4.2 Article

Transmission cycle analysis in a Leishmania infantum focus: Infection rates and blood meal origins in sand flies (Diptera: Psychodidae)

Journal

JOURNAL OF VECTOR ECOLOGY
Volume 43, Issue 2, Pages 321-327

Publisher

SOC VECTOR ECOLOGY
DOI: 10.1111/jvec.12316

Keywords

Sand fly; Leishmania; Tunisia; vector; blood meal; epidemiology

Categories

Funding

  1. EMRO/TDR Small Grants Scheme for Operational Research in Tropical and Other Communicable Diseases [SGS14/23]
  2. Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research of Tunisia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

An entomological study was conducted in a Leishmania infantum focus, including the identification of the sand fly species, the detection and the characterization of Leishmania DNA in female sand flies, and blood meal origins in engorged sand flies. A total of 643 sand flies (31% female, 69% male) was identified based on their morphological features or molecular markers. Ten different species were identified, with Phlebotomus perniciosus, the confirmed vector of L. infantum, being the most abundant (56%), P. papatasi in 25% of sand flies, the unique vector species of L. major, and P. longicuspis in 7% of cases, the suspected second vector of L. infantum. Moreover, the infection rate was 3.4% in P. perniciousus, P. papatasi, P. longicuspis, and Sergentomya minuta. Also, L. infantum was identified in five unfed P. perniciosus and two P. longicuspis. Our results suggest the vector role of P. perniciosus and P. longicuspis in the transmission cycle of L. infantum. The DNA of four mammalian species (human, rabbit, horse, and cow) was identified in the blood meals of sand flies, suggesting that these species are potential reservoirs of leishmaniasis, though it is not yet fully elucidated (especially for MON-24 and MON-80). We suggest the existence of different transmission cycles of L. infantum involving different species of sand flies and hosts.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available