4.6 Article

The risk of a mosquito-borne infection in a heterogeneous environment

期刊

PLOS BIOLOGY
卷 2, 期 11, 页码 1957-1964

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0020368

关键词

-

资金

  1. Intramural NIH HHS [Z99 TW999999] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A common assumption about malaria, dengue, and other mosquito-borne infections is that the two main components of the risk of human infection-the rate at which people are bitten ( human biting rate) and the proportion of mosquitoes that are infectious-are positively correlated. In fact, these two risk factors are generated by different processes and may be negatively correlated across space and time in heterogeneous environments. Uneven distribution of blood-meal hosts and larval habitat creates a spatial mosaic of demographic sources and sinks. Moreover, mosquito populations fluctuate temporally, forced by environmental variables such as rainfall, temperature, and humidity. These sources of spatial and temporal heterogeneity in the distribution of mosquito populations generate variability in the human biting rate, in the proportion of mosquitoes that are infectious, and in the risk of human infection. To understand how heterogeneity affects the epidemiology of mosquito-borne infections, we developed a set of simple models that incorporate heterogeneity in a stepwise fashion. These models predict that the human biting rate is highest shortly after the mosquito densities peak, near breeding sites where adult mosquitoes emerge, and around the edges of areas where humans are aggregated. In contrast, the proportion of mosquitoes that are infectious reflects the age structure of mosquito populations; it peaks where old mosquitoes are found, far from mosquito breeding habitat, and when mosquito population density is declining. Finally, we show that estimates for the average risk of infection that are based on the average entomological inoculation rate are strongly biased in heterogeneous environments.

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