was 6.4 and 0.7 outdoors and indoors, respectively. The efficiency of digital images versus microscopic identifications of collected specimens was 97.9%, 95.6% and 81.5% for Culicidae, Anophelinae and An. gambiae s.l., respectively. Results strongly encourage the use of BG-trap for collecting host-seeking An. gambiae particularly in the outdoor environment, providing new perspectives to the challenge of collecting this fraction of the biting population, whose epidemiological relevance is increasing due to the success of large-scale implementation of indoor malaria vector control strategies. Moreover, results show that the transmission of digital images of specimens collected by the ad hoc modified host-seeking traps efficiently allows identification of malaria vectors, thus opening the perspective to easily carry out mosquito monitoring also in the absence of entomologists directly in the field.

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 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Madagascar 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 97 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 25%
Student > Master 17 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 15%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Other 5 5%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 16 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 30%
Environmental Science 8 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 6%
Other 21 21%
Unknown 21 21%
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 20 April 2015.
All research outputs
#14,876,875
of 24,400,706 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#3,892
of 5,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,841
of 268,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#62
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,400,706 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 5,827 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 268,359 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 117 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.