Species composition and distribution of the Anopheles gambiae complex circulating in Kinshasa
Curation statements for this article:-
Curated by GigaByte
Editors Assessment: Understanding the distribution of Anopheles mosquito species is essential for planning and implementing malaria control programmes, a task undertaken in this study that assesses the composition and distribution of the Anopheles in different districts of Kinshasa in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Mosquitoes were collected using CDC light traps, and then identified by morphological and molecular means. In total 3,839 Anopheles were collected, and data was digitised, validated and shared via the GBIF database under a CC0 waiver. The project monitoring the monthly dynamics of four species of Anopheles, showing a fluctuation in their respective frequencies during the study period. Review improved the metadata by adding more accurate date information, and this data can provide important information for further basic and advanced studies on the ecology and phenology of these vectors in West Africa.
*This evaluation refers to version 1 of the preprint
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (GigaByte)
- Endorsed by GigaByte (scotted400)
Abstract
Understanding the distribution of Anopheles species is essential for planning and implementing malaria control programmes. This study assessed the composition and distribution of cryptic species of the main malaria vector, the Anopheles gambiae complex, in different districts of Kinshasa. Anopheles were sampled using CDC light traps in the four Kinshasa districts between July 2021 and June 2022, and then morphologically identified. Equal proportions of Anopheles gambiae s.l. per site were subjected to polymerase chain reaction to identify the cryptic species of the Anopheles gambiae complex. Anopheles gambiae complex specimens were identified throughout Kinshasa. The average density significantly differed inside and outside households. Two species of this complex circulate in Kinshasa: Anopheles gambiae and Anopheles coluzzii. In all the study sites, Anopheles gambiae was the most widespread species. Our results provide an important basis for future studies on the ecology and dynamics of cryptic species of the Anopheles gambiae complex in Kinshasa.
Article activity feed
-
Editors Assessment: Understanding the distribution of Anopheles mosquito species is essential for planning and implementing malaria control programmes, a task undertaken in this study that assesses the composition and distribution of the Anopheles in different districts of Kinshasa in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Mosquitoes were collected using CDC light traps, and then identified by morphological and molecular means. In total 3,839 Anopheles were collected, and data was digitised, validated and shared via the GBIF database under a CC0 waiver. The project monitoring the monthly dynamics of four species of Anopheles, showing a fluctuation in their respective frequencies during the study period. Review improved the metadata by adding more accurate date information, and this data can provide important information for further basic and …
Editors Assessment: Understanding the distribution of Anopheles mosquito species is essential for planning and implementing malaria control programmes, a task undertaken in this study that assesses the composition and distribution of the Anopheles in different districts of Kinshasa in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Mosquitoes were collected using CDC light traps, and then identified by morphological and molecular means. In total 3,839 Anopheles were collected, and data was digitised, validated and shared via the GBIF database under a CC0 waiver. The project monitoring the monthly dynamics of four species of Anopheles, showing a fluctuation in their respective frequencies during the study period. Review improved the metadata by adding more accurate date information, and this data can provide important information for further basic and advanced studies on the ecology and phenology of these vectors in West Africa.
*This evaluation refers to version 1 of the preprint
-
AbstractUnderstanding the distribution of Anopheles species in a region is an important task in the planning and implementation of malaria control programmes. This study was proposed to evaluate the composition and distribution of cryptic species of the main malaria vector, Anopheles gambiae complex, circulating in different districts of Kinshasa.To study the distribution of members of the An. gambiae complex, Anopheles were sampled by CDC light trap and larva collection across the four districts of Kinshasa city between July 2021 and June 2022. After morphological identification, an equal proportion of Anopheles gambiae s.l. sampled per site were subjected to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for identification of cryptic An. gambiae complex species.The Anopheles gambiae complex was widely identified in all sites across the city of …
AbstractUnderstanding the distribution of Anopheles species in a region is an important task in the planning and implementation of malaria control programmes. This study was proposed to evaluate the composition and distribution of cryptic species of the main malaria vector, Anopheles gambiae complex, circulating in different districts of Kinshasa.To study the distribution of members of the An. gambiae complex, Anopheles were sampled by CDC light trap and larva collection across the four districts of Kinshasa city between July 2021 and June 2022. After morphological identification, an equal proportion of Anopheles gambiae s.l. sampled per site were subjected to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for identification of cryptic An. gambiae complex species.The Anopheles gambiae complex was widely identified in all sites across the city of Kinshasa, with a significant difference in mean density, captured by CDC light, inside and outside households in Kinshasa (p=0.002). Two species of this complex circulate in Kinshasa: Anopheles gambiae (82.1%) and Anopheles coluzzii (17.9%). In all study sites, Anopheles gambiae was the most prevalent species. Anopheles coluzzii was very prevalent in Tshangu district. No hybrids (Anopheles coluzzii/Anopheles gambiae) were identified.Two cryptic species of the Anopheles gambiae complex circulate in Kinshasa. Anopheles gambiae s.s., present in all districts and Anopheles coluzzii, with a limited distribution. Studies on the ecology of the larval sites are essential to better understand the factors influencing the distribution of members of the An. gambiae complex in this megalopolis.
