The prevalence of pathogens in ticks collected from humans in Belgium, 2021, versus 2017.

BACKGROUND: Ticks carry a variety of microorganisms, some of which are pathogenic to humans. The human risk of tick-borne diseases depends on, among others, the prevalence of pathogens in ticks biting humans. To follow-up on this prevalence over time, a Belgian study from 2017 was repeated in 2021. METHODS: During the tick season 2021, citizens were invited to have ticks removed from their skin, send them and fill in a short questionnaire on an existing citizen science platform for the notification of tick bites (TekenNet). Ticks were morphologically identified to species and life stage level and screened using multiplex qPCR targeting, among others, Borrelia burgdorferi (sensu lato), Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Borrelia miyamotoi, Neoehrlichia mikurensis, Babesia spp., Rickettsia helvetica and tick-borne encephalitis virus (TBEV). The same methodology as in 2017 was used. RESULTS: In 2021, the same tick species as in 2017 were identified in similar proportions; of 1094 ticks, 98.7% were Ixodes ricinus, 0.8% Ixodes hexagonus and 0.5% Dermacentor reticulatus. A total of 928 nymphs and adults could be screened for the presence of pathogens. Borrelia burgdorferi (s.l.) was detected in 9.9% (95% CI 8.2-12.0%), which is significantly lower than the prevalence of 13.9% (95% CI 12.2-15.7%) in 2017 (P = 0.004). The prevalences of A. phagocytophilum (4.7%; 95% CI 3.5-6.3%) and R. helvetica (13.3%; 95% CI 11.2-15.6%) in 2021 were significantly higher compared to 2017 (1.8%; 95% CI 1.3-2.7% and 6.8%; 95% CI 5.6-8.2% respectively) (P < 0.001 for both). For the other pathogens tested, no statistical differences compared to 2017 were found, with prevalences ranging between 1.5 and 2.9% in 2021. Rickettsia raoultii was again found in D. reticulatus ticks (n = 3/5 in 2021). Similar to 2017, no TBEV was detected in the ticks. Co-infections were found in 5.1% of ticks. When combining co-infection occurrence in 2017 and 2021, a positive correlation was observed between B. burgdorferi (s.l.) and N. mikurensis and B. burgdorferi (s.l.) and B. miyamotoi (P < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Although the 2021 prevalences fell within expectations, differences were found compared to 2017. Further research to understand the explanations behind these differences is needed.

Effect of non-human hosts on the human biting rate of primary and secondary malaria vectors in Tanzania.

BACKGROUND: Malaria vectors vary in feeding preference depending on their innate behaviour, host availability and abundance. Host preference and human biting rate in malaria vectors are key factors in establishing zooprophylaxis and zoopotentiation. This study aimed at assessing the impact of non-human hosts in close proximity to humans on the human biting rate of primary and secondary malaria vectors, with varying host preferences. METHODS: The effect of the presence of non-human hosts in close proximity to the human host on the mean catches per person per night, as a proxy for mosquito biting rate, was measured using mosquito-electrocuting traps (METs), in Sagamaganga, Kilombero Valley, Tanzania. Two experiments were designed: (1) a human versus a calf, each enclosed in a MET, and (2) a human surrounded by three calves versus a human alone, with each human volunteer enclosed individually in a MET spaced 10 m apart. Each experiment was conducted on alternate days and lasted for 36 nights per experiment. During each experiment, the positions of hosts were exchanged daily (except the human in experiment 2). All anopheline mosquitoes caught were assayed for Plasmodium sporozoites using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. RESULTS: A total of 20,574 mosquitoes were captured and identified during the study, of which 3608 were anophelines (84.4% primary and 15.6% secondary malaria vectors) and 17,146 were culicines. In experiment 1, the primary malaria vector, Anopheles arabiensis, along with Culex spp. demonstrated a preference for cattle, while the primary vectors, Anopheles funestus, preferred humans. In experiment 2, both primary vectors, An. arabiensis and An. funestus, as well as the secondary vector Anopheles rivolurum, demonstrated behaviours amenable to zooprophylaxis, whereas Culex spp. increased their attraction to humans in the presence of nearby cattle. All anopheline mosquitoes tested negative for sporozoites. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study provide support for the zooprophylaxis model for malaria vectors present in the Kilombero Valley, and for the zoopotentiation model, as it pertains to the Culex spp. in the region. However, the factors regulating zooprophylaxis and zoopotentiation are complex, with different species-dependent mechanisms regulating these behaviours, that need to be considered when designing integrated vector management programmes.

