↓ Skip to main content

Linalool oxide: generalist plant based lure for mosquito disease vectors

Overview of attention for article published in Parasites & Vectors, November 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
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 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
Linalool oxide: generalist plant based lure for mosquito disease vectors
Published in
Parasites & Vectors, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13071-015-1184-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vincent O. Nyasembe, David P. Tchouassi, Charles M. Mbogo, Catherine L. Sole, Christian Pirk, Baldwyn Torto

Abstract

Lack of effective vaccines and therapeutics for important arboviral diseases such as Rift Valley fever (RVF) and dengue, necessitates continuous monitoring of vector populations for infections in them. Plant-based lures as surveillance tools has the potential of targeting mosquitoes of both sexes and females of varied physiological states; yet such lures are lacking for vectors of these diseases. Here, we present evidence of the effectiveness of linalool oxide (LO), a single plant-based lure previously developed for malaria vectors in trapping RVF vectors, Aedes mcintoshi and Aedes ochraceus, and dengue vector, Aedes aegypti. For RVF vectors, we used CDC traps to evaluate the performance of LO against three vertebrate-based lures: CO2 (dry ice), BioGent (BG) lure, and HONAD (a blend of aldehydes) in 2 experiments with Completely Randomized design: 1) using unlit CDC traps baited separately with LO, HONAD and BG-lure, and unlit CDC trap + CO2 and lit CDC trap as controls, 2) similar treatments but with inclusion of CO2 to all the traps. For dengue vectors, LO was evaluated against BG lure using BG sentinel traps, in a 3 × 6 Latin Square design, first as single lures and then combined with CO2 and traps baited with CO2 included as controls. Trap captures were compared between the treatments using Chi square and GLM. Low captures of RVF vectors were recorded for all lures in the absence of CO2 with no significant difference between them. When combined with CO2, LO performance in trapping these vectors was comparable to BG-lure and HONAD but it was less effective than the lit CDC trap. In the absence of CO2, LO performed comparably with the BG-lure in trapping female Ae. aegypti, but with significantly higher males recorded in traps baited with the plant-based lure. When CO2 was added, LO was significantly better than the BG-lure with a 2.8- fold increase in captures of male Ae. aegypti. These results highlight the potential of LO as a generalist plant-based lure for mosquito disease vectors, pending further assessment of possible specificity in their response profile to the different stereoisomers of this compound.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 90 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 19%
Researcher 16 18%
Student > Bachelor 16 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 21 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 27 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 8%
Environmental Science 4 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Other 19 21%
Unknown 22 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 25 July 2016.
All research outputs
#15,708,425
of 23,344,526 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#3,459
of 5,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,286
of 286,147 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#94
of 161 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,344,526 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 5,557 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 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 286,147 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 161 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.