Alternative transmission pathways for guinea worm in dogs: implications for outbreak risk and control |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Odum School of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA;2. Center for the Ecology of Infectious Diseases, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA;3. Department of Infectious Diseases, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA;4. Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study, Department of Population Health, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA;5. Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA;1. Department of Epidemiology and Statistics, School of Public Health, Soochow University, Suzhou, China;2. Key Laboratory of National Health and Family Planning Commission on Parasitic Disease Control and Prevention, Jiangsu Provincial Key Laboratory on Parasite and Vector Control Technology, Jiangsu Institute of Parasitic Diseases, Wuxi, China;3. Centre for Emerging, Endemic and Exotic Diseases (CEEED), Department of Pathology and Population Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, University of London, London, United Kingdom;1. Mitrani Department of Desert Ecology, Swiss Institute of Dryland Environmental and Energy Research, Jacob Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Sede Boqer Campus, Midreshet Ben-Gurion, Israel;2. Agricultural Research Council-Onderstepoort Veterinary Institute, Onderstepoort, South Africa;3. Department of Conservation Ecology and Entomology, Stellenbosch University, Matieland, South Africa;1. Center for Global Health and Diseases, Case Western Reserve University, Biomedical Research Building, 2109 Adelbert Rd., Cleveland, OH 44106, USA;2. University of New Mexico, Department of Anthropology, Albuquerque, 1 University of New Mexico, NM 87131, USA;3. Bahiana School of Medicine and Public Health, Av. Silveira Martins, n° 3386, Salvador, Bahia 41150-100, Brazil;4. Gonçalo Moniz Research Centre, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rua Waldemar Falcão, 121 Brotas, Salvador, Bahia 40296-710, Brazil;5. School of Medicine, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil;6. Yale School of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA;7. Department of Tropical Medicine, Tulane School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tidewater Building, 1440 Canal Street, New Orleans, LA 70112, USA;1. Área Inmunología, DEPBIO/IQB, Facultad de Química/Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de la República, Montevideo, Uruguay;2. Integrative Parasitology, Center for Infectious Diseases, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany;3. Instituto de Investigaciones en Microbiología y Parasitología Médica (IMPaM, UBA‐CONICET), Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina;4. Departamento de Microbiología, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina;5. German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), partner site Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany;1. Departamento de Parasitologia, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil;2. Departamento de Medicina Preventiva, Escola de Veterinária, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil;3. UNIASSELVI, Santa Catarina, Brazil;4. Center for Tropical and Emerging Global Diseases and Institute of Bioinformatics, University of Georgia, Athens, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | Guinea worm (Dracunculus medinensis) has exerted a high human health burden in parts of Africa. Complete eradication of Guinea worm disease (dracunculiasis) may be delayed by the circulation of the parasite in domestic dogs. As with humans, dogs acquire the parasite by directly ingesting infected copepods, and recent evidence suggests that consuming frogs that ingested infected copepods as tadpoles may be a viable transmission route (paratenic route). To understand the relative contributions of direct and paratenic transmission routes, we developed a mathematical model that describes transmission of Guinea worm between dogs, copepods and frogs. We explored how the parasite basic reproductive number (R0) depends on parameters amenable to actionable interventions under three scenarios: frogs/tadpoles do not consume copepods; tadpoles consume copepods but frogs do not contribute to transmission; and frogs are paratenic hosts. We found a non-monotonic relationship between the number of dogs and R0. Generally, frogs can contribute to disease control by removing infected copepods from the waterbody even when paratenic transmission can occur. However, paratenic transmission could play an important role in maintaining the parasite when direct transmission is reduced by interventions focused on reducing copepod ingestion by dogs. Together, these suggest that the most effective intervention strategies may be those which focus on the reduction of copepods, as this reduces outbreak potential irrespective of the importance of the paratenic route. |
| |
| Keywords: | Guinea worm Reproductive number Intervention Paratenic hosts Domestic dogs |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
