4.6 Article

Plasmodium falciparum Malaria Challenge by the Bite of Aseptic Anopheles stephensi Mosquitoes: Results of a Randomized Infectivity Trial

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 5, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013490

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases [N01-AI25461]
  2. Sanaria, Inc. [NF54]
  3. Doris Duke
  4. Burroughs-Wellcome Fund/American Society
  5. Doris Duke Charitable Foundation
  6. Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  7. NIAID/DMID/VTEU

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Experimental infection of malaria-naive volunteers by the bite of Plasmodium falciparum-infected mosquitoes is a preferred means to test the protective effect of malaria vaccines and drugs. The standard model relies on the bite of five infected mosquitoes to induce malaria. We examined the efficacy of malaria transmission using mosquitoes raised aseptically in compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMPs). Methods and Findings: Eighteen adults aged 18-40 years were randomized to receive 1, 3 or 5 bites of Anopheles stephensi mosquitoes infected with the chloroquine-sensitive NF54 strain of P. falciparum. Seventeen participants developed malaria; fourteen occurring on Day 11. The mean prepatent period was 10.9 days (9-12 days). The geometric mean parasitemia was 15.7 parasites/mu L (range: 4-70) by microscopy. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) detected parasites 3.1 (range: 0-4) days prior to microscopy. The geometric mean sporozoite load was 16,753 sporozoites per infected mosquito (range: 1,000-57,500). A 1-bite participant withdrew from the study on Day 13 post-challenge and was PCR and smear negative. Conclusions: The use of aseptic, cGMP-compliant P. falciparum-infected mosquitoes is safe, is associated with a precise prepatent period compared to the standard model and appears more efficient than the standard approach, as it led to infection in 100% (6/6) of volunteers exposed to three mosquito bites and 83% (5/6) of volunteers exposed to one mosquito bite.

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

4.6
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