Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38566239›Full record

ArticleParasites & vectors2024

Comparison of a multiplex PCR with DNA barcoding for identification of container breeding mosquito species.

Julia Reichl, Christina Prossegger, Sarah Petutschnig, Maria Sophia Unterköfler, Karin Bakran-Lebl, Mateusz Markowicz, Alexander Indra, Hans-Peter Fuehrer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Parasites & vectors, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Julia ReichlInstitute for Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES), Vienna, Austria.
Christina ProsseggerInstitute of Parasitology, Department of Pathobiology, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Sarah PetutschnigInstitute for Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES), Vienna, Austria.
Maria Sophia UnterköflerInstitute of Parasitology, Department of Pathobiology, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Karin Bakran-LeblInstitute for Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES), Vienna, Austria.
Mateusz MarkowiczInstitute for Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES), Vienna, Austria.
Alexander IndraInstitute for Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES), Vienna, Austria.
Hans-Peter FuehrerInstitute of Parasitology, Department of Pathobiology, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria. hans-peter.fuehrer@vetmeduni.ac.at.
Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety · ATUniversity of Veterinary Medicine Vienna · AT

Funding

Austrian Climate Research Program FFG 901442
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIdentification of mosquitoes greatly relies on morphological specification. Since some species cannot be distinguished reliably by morphological methods, it is important to incorporate molecular techniques into the diagnostic pipeline. DNA barcoding using Sanger sequencing is currently widely used for identification of mosquito species. However, this method does not allow detection of multiple species in one sample, which would be important when analysing mosquito eggs. Detection of container breeding Aedes is typically performed by collecting eggs using ovitraps. These traps consist of a black container filled with water and a wooden spatula inserted for oviposition support. Aedes mosquitoes of different species might lay single or multiple eggs on the spatula. In contrast to Sanger sequencing of specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR) products, multiplex PCR protocols targeting specific species of interest can be of advantage for detection of multiple species in the same sample.

methodsFor this purpose, we adapted a previously published PCR protocol for simultaneous detection of four different Aedes species that are relevant for Austrian monitoring programmes, as they can be found in ovitraps: Aedes albopictus, Aedes japonicus, Aedes koreicus, and Aedes geniculatus. For evaluation of the multiplex PCR protocol, we analysed 2271 ovitrap mosquito samples from the years 2021 and 2022, which were collected within the scope of an Austrian nationwide monitoring programme. We compared the results of the multiplex PCR to the results of DNA barcoding.

resultsOf 2271 samples, the multiplex PCR could identify 1990 samples, while species determination using DNA barcoding of the mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I gene was possible in 1722 samples. The multiplex PCR showed a mixture of different species in 47 samples, which could not be detected with DNA barcoding.

conclusionsIn conclusion, identification of Aedes species in ovitrap samples was more successful when using the multiplex PCR protocol as opposed to the DNA barcoding protocol. Additionally, the multiplex PCR allowed us to detect multiple species in the same sample, while those species might have been missed when using DNA barcoding with Sanger sequencing alone. Therefore, we propose that the multiplex PCR protocol is highly suitable and of great advantage when analysing mosquito eggs from ovitraps.

Indexed as

AedesDNA Barcoding, TaxonomicAnimalsFemaleMosquito VectorsMultiplex Polymerase Chain ReactionOvumAedesAedes albopictusAustriaIdentificationMonitoringMosquitoesMultiplex PCR

Identifiers

PMID38566239
PMCPMC10985852
OpenAlexW4393515334

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.