Susceptibility of Anopheles gambiae to Natural Plasmodium falciparum Infection: A Comparison between the Well-Established Anopheles gambiae s.s Line and a Newly Established Ugandan Anopheles gambiae s.s. Line is a research paper published in The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (2024). On theSindex it has a DataRank of 0.104. It has been cited 1 time, with 1 citing works in its 1-hop citation network.
ABSTRACT. Much of our understanding of malaria transmission comes from mosquito feeding assays using Anopheles mosquitoes from colonies that are well adapted to membrane feeding. This raises the question whether results from colony mosquitoes lead to overestimates of outcomes in wild Anopheles mosquitoes. We successfully established an Anopheles colony using progeny of wild Anopheles gambiae s.s. mosquitoes (Busia mosquitoes) and directly compared their susceptibility to infection with Plasmodium falciparum with the widely used An. gambiae s.s. mosquitoes (Kisumu mosquitoes) using gametocyte-infected Ugandan donor blood. The proportion of infectious feeds did not differ between Busia (71.8%, 23/32) and Kisumu (68.8%, 22/32, P = 1.00) mosquitoes. When correcting for random effects of donor blood, we observed a 23% higher proportion of infected Busia mosquitoes than infected Kisumu mosquitoes (RR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.10–1.38, P < 0.001). This study suggests that feeding assays with Kisumu mosquitoes do not overestimate outcomes in wild An. gambiae s.s. mosquitoes, the mosquito species most relevant to malaria transmission in Uganda.
FAIR checklist signals are shown for context only and do not affect DataRank scoring.
Base Score Contribution
0.104
From this paper's citation signal
Citation Network Contribution
0
From 0 citing papers with measurable signal
This paper's DataRank is currently driven only by its base citation score. None of the citing papers had measurable citation signal.
Learn more about DataRank methodology →DataRank blends this paper's own citation count with the influence of the papers that cite it. Here, roughly 100% comes from its base citations and 0% from the citation network.
Citers are pulled from OpenAlex sorted by cited_by_count:descand capped per paper, so when the cap binds we keep the highest-signal references and the score is reproducible across reruns.