Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34039430›Full record

ArticleParasites & vectors2021

Eave and swarm collections prove effective for biased captures of male Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes in Uganda.

Krystal Birungi, Danspaid P Mabuka, Victor Balyesima, Annet Namukwaya, Elinor W Chemoges, Sylvia Kiwuwa-Muyingo, C Matilda Collins, Frederic Tripet, Jonathan K Kayondo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Parasites & vectors, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors.

Krystal BirungiEntomology Division, Uganda Virus Research Institute (UVRI), Plot 51-59, P.O. Box 49, Entebbe, Uganda.
Danspaid P MabukaEntomology Division, Uganda Virus Research Institute (UVRI), Plot 51-59, P.O. Box 49, Entebbe, Uganda.
Victor BalyesimaEntomology Division, Uganda Virus Research Institute (UVRI), Plot 51-59, P.O. Box 49, Entebbe, Uganda.
Annet NamukwayaEntomology Division, Uganda Virus Research Institute (UVRI), Plot 51-59, P.O. Box 49, Entebbe, Uganda.
Elinor W ChemogesEntomology Division, Uganda Virus Research Institute (UVRI), Plot 51-59, P.O. Box 49, Entebbe, Uganda.
Sylvia Kiwuwa-MuyingoMRC/UVRI & LSHTM Uganda Research Unit, Plot 51-59, P.O. Box 49, Entebbe, Uganda.
C Matilda CollinsThe Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, The Weeks Building, 16-18 Princes Gardens, London, SW7 1NE, UK.
Frederic TripetCentre for Applied Entomology and Parasitology, School of Life Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK.
Jonathan K KayondoEntomology Division, Uganda Virus Research Institute (UVRI), Plot 51-59, P.O. Box 49, Entebbe, Uganda. jkayondo@uvri.go.ug.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0877-6877

Funding

H3ABioNet: informatics solutions for H3AfricaU24HG006941 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN · PI MULDER, NICOLA · 2017 to 2021
$12.9M
NHGRI NIH HHS U24 HG006941NIH HHS U24HG006941Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 107743
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTraditional malaria vector sampling techniques bias collections towards female mosquitoes. Comprehensive understanding of vector dynamics requires balanced vector sampling of both males and females. Male mosquito sampling is also necessary for population size estimations by male-based mark-release-recapture (MRR) studies and for developing innovations in mosquito control, such as the male-targeted sterile insect technique and other genetic modification approaches. This study evaluated a range of collection methods which show promise in providing a more equal, or even male-biased, sex representation in the sample.

resultsSwarms were found at all study sites and were more abundant and larger at the peak of the wet season. Swarm sampling caught the most males, but when man/hour effort was factored in, sampling of eaves by aspiration was the more efficient method and also provided a representative sample of females. Grass-roofed houses were the most productive for eave collections. Overall few mosquitoes were caught with artificial resting traps (clay pots and buckets), although these sampling methods performed better at the start of the wet season than at its peak, possibly because of changes in mosquito ecology and an increased availability of natural resting sites later in the season. Aspiration of bushes was more productive at the peak of the wet season than at the start.

conclusionsThe results of this study demonstrate that eave aspiration was an efficient and useful male mosquito collection method at the study sites and a potentially powerful aid for swarm location and MRR studies. The methods evaluated may together deliver more sex-balanced mosquito captures and can be used in various combinations depending on the aims and ecological parameters of a given study.

Indexed as

AnophelesEcologyMosquito VectorsAnimal DistributionAnimalsFemaleHousingHumansMalariaMaleMosquito ControlPopulation DensitySeasonsSpecies SpecificityUgandaAspirationEaveMalariaMosquito samplingResting trapsSwarm samplingVector ecology

Identifiers

PMID34039430
PMCPMC8152359

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.