SynthesisMalaria journal2024
A systematic review: is Anopheles vagus a species complex?
Synthesis in Malaria journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Anopheles ecology and serological evidence of malaria exposure in clinically malaria-free areas of Menoreh Hills Central Java, Indonesia.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A review and updated checklist of the Anopheles mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae: Anophelinae) of Thailand.Journal of medical entomology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnopheles vagus (subgenus Cellia) has been identified as a vector for malaria, filariasis, and Japanese encephalitis in Asia. Sporozoites of Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax have been found in this zoophilic mosquito in Asia and Indonesia. This study systematically reviews publications regarding An. vagus species, variation, bio-ecology, and malaria transmission in various localities in Asia, especially Indonesia, to determine whether the current data support An. vagus as a species complex.
methodsThe databases Pubmed, Scopus, Europe PMC, and Proquest were searched to identify information regarding the morphology, karyotypes, polytene chromosome, cross-mating, ecology, and molecular identification of An. vagus was then evaluated to determine whether there were possible species complexes.
resultsOf the 1326 articles identified, 15 studies were considered for synthesis. The Anopheles spp. samples for this study came from Asia. Eleven studies used morphology to identify An. vagus, with singular studies using each of karyotype identification, chromosomal polytene identification, and cross-breeding experiments. Ten studies used molecular techniques to identify Anopheles spp., including An. vagus. Most studies discovered morphological variations of An. vagus either in the same or different areas and ecological settings. In this review, the members of An. vagus sensu lato grouped based on morphology (An. vagus, An. vagus vagus, An. vagus limosus, and An. limosus), karyotyping (form A and B), and molecular (An. vagus genotype A and B, An. vagus AN4 and AN5). Genetic analysis revealed a high conservation of the ITS2 fragment among members except for the An. vagus genotype B, which was, in fact, Anopheles sundaicus. This review also identified that An. vagus limosus and An. vagus vagus were nearly identical to the ITS2 sequence.
conclusionLiterature review studies revealed that An. vagus is conspecific despite the distinct morphological characteristic of An. vagus and An. limosus. Further information using another barcoding tool, such as mitochondrial COI and ND6 and experimental cross-mating between the An. vagus and An. limosus may provide additional evidence for the status of An. vagus as a species complex.
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.