4.5 Article

Evaluation of the Human IgG Antibody Response to Aedes albopictus Saliva as a New Specific Biomarker of Exposure to Vector Bites

期刊

PLOS NEGLECTED TROPICAL DISEASES
卷 6, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001487

关键词

-

资金

  1. Centre de Recherche et Veille en Ocean Indien [PRAO/AIRD/CRVOI/08/01]
  2. Departement Expertise et Valorisation (IRD)
  3. Infectiopole Sud Foundation (Marseille, France)
  4. Centre de Recherche et Veille en Ocean Indien [PRAO/AIRD/CRVOI/08/01]
  5. Departement Expertise et Valorisation (IRD)
  6. Infectiopole Sud Foundation (Marseille, France)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The spread of Aedes albopictus, a vector for re-emergent arbovirus diseases like chikungunya and dengue, points up the need for better control strategies and new tools to evaluate transmission risk. Human antibody (Ab) responses to mosquito salivary proteins could represent a reliable biomarker for evaluating human-vector contact and the efficacy of control programs. Methodology/Principal Findings: We used ELISA tests to evaluate specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) responses to salivary gland extracts (SGE) in adults exposed to Aedes albopictus in Reunion Island. The percentage of immune responders (88%) and levels of anti-SGE IgG Abs were high in exposed individuals. At an individual level, our results indicate heterogeneity of the exposure to Aedes albopictus bites. In addition, low-level immune cross-reactivity between Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti SGEs was observed, mainly in the highest responders. Conclusion/Significance: Ab responses to saliva could be used as an immuno-epidemiological tool for evaluating exposure to Aedes albopictus bites. Combined with entomological and epidemiological methods, a salivary biomarker of exposure to Aedes albopictus could enhance surveillance of its spread and the risk of arbovirus transmission, and could be used as a direct tool for the evaluation of Aedes albopictus control strategies.

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

4.5
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