Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 May 8;19(5):e0012196.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0012196. eCollection 2025 May.

The potential impacts of vector host species fidelity on zoonotic arbovirus transmission

Affiliