Vector distribution and transmission risk of the Zika virus in South and Central America.
Aedes aegypti
Aedes albopictus
Biogeography of disease
Climatic habitat suitability
Maxent
Species distribution modelling
Tiger mosquito
Vector borne diseases
Vector-pathogen-host
Yellow fever mosquito
Journal
PeerJ
ISSN: 2167-8359
Titre abrégé: PeerJ
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101603425
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
02
05
2019
accepted:
18
09
2019
entrez:
21
11
2019
pubmed:
21
11
2019
medline:
21
11
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Zika is of great medical relevance due to its rapid geographical spread in 2015 and 2016 in South America and its serious implications, for example, certain birth defects. Recent epidemics urgently require a better understanding of geographic patterns of the Zika virus transmission risk. This study aims to map the Zika virus transmission risk in South and Central America. We applied the maximum entropy approach, which is common for species distribution modelling, but is now also widely in use for estimating the geographical distribution of infectious diseases. As predictor variables we used a set of variables considered to be potential drivers of both direct and indirect effects on the emergence of Zika. Specifically, we considered (a) the modelled habitat suitability for the two main vector species The highest values for the Zika transmission risk were modelled for the eastern coast of Brazil as well as in Central America, moderate values for the Amazon basin and low values for southern parts of South America. The following countries were modelled to be particularly affected: Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Puerto Rico and Venezuela. While modelled vector habitat suitability as predictor variable showed the highest contribution to the transmission risk model, temperature of the warmest quarter contributed only comparatively little. Areas with optimal temperature conditions for virus transmission overlapped only little with areas of suitable habitat conditions for the two main vector species. Instead, areas with the highest transmission risk were characterised as areas with temperatures below the optimum of the virus, but high habitat suitability modelled for the two main vector species. Modelling approaches can help estimating the spatial and temporal dynamics of a disease. We focused on the key drivers relevant in the Zika transmission cycle (vector, pathogen, and hosts) and integrated each single component into the model. Despite the uncertainties generally associated with modelling, the approach applied in this study can be used as a tool and assist decision making and managing the spread of Zika.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Zika is of great medical relevance due to its rapid geographical spread in 2015 and 2016 in South America and its serious implications, for example, certain birth defects. Recent epidemics urgently require a better understanding of geographic patterns of the Zika virus transmission risk. This study aims to map the Zika virus transmission risk in South and Central America. We applied the maximum entropy approach, which is common for species distribution modelling, but is now also widely in use for estimating the geographical distribution of infectious diseases.
METHODS
METHODS
As predictor variables we used a set of variables considered to be potential drivers of both direct and indirect effects on the emergence of Zika. Specifically, we considered (a) the modelled habitat suitability for the two main vector species
RESULTS
RESULTS
The highest values for the Zika transmission risk were modelled for the eastern coast of Brazil as well as in Central America, moderate values for the Amazon basin and low values for southern parts of South America. The following countries were modelled to be particularly affected: Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Puerto Rico and Venezuela. While modelled vector habitat suitability as predictor variable showed the highest contribution to the transmission risk model, temperature of the warmest quarter contributed only comparatively little. Areas with optimal temperature conditions for virus transmission overlapped only little with areas of suitable habitat conditions for the two main vector species. Instead, areas with the highest transmission risk were characterised as areas with temperatures below the optimum of the virus, but high habitat suitability modelled for the two main vector species.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Modelling approaches can help estimating the spatial and temporal dynamics of a disease. We focused on the key drivers relevant in the Zika transmission cycle (vector, pathogen, and hosts) and integrated each single component into the model. Despite the uncertainties generally associated with modelling, the approach applied in this study can be used as a tool and assist decision making and managing the spread of Zika.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31745446
doi: 10.7717/peerj.7920
pii: 7920
pmc: PMC6863140
doi:
Banques de données
figshare
['10.6084/m9.figshare.2573629.v1']
Dryad
['10.5061/dryad.47v3c']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e7920Informations de copyright
© 2019 Cunze et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Références
Proc Biol Sci. 2018 Aug 15;285(1884):
pubmed: 30111594
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2015 Apr;13(4):230-9
pubmed: 25730702
Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2016 Sep-Oct;49(5):553-558
pubmed: 27812648
Trop Med Health. 2016 Nov 24;44:38
pubmed: 27904417
Nature. 2013 Apr 25;496(7446):504-7
pubmed: 23563266
J R Soc Interface. 2017 Mar;14(128):
pubmed: 28298609
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2013 Sep;1297:8-28
pubmed: 25098379
Proc Biol Sci. 2018 Aug 15;285(1884):
pubmed: 30111605
PLoS Med. 2017 Jan 3;14(1):e1002203
pubmed: 28045901
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016 Aug 26;10(8):e0004968
pubmed: 27564232
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6(8):e1760
pubmed: 22880140
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Jan 3;114(1):119-124
pubmed: 27994145
Zdr Varst. 2016 Sep 13;55(4):228-230
pubmed: 27703544
Science. 2019 Feb 8;363(6427):607-610
pubmed: 30733412
Nat Immunol. 2016 Sep;17(9):1102-8
pubmed: 27339099
PLoS One. 2018 Feb 13;13(2):e0192120
pubmed: 29438377
Front Microbiol. 2016 Aug 05;7:1174
pubmed: 27547199
Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2016 Sep;111(9):559-60
pubmed: 27653360
Front Vet Sci. 2017 Jul 17;4:105
pubmed: 28770215
Sci Data. 2015 Jul 07;2:150035
pubmed: 26175912
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2015 Jun;109(6):366-78
pubmed: 25820266
Asian Pac J Trop Med. 2016 Jul;9(7):719-20
pubmed: 27393105
Science. 2016 Aug 12;353(6300):aaf8160
pubmed: 27417495
PLoS Med. 2019 Jan 22;16(1):e1002726
pubmed: 30668565
Parasit Vectors. 2017 Nov 7;10(1):551
pubmed: 29116011
Euro Surveill. 2017 Jan 12;22(2):
pubmed: 28106528
Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2014 Jan-Feb;47(1):57-62
pubmed: 24603738
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017 Apr 27;11(4):e0005568
pubmed: 28448507
Theor Biol Med Model. 2018 Aug 1;15(1):11
pubmed: 30064447
Lancet Infect Dis. 2015 Jun;15(6):721-30
pubmed: 25808458
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016 Dec 7;10(12):e0005173
pubmed: 27926933
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018 Jan 18;12(1):e0006194
pubmed: 29346387
Elife. 2016 Apr 19;5:
pubmed: 27090089
Science. 2017 Mar 31;355(6332):1362
pubmed: 28360276
Biol Invasions. 2018 Aug;20(8):1913-1929
pubmed: 30220875
Curr Opin Insect Sci. 2016 Aug;16:108-113
pubmed: 27720044
J Med Entomol. 2017 Jul 1;54(4):854-861
pubmed: 28399263
Nat Commun. 2017 Oct 24;8(1):1124
pubmed: 29066781
Trends Ecol Evol. 2019 Jul;34(7):655-668
pubmed: 31078330
Emerg Infect Dis. 2015 Feb;21(2):381-2
pubmed: 25625687