4.3 Article

Effectiveness of Synthetic Versus Natural Human Volatiles as Attractants for Anopheles gambiae (Diptera: Culicidae) Sensu Stricto

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ENTOMOLOGY
卷 47, 期 3, 页码 338-344

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1603/ME09015

关键词

Anopheles gambiae sensu stricto; olfactometer; host-seeking behavior; human odor; attraction

资金

  1. Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (STW-NWO) [WBI,4834]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Females of the African malaria vector, Anopheles gambiae Giles sensu stricto, use human volatiles to find their blood-host. Previous work has shown that ammonia, lactic acid, and aliphatic carboxylic acids significantly affect host orientation and attraction of this species. In the current study, these compounds were tested for their attractiveness relative to human emanations in vivo and in vitro. Emanations from a human hand, incubated sweat, and foot skin residues on a nylon sock were significantly attractive when tested against clean air. In a dual-choice test, foot skin residues were significantly more attractive than emanations from a human hand in vivo. Ammonia alone attracted more mosquitoes than fresh or incubated sweat. However, the odor of a human hand or of foot skin residues were more attractive than ammonia. A known attractive blend of ammonia with lactic acid and carboxylic acids was less effective than natural foot odorants. The results demonstrate that the synthetic blend based on skin odor is attractive for An. gambiae, but that in a choice situation in vitro natural skin odors are still preferred by the mosquito. Differences in volatile organic compound abundances between a worn sock and the synthetic blend may have resulted in stronger attraction to the sock. This suggests that candidate attractants should be evaluated with consideration of the strength of natural odorant sources. The data furthermore suggest that additional unidentified compounds from the human foot are involved in the host-seeking behavior of this mosquito species.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据