IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0198245.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do NIR spectra collected from laboratory-reared mosquitoes differ from those collected from wild mosquitoes?

Author

Listed:
  • Masabho P Milali
  • Maggy T Sikulu-Lord
  • Samson S Kiware
  • Floyd E Dowell
  • Richard J Povinelli
  • George F Corliss

Abstract

Background: Near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) is a high throughput technique that measures absorbance of specific wavelengths of light by biological samples and uses this information to classify the age of lab-reared mosquitoes as younger or older than seven days with an average accuracy greater than 80%. For NIRS to estimate ages of wild mosquitoes, a sample of wild mosquitoes with known age in days would be required to train and test the model. Mark-release-recapture is the most reliable method to produce wild-caught mosquitoes of known age in days. However, it is logistically demanding, time inefficient, subject to low recapture rates, and raises ethical issues due to the release of mosquitoes. Using labels from Detinova dissection results in a mathematical model with poor accuracy. Alternatively, a model trained on spectra from laboratory-reared mosquitoes where age in days is known can be applied to estimate the age of wild mosquitoes, but this would be appropriate only if spectra collected from laboratory-reared and wild mosquitoes are similar. Methods and findings: We performed k-means (k = 2) cluster analysis on a mixture of spectra collected from lab-reared and wild Anopheles arabiensis to determine if there is any significant difference between these two groups. While controlling the numbers of mosquitoes included in the model at each age, we found two clusters with no significant difference in distribution of spectra collected from lab-reared and wild mosquitoes (p = 0.25). We repeated the analysis using hierarchical clustering, and similarly, no significant difference was observed (p = 0.13). Conclusion: We find no difference between spectra collected from laboratory-reared and wild mosquitoes of the same age and species. The results strengthen and support the on-going practice of applying the model trained on spectra collected from laboratory-reared mosquitoes, especially first-generation laboratory-reared mosquitoes.

Suggested Citation

  • Masabho P Milali & Maggy T Sikulu-Lord & Samson S Kiware & Floyd E Dowell & Richard J Povinelli & George F Corliss, 2018. "Do NIR spectra collected from laboratory-reared mosquitoes differ from those collected from wild mosquitoes?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-16, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0198245
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198245
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0198245
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0198245&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0198245?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Masabho P Milali & Samson S Kiware & Nicodem J Govella & Fredros Okumu & Naveen Bansal & Serdar Bozdag & Jacques D Charlwood & Marta F Maia & Sheila B Ogoma & Floyd E Dowell & George F Corliss & Maggy, 2020. "An autoencoder and artificial neural network-based method to estimate parity status of wild mosquitoes from near-infrared spectra," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-16, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0198245. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.