Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26852018›Full record

ArticleMalaria journal2016

Large-scale Anopheles arabiensis egg quantification methods for mass-rearing operations.

Hamidou Maïga, David Damiens, Abdoulaye Diabaté, Roch K Dabiré, Georges A Ouédraogo, Rosemary S Lees, Jeremie R L Gilles

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Malaria journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Hamidou MaïgaInstitut de Recherche en Sciences de la Santé/Centre Muraz, BP 390, Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso. maigahamid@yahoo.fr.
David DamiensInsect Pest Control Laboratory, Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture, International Atomic Energy Agency, Wagramerstraße 5, PO Box 100, 1400, Vienna, Austria. damiensdavid@hotmail.com.
Abdoulaye DiabatéInstitut de Recherche en Sciences de la Santé/Centre Muraz, BP 390, Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso. a_diabate@hotmail.com.
Roch K DabiréInstitut de Recherche en Sciences de la Santé/Centre Muraz, BP 390, Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso. dabire_roch@hotmail.com.
Georges A OuédraogoUniversité Polytechnique de Bobo-Dioulasso, 01 BP 1091, Bobo-01, Burkina Faso. oga@fasonet.bf.
Rosemary S LeesInsect Pest Control Laboratory, Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture, International Atomic Energy Agency, Wagramerstraße 5, PO Box 100, 1400, Vienna, Austria. r.s.lees@iaea.org.
Jeremie R L GillesInsect Pest Control Laboratory, Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture, International Atomic Energy Agency, Wagramerstraße 5, PO Box 100, 1400, Vienna, Austria. j.gilles@iaea.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe success of the sterile insect technique relies, among other things, on the continuous release of over flooding numbers of sexually competitive sterile males into the target area. To produce sufficiently large quantities of sterile males, rearing protocols need to be optimized including the development and validation of a standardized egg quantification method.

methodsBatches of 1000 freshly laid eggs collected from standard rearing cages were counted, gently dried under laboratory conditions (27 ± 1 °C, 75 ± 5 % RH) and combined so that 1000-8000 eggs were weighed, to calculate the correlation between weight and number. The actual counted egg number and the egg number estimated by weighing were further compared for samples of 1000, 3000 and 4000 eggs collected from both standard and mass-rearing cages. The effect of drying, brushing and weighing on egg hatch rate was evaluated in three samples each of 1000 fresh and 1000 dried eggs, and in batches of 1000, 3000 and 4000 dried eggs. Pupal production and adult life history traits were assessed for dried eggs hatched and reared in mass-rearing trays. Expected egg numbers and actual observed mean egg numbers were compared after gentle drying, and after applying a rapid drying method exposure to wind speed of 1.8 m/s for 30 min.

resultsA significant positive relationship between the number of dried eggs and egg weight was observed and the equation 'Weight (mg) = (0.00399 × Number of counted eggs) + 0.536 was derived. The actual counted mean egg number and the egg number estimated by weighing were similar for samples from small rearing cages but significantly lower for samples of 3000 and 4000 egg samples collected from mass-rearing cages. No negative effect of the drying, brushing and weighing process on egg hatch rate was observed. No significant difference was observed in any life history trait between adults reared from dried or from fresh eggs up to twenty-one days post emergence. The mean number of eggs counted from a given replicate's weight was significantly higher for egg batches fast dried with a suction device compared to those dried with a gentle drying method (fast: 1075 ± 9, gentle: 1024 ± 7).

conclusionAn equation has been derived to allow accurate quantification of dried Anopheles arabiensis eggs based on weight, enabling more accurate quantification of eggs for consistent larval rearing density to be achieved. Eggs can be dried for weighing in a manner which does not impair the quality of resulting adults.

Indexed as

BreedingAnimalsAnophelesDesiccationEggsFemaleMaleSexual Behavior, Animal

Identifiers

PMID26852018
PMCPMC4744385

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.