Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34526109›Full record

ArticleParasites & vectors2021

A comparison of PCR and ELISA methods to detect different stages of Plasmodium vivax in Anopheles arabiensis.

Allison L Hendershot, Endashaw Esayas, Alice C Sutcliffe, Seth R Irish, Endalamaw Gadisa, Fitsum G Tadesse, Neil F Lobo

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
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 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. CDC Operational Guidance for Investigating Locally Acquired Mosquito-Transmitted Malaria - United States, 2026.MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Allison L HendershotEck Institute for Global Health, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, USA. hendershot.allison@gmail.com.
Endashaw EsayasMalaria and Neglected Tropical Diseases Research Directorate, Armauer Hansen Research Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Alice C SutcliffeEntomology Branch, Division of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Seth R IrishEntomology Branch, Division of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Endalamaw GadisaMalaria and Neglected Tropical Diseases Research Directorate, Armauer Hansen Research Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Fitsum G TadesseMalaria and Neglected Tropical Diseases Research Directorate, Armauer Hansen Research Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Neil F LoboEck Institute for Global Health, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, USA.
Armauer Hansen Research Institute · ETUniversity of Notre Dame · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USDivision of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria · US

Funding

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation INDIE OPP1173572
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn characterizing malaria epidemiology, measuring mosquito infectiousness informs the entomological inoculation rate, an important metric of malaria transmission. PCR-based methods have been touted as more sensitive than the current "gold-standard" circumsporozoite (CSP) ELISA. Wider application of PCR-based methods has been limited by lack of specificity for the infectious sporozoite stage. We compared a PCR method for detecting the parasite's mitochondrial (mt) cytochrome oxidase I (COX-I) gene with ELISA for detecting circumsporozoite protein for identification of different life stages of the parasite during development within a mosquito.

methodsA PCR-based method targeting the Plasmodium mt COX-I gene was compared with the CSP ELISA method to assess infectivity in Anopheles arabiensis colony mosquitoes fed on blood from patients infected with Plasmodium vivax. Mosquitoes were tested at six post-infection time points (days 0.5, 1, 6, 9, 12, 15). The head and thorax and the abdomen for each specimen were tested separately with each method. Agreement between methods at each infection stage was measured using Cohen's kappa measure of test association.

resultsInfection status of mosquitoes was assessed in approximately 90 head/thorax and 90 abdomen segments at each time point; in total, 538 head/thorax and 534 abdomen segments were tested. In mosquitoes bisected after 0.5, 1, and 6 days post-infection (dpi), the mt COX-I PCR detected Plasmodium DNA in both the abdomen (88, 78, and 67%, respectively) and head/thorax segments (69, 60, and 44%, respectively), whilst CSP ELISA detected sporozoites in only one abdomen on day 6 post-infection. PCR was also more sensitive than ELISA for detection of Plasmodium in mosquitoes bisected after 9, 12, and 15 dpi in both the head and thorax and abdomen. There was fair agreement between methods for time points 9-15 dpi (κ = 0.312, 95% CI: 0.230-0.394).

conclusionsThe mt COX-I PCR is a highly sensitive, robust method for detecting Plasmodium DNA in mosquitoes, but its limited Plasmodium life-stage specificity cannot be overcome by bisection of the head and thorax from the abdomen prior to PCR. Thus, the mt COX-I PCR is a poor candidate for identifying infectious mosquitoes.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnophelesEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayFemaleLife Cycle StagesPlasmodium vivaxPolymerase Chain ReactionSporozoitesCOX-I PCRCSP ELISAInfectious mosquitoesInfectious reservoirPlasmodiumWild mosquitoes

Identifiers

PMID34526109
PMCPMC8442364
OpenAlexW3170971507

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.