↓ Skip to main content

Membrane feeding of dengue patient’s blood as a substitute for direct skin feeding in studying Aedes-dengue virus interaction

Overview of attention for article published in Parasites & Vectors, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
Membrane feeding of dengue patient’s blood as a substitute for direct skin feeding in studying Aedes-dengue virus interaction
Published in
Parasites & Vectors, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13071-016-1469-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cheong-Huat Tan, Pei-Sze Jeslyn Wong, Mei-Zhi Irene Li, Hui-Ting Yang, Chee-Seng Chong, Linda K. Lee, Shi Yuan, Yee-Sin Leo, Lee-Ching Ng, David C. Lye

Abstract

Understanding the interaction between Aedes vectors and dengue viruses (DENV) has significant implications in determining the transmission dynamics of dengue. The absence of an animal model and ethical concerns regarding direct feeding of mosquitoes on patients has resulted in most infection studies using blood meals spiked with laboratory-cultured DENV. Data obtained from such studies may not reflect the natural human-mosquito transmission scenario. This study explored the potential of using membrane feeding of dengue patient's blood as a substitute for direct skin feeding. Four to six-day old female Ae. aegypti were provided the opportunity to feed via direct exposure to a patient's forearm for 15 min or via exposure to EDTA-treated blood from the same patient through an artificial membrane for 30 min. Mosquitoes from both feeding methods were incubated inside environmental chambers. Mosquitoes were sampled at day 13 post-feeding. Midgut and salivary glands of each mosquito were dissected to determine DENV infection by RT-qPCR and viral titration, respectively. Feeding rates: Direct skin feeding assay (DSFA) consistently showed higher mosquito feeding rates (93.3-100 %) when compared with the membrane feeding assay (MFA) (48-98.2 %). Midgut infection: Pair-wise comparison between methods showed no significant difference in midgut infection rates between mosquitoes exposed via each method and a strong correlation was observed in midgut infection rates for both feeding methods (r = 0.89, P < 0.0001). Overall midgut viral titers (n = 20) obtained by both methods were comparable (P ≥ 0.06). Salivary gland infection: Pair-wise comparison between both methods revealed no significant difference in salivary gland infection rate. Strong correlation in salivary gland infection was observed between DSFA and MFA (r = 0.81, P < 0.0001). In general, mosquitoes fed directly on dengue patients and those on patients' blood (n = 11) had comparable virus titer (P ≥ 0.09). DENV midgut and salivary gland infection rates showed good concordance between DSFA and MFA blood meal exposure methods. Freshly-obtained venous blood in EDTA from dengue patients for MFA can be used as a substitute to DSFA, especially in circumstances where bioethics approval or patient recruitment is difficult to obtain for vector competence studies. Nevertheless, mosquito numbers will need to be increased to compensate for lower feeding rate in MFA.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 62 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 26%
Student > Master 10 15%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Other 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 12 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 14%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 14 22%
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 08 February 2017.
All research outputs
#15,369,653
of 22,865,319 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#3,386
of 5,470 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,385
of 299,082 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#112
of 182 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,865,319 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 5,470 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 299,082 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 182 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.