Seasonal variation in abundance and blood meal sources of primary and secondary malaria vectors within Kilombero Valley, Southern Tanzania.

BACKGROUND: Existing control tools have significantly reduced malaria over the past two decades. However, progress has been stalled due to increased resistance in primary vectors and the increasing role of secondary vectors. This study aimed to investigate the impact of seasonal change on primary and secondary vector abundance and host preference. Understanding the impact of seasonal dynamics of primary and secondary vectors on disease transmission will inform effective strategies for vector management and control. METHODS: Vector abundance was measured through longitudinal collection of mosquitoes, conducted monthly during the wet and dry seasons, in Sagamaganga, a village in the Kilombero Valley, Tanzania. Mosquitoes were collected indoors using CDC light traps and backpack aspirators, and outdoors using resting buckets baited with cattle urine. In addition, a direct measure of host preference was taken monthly using human- and cattle-baited mosquito electrocuting traps. A host census was conducted to provide an indirect measure of host preference together with monthly blood meal source analysis. All collected mosquitoes were assayed for Plasmodium sporozoites. RESULTS: A total of 2828 anophelines were collected, of which 78.5% and 21.4%, were primary and secondary vectors, respectively. The abundance of the primary vectors, Anopheles arabiensis and Anopheles funestus, and of the secondary vectors varied seasonally. Indirect measures of host preference indicated that all vectors varied blood meal choice seasonally, with the direct measure confirming this for An. arabiensis. All anopheline mosquitoes tested negative for sporozoites. CONCLUSIONS: At the study location, the abundance of both primary and secondary vectors changed seasonally. Indirect and direct measures of host preference demonstrated that An. arabiensis varied from being zoophilic to being more opportunistic during the wet and dry seasons. A similar trend was observed for the other vectors.

Wild populations of malaria vectors can mate both inside and outside human dwellings.

BACKGROUND: Wild populations of Anopheles mosquitoes are generally thought to mate outdoors in swarms, although once colonized, they also mate readily inside laboratory cages. This study investigated whether the malaria vectors Anopheles funestus and Anopheles arabiensis can also naturally mate inside human dwellings. METHOD: Mosquitoes were sampled from three volunteer-occupied experimental huts in a rural Tanzanian village at 6:00 p.m. each evening, after which the huts were completely sealed and sampling was repeated at 11:00 p.m and 6 a.m. the next morning to compare the proportions of inseminated females. Similarly timed collections were done inside local unsealed village houses. Lastly, wild-caught larvae and pupae were introduced inside or outside experimental huts constructed inside two semi-field screened chambers. The huts were then sealed and fitted with exit traps, allowing mosquito egress but not entry. Mating was assessed in subsequent days by sampling and dissecting emergent adults caught indoors, outdoors and in exit traps. RESULTS: Proportions of inseminated females inside the experimental huts in the village increased from approximately 60% at 6 p.m. to approximately 90% the following morning despite no new mosquitoes entering the huts after 6 p.m. Insemination in the local homes increased from approximately 78% to approximately 93% over the same time points. In the semi-field observations of wild-caught captive mosquitoes, the proportions of inseminated An. funestus were 20.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: ± 2.8) outdoors, 25.2% (95% CI: ± 3.4) indoors and 16.8% (± 8.3) in exit traps, while the proportions of inseminated An. arabiensis were 42.3% (95% CI: ± 5.5) outdoors, 47.4% (95% CI: ± 4.7) indoors and 37.1% (CI: ± 6.8) in exit traps. CONCLUSION: Wild populations of An. funestus and An. arabiensis in these study villages can mate both inside and outside human dwellings. Most of the mating clearly happens before the mosquitoes enter houses, but additional mating happens indoors. The ecological significance of such indoor mating remains to be determined. The observed insemination inside the experimental huts fitted with exit traps and in the unsealed village houses suggests that the indoor mating happens voluntarily even under unrestricted egress. These findings may inspire improved vector control, such as by targeting males indoors, and potentially inform alternative methods for colonizing strongly eurygamic Anopheles species (e.g. An. funestus) inside laboratories or semi-field chambers.