Disclaimer The following was presented in the
Transcription
Disclaimer The following was presented in the
Disclaimer The following was presented in the form of a progress report and is tentative and incomplete in nature. Do not use it or quote from it with or without attribution. Please contact J. Sutcliffe (jsutcliffe@trentu.ca) with questions about this content or about the current status of the project. Mosquito entry through holes Progress toward a predictive model of mosquito bed net entry J.F. Sutcliffe Trent University U.S. Centers for Disease Control What constitutes a “failed net”? Currently, absolute measures of bed net damage are all that’s available to judge net serviceability but evidence shows increasingly that the relation between damage and the likelihood of mosquito entry is not a simple one. Stephen C. Smith, Uday B. Joshi, Mark Grabowsky, Joel Selanikio, Theresa Nobiya, and Thomas Aapore. (2007). Evaluation of bednets after 38 months of household use in Northwest Ghana. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg., 77(Suppl 6), 243– 248. By observing mosquitoes around the damaged net, this project aims to provide a behaviourally-informed model of mosquito net entry risk to use in assessing bed net serviceability. “Failed net” project Behavioural analysis approach to determining a net failure model uses two lines of investigation 1) How does mosquito ‘pressure’ vary across the bed net? Experiments with volunteers in treated and untreated bed nets 2) How do mosquitoes interact with holes in the bed net? Video mosquito hole passage behaviour in small arenas Combine results from both approaches into a model of bed net penetrability Video observations (approach #2) of responses of female An. gambiae to holes in netting in small behavioural arenas reveal: 1) Mosquitoes do not actively orient to holes in netting 2) Hole encounter occurs through a random 2-dimensional search across the net surface 3) Mosquitoes that encounter holes (fly near or across them), do not always pass through (enter) holes - Sutcliffe and Colborn (submitted) What aspects of hole size and shape determine probabilities of mosquito-hole encounter and of hole passage? “Failed net” project Add video analysis of hole encounter and passage in whole nets to hole interaction studies (2) 1) How does mosquito ‘pressure’ vary across the bed net? 2) How do mosquitoes interact with holes in the bed net? Experiments with volunteers in treated and untreated bed nets Combine results from both approaches into a model of bed net penetrability Experimental system - fibreglass screen untreated “bed net” provides flat surfaces to video flight close to the net and to video hole encounter using laser illumination system - accommodates modules for mounting holes - accommodates various sizes/shapes of holes on net sides and roof Experimental method - mount holes, close tent, adjust laser illumination, enter bed net, release unfed mosquitoes into tent, turn off lights - video events at each hole (45min) - log events on videos using Observer® software Round (circles) and rectangular (squares) holes tested (lesser of dimensions = width for rectangular holes) Laser illumination system fibreglass screening in aluminum frames forms walls and roof 1) green laser source outside net 2) red laser source inside net 4 3) 30cm X 30cm sampling area 1) line laser projects along outside of net (1cm away) to illuminate mosquitoes in two-dimensional search against the net 2) second line laser projects along inside of net (1cm) to illuminate mosquitoes that have passed through the hole and into the net 3) sampling area around hole 4) camera to record near-net activity in sampling area Key observations made Appearance - searching mosquito illuminated in sampling area Hole encounter – mosquito that has appeared crosses hole margin Net entry – mosquito that has encountered hole, passes through hole into net Example of video observations Right - 12mm X 200mm hole in side of net (taped to prevent premature mosquito entry) Below, left and right – 1) “appearance” in sampling area (two mosquitoes) 2a) hole “encounter” 2b) net “entry” 2a 1 2b What hole features predict encounter and entry probabilities? hole circumference accounts for almost 75% of per appearance encounter probability variation* hole width accounts for almost 83% of the variability in per encounter entry probability* R2=0.827 R2=0.746 *data from holes on net sides and ends though roof holes operate similarly The combined model Combine encounter and entry relationships in Monte Carlo simulations of the mean number of mosquito entries per appearance over range of hole widths (0-100mm) and hole circumferences (0-500mm) combinations: Per appearance P of hole passage 3 0.20 0.18 5 4 0.16 0.14 0.12 6 0.10 2 0.08 0.06 0.04 1 0.18-0.20 0.16-0.18 0.14-0.16 0.12-0.14 0.10-0.12 0.08-0.10 0.06-0.08 0.04-0.06 0.02-0.04 0.00-0.02 0.02 0.00 - Relationship allows mean and error estimates of entry probability for any of a range of hole sizes (e.g. 1-6) “Failed net” project How many mosquitoes actually enter the net also depends on whether, and how many, mosquitoes occur on the parts of the net where holes are located. To determine this, apply results from mosquito pressure experiments (1) to modelled hole entry probabilities 1) How does mosquito ‘pressure’ vary across the bed net? Experiments with volunteers in treated and untreated bed nets 2) How do mosquitoes interact with holes in the bed net? Video mosquito hole passage behaviour in small arenas and in full–sized nets Combine results from both approaches into a model of bed net penetrability Sutcliffe, J. and S. Yin (2014). Behavioural responses of females of two anopheline mosquito species to human-occupied, insecticide-treated and untreated bed nets. Malaria Journal 13:294. Host seeking mosquito pressures against the bed net occur in species-specific patterns: e.g. An. gambiae caught on sticky squares in approx. 1:10:40 ratio on bed net upper sides and ends:lower third:roof (Functional Areas 1-3) FA3 FA1 FA2 Sample model predictions of mean hourly An. gambiae entry rates (and 95% confidence limits) using preliminary conversions of pressure values* to appearance values for three mosquito densities, three hole sizes and three areas of the net number of mosquitoes present in room** hole features width (mm) circum. (mm) 5 17 200 functional area of net FA1 FA2 FA3 mean 0.00 0.00 0.00 LCL 0.00 0.00 0.00 20 UCL 0.00 0.00 0.00 mean 0.00 0.00 0.00 LCL 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 UCL 0.00 0.00 0.00 mean 0.00 0.00 0.00 LCL 0.00 0.00 0.00 UCL 0.00 0.00 0.00 15 160 FA1 FA2 FA3 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.72 0.02 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 90 360 FA1 FA2 0.48 0.18 0.78 0.05 0.02 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 2.97 1.11 4.82 0.30 0.11 0.48 0.03 0.01 0.05 FA3 32.19 12.07 52.31 3.22 1.21 5.23 0.32 0.12 0.52 *Sutcliffe, J. and S. Yin (2014). Behavioural responses of females of two anopheline mosquito species to human-occupied, insecticide-treated and untreated bed nets. Malaria Journal 13:294. **estimates assume this number of mosquitoes is constantly present Conclusion Results indicate that it should be possible to estimate means and error terms for mosquito entry risk into damaged bed nets using simple measures of hole size (e.g. hole width and circumference) and information about the “Functional Area” of the net that holes are located in. Additional/ongoing work - More data collection, especially for roof hole entry rates Address irregularly-shaped holes Insecticide treated nets Insecticide resistant mosquito Test in field/semi-field conditions