This work has been published in GigaByte Journal under a CC-BY 4.0 license (https://doi.org/10.46471/gigabyte.104), and has published the reviews under the same license. This is part of the GigaByte Vectors of Human Disease series, and this and the other papers are hosted here. https://doi.org/10.46471/GIGABYTE_SERIES_0002
The peer reviews are as follows.
Reviewer 1. Paul Taconet
Are all data available and do they match the descriptions in the paper? No
Additional Comments 1/ The CDC light trap catch data are available in the GBIF release, but the larva collection data are not included in the release. These larva collection data should be either included in the GBIF release, or it should be made clear in the manuscript that this data is not published. 2/ in the dataset, the data are indicated to be reported at the species level (taxonRank = Species) but there are no An. coluzzii reported. However, in table 3 of the manuscript, some An. coluzzii are reported. This is inconsistent. My guess is that the data reported in the dataset are those out of the morphological identification, hence for An. gambiae at the COMPLEX level, and not the species. This shoud in any case be clarified and corrected : are the data in the dataset provided at the complex or at the species level ? If complex, the ScientificName and taxonRank columns should be corrected. In addition, in the dataset, you could add an "identificationRemarks" column providing the source of identification (morphological or molecular). 3/ in the dataset, for the species scientific name, I suggest to use the names as presented in : Harbach, R.E. 2013. Mosquito Taxonomic Inventory, https://mosquito-taxonomic-inventory.myspecies.info/ . Or at least, to provide the "nameAccordingTo" column. 4/ The data available are of type 'occurrence' ( only in 1 file - the "occurrence" file). For a better presentation of the data and in order to be in line with the GBIF data architecture, I would suggest to transform them into "sampling event" data (consisting in 1 'event core' file, 1 'occurence' file, and potentially extension files), which is more suited to this kind of data acquired from sampling events (see https://ipt.gbif.org/manual/en/ipt/latest/sampling-event-data) and containing external measurements (eg. temperature, see next point). This would enable the user to quickly understand the dates and locations of the sampling events. 5/ Temperature and humidity are included in the main 'occurence' file (column "dynamicProperties") :
- to which reality these data correspond (mean during the night of collection ? ), and how were these data collected (instrument, etc.) ? this information is not provided in the manuscript.
- Instead of putting this data in the "occurence" file, I would suggest to add a "measurement" file in the GBIF data release, containing these meteorological data. Doing so would enable to include metadata about these measurements (instrument, etc.) See e.g. https://www.gbif.org/sites/default/files/gbif_IPT-sample-data-primer_en.pdf page 6 6/ in the dataset, for some of the collected mosquitoes, you put "organismRemarks" = "unfed" . How did you collect this information ? I could not see any mention to this feeding identification, neither in the manuscript nor in the dataset. 7/ in the dataset, in the column "SamplingProtocol", there are spelling errors -> "CDC ligth trap cathes" should be corrected to "CDC light trap catches "
Are the data and metadata consistent with relevant minimum information or reporting standards? No. See comments above.
Is the data acquisition clear, complete and methodologically sound? No. See comments above
Any Additional Overall Comments to the Author: Thanks for this nice work and the effort you put to open your data. See comments below and above to improve the work. 1/ comments for figure 1 (map) : the background layer is not very appropriate, as we miss landscape context. Maybe better to put an Open Street Map background layer, or a satellite image.
Reviewer 2. Chris Hunter.
Are all data available and do they match the descriptions in the paper?
No. The larva data are not included in the GBIF dataset. Some of the descriptions of the data in the manuscript do not match the data available from GBIF. Any Additional Overall Comments to the Author:
Major comments (Author action required): 1 - The manuscript describes larva collection and molecular identification of those species, but I cannot see any indication that those data are included in the GBIF dataset. Please clarify whether they are included or not, and if not please add them. 2 - The numbers cited in Table 1 do not match those shown in the GBIF dataset, e.g. the total of indoor/outdoor sampling events quoted in MS table 1 = 2180 / 1659, whereas in GBIF dataset there are 2304 indoor and 1535 outdoor sites listed? Please check your calculations and/or the data submitted to GBIF.
Minor comments (Author action suggested): 1 - There are 59 events in the GBIF data that do not have a date. Please check those data and update if you have those dates available. 2 - The events are all included in the GBIF sampling event dataset, however “individualCount” data are not included, please explain why those counts are not included as observation dataset(s)? i.e. why is there no number of individual mosquitos included in the dataset? 3 - The full DwC-GBIF dataset does include an indication of the indoor/outdoor location of the sampling sites in the "eventRemark" column, but if you are making updates to the dataset may I suggest using the column heading “habitat” to include that information in GBIF either instead or as well. 4 - Ideally, the molecular identification data should be shared. I don’t have access to the “protocol of Scott [29]” but my assumption is that the PCR products are differentiated by size via running on a gel? If so, and you have the digital images of those gels please let the GigaByte editors know and they will help you share them via the GigaDB database.
Please see the linked file "Data-Review-of-DRR-202310-03.pdf" for more details about the above concerns.
-
-
