Evaluation of Mosquito Magnet and other collection tools for Anopheles mosquito vectors of simian malaria

Nantha Kumar, Jeyaprakasam and Sandthya, Pramasivan and Jonathan Wee Kent, Liew and Lun, Van Low and Wan Yusoff, Wan Sulaiman and Romano, Ngui and Jenarun, Jelip and Indra, Vythilingam (2021) Evaluation of Mosquito Magnet and other collection tools for Anopheles mosquito vectors of simian malaria. Parasites & Vectors, 14 (184). pp. 1-13. ISSN 1756-3305

PDF Evaluation_of_Mosquito_Magnet_and_other_collection.pdf Download (1MB)

Abstract

Background: Vector surveillance is essential in determining the geographical distribution of mosquito vectors and understanding the dynamics of malaria transmission. With the elimination of human malaria cases, knowlesi malaria cases in humans are increasing in Malaysia. This necessitates intensive vector studies using safer trapping methods which are both feld efcient and able to attract the local vector populations. Thus, this study evaluated the potential of Mosquito Magnet as a collection tool for Anopheles mosquito vectors of simian malaria along with other known collection methods. Methods: A randomized 4×4 Latin square designed experiment was conducted to compare the efciency of the Mosquito Magnet against three other common trapping methods: human landing catch (HLC), CDC light trap and human baited trap (HBT). The experiment was conducted over six replicates where sampling within each replicate was carried out for 4 consecutive nights. An additional 4 nights of sampling was used to further evaluate the Mos‑quito Magnet against the “gold standard” HLC. The abundance of Anopheles sampled by diferent methods was com‑pared and evaluated with focus on the Anopheles from the Leucosphyrus group, the vectors of knowlesi malaria. Results: The Latin square designed experiment showed HLC caught the greatest number of Anopheles mosquitoes (n=321) compared to the HBT (n=87), Mosquito Magnet (n=58) and CDC light trap (n=13). The GLMM analysis showed that the HLC method caught signifcantly more Anopheles mosquitoes compared to Mosquito Magnet (P=0.049). However, there was no signifcant diference in mean nightly catch of Anopheles mosquitoes between Mosquito Magnet and the other two trapping methods, HBT (P=0.646) and CDC light traps (P=0.197). The mean nightly catch for both An. introlatus (9.33±4.341) and An. cracens (4.00±2.273) caught using HLC was higher than that of Mosquito Magnet, though the diferences were not statistically signifcant (P>0.05). This is in contrast to the mean nightly catch of An. sinensis (15.75±5.640) and An. maculatus (15.78±3.479) where HLC showed signifcantly more mosquito catches compared to Mosquito Magnet (P<0.05). Conclusions: Mosquito Magnet has a promising ability to catch An. introlatus and An. cracens, the important vectors of knowlesi and other simian malarias in Peninsular Malaysia. The ability of Mosquito Magnet to catch some of the Anopheles mosquito species is comparable to HLC and makes it an ethical and safer alternative.

Actions (For repository members only: login required)

View Item