↓ Skip to main content

Experimental evaluation of sand fly collection and storage methods for the isolation and molecular detection of Phlebotomus-borne viruses

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Experimental evaluation of sand fly collection and storage methods for the isolation and molecular detection of Phlebotomus-borne viruses
Published in
Parasites & Vectors, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13071-015-1192-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Elena Remoli, Gioia Bongiorno, Claudia Fortuna, Antonella Marchi, Riccardo Bianchi, Cristina Khoury, Maria Grazia Ciufolini, Marina Gramiccia

Abstract

Several viruses have been recently isolated from Mediterranean phlebotomine sand flies; some are known to cause human disease while some are new to science. To monitor the Phlebotomus-borne viruses spreading, field studies are in progress using different sand fly collection and storage methods. Two main sampling techniques consist of CDC light traps, an attraction method allowing collection of live insects in which the virus is presumed to be fairly preserved, and sticky traps, an interception method suitable to collect dead specimens in high numbers, with a risk for virus viability or integrity. Sand flies storage requires a "deep cold chain" or specimen preservation in ethanol. In the present study the influence of sand fly collection and storage methods on viral isolation and RNA detection performances was evaluated experimentally. Specimens of laboratory-reared Phlebotomus perniciosus were artificially fed with blood containing Toscana virus (family Bunyaviridae, genus Phlebovirus). Various collection and storage conditions of blood-fed females were evaluated to mimic field procedures using single and pool samples. Isolation on VERO cell cultures, quantitative Real time-Retro-transcriptase (RT)-PCR and Nested-RT-PCR were performed according to techniques commonly used in surveillance studies. Live engorged sand flies stored immediately at -80 °C were the most suitable sample for phlebovirus identification by both virus isolation and RNA detection. The viral isolation rate remained very high (26/28) for single dead engorged females frozen after 1 day, while it was moderate (10/30) for specimens collected by sticky traps maintained up to 3 days at room temperature and then stored frozen without ethanol. Opposed to viral isolation, molecular RNA detection kept very high on dead sand flies collected by sticky traps when left at room temperature up to 6 days post blood meal and then stored frozen in presence (88/95) or absence (87/88) of ethanol. Data were confirmed using sand fly pools. While the collection and storage methods investigated had not much impact on the ability to detect viral RNA by molecular methods, they affected the capacity to recover viable viruses. Consequently, sand fly collection and handling procedures should be established in advance depending on the goal of the surveillance studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 34 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 29%
Researcher 8 23%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Student > Master 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 6 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 31%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 17%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 9%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 9 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 26 July 2016.
All research outputs
#13,375,401
of 22,832,057 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#2,414
of 5,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,612
of 284,824 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#49
of 161 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,832,057 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,465 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 55% 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 284,824 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 161 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 66% of its contemporaries.