ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2023
Genetic differentiation among Aedes aegypti populations from different eco-geographical zones of India.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genomic analysis identifies candidate supergene architecture for host-feeding behavior in wildFrontiers in genetics · 2026Article
- Population genetic diversity and natural Wolbachia infection in Aedes aegypti from Pakistan.Parasites & vectors · 2025Article
- High Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever incidence linked to greater genetic diversity and differentiation in Hyalomma marginatum populations in Türkiye.Parasites & vectors · 2024Article
- Genome resequencing and genome-wide polymorphisms in mosquito vectors Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus from south India.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Integrating wing morphometrics and mitochondrial DNA analysis to assess the filaria vector Mansonia uniformis (Diptera: Culicidae) populations in Thailand.Parasitology research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors at 11 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study explicitly evaluated the genetic structure of Aedes aegypti Linn, the vector of dengue, chikungunya, and Zika viruses, across different geo-climatic zones of India and also elucidated the impact of ecological and topographic factors. After data quality checks and removal of samples with excess null alleles, the final analysis was performed on 589 individual samples using 10 microsatellite markers. Overall findings of this study suggested that, Ae. aegypti populations are highly diverse with moderate genetic differentiation between them. Around half of the populations (13 out of 22) formed two genetic clusters roughly associated with geographical regions. The remaining nine populations shared genetic ancestries with either one or both of the clusters. A significant relationship between genetic and geographic distance was observed, indicating isolation by distance. However, spatial autocorrelation analysis predicted the signs of long-distance admixture. Post-hoc environmental association analysis showed that 52.7% of genetic variations were explained by a combination of climatic and topographic factors, with latitude and temperature being the best predictors. This study indicated that though overall genetic differentiation among Ae. aegypti populations across India is moderate (Fst = 0.099), the differences between the populations are developing due to the factors associated with geographic locations. This study improves the understanding of the Ae. aegypti population structure in India that may assist in predicting mosquito movements across the geo-climatic zones, enabling effective control strategies and assessing the risk of disease transmission.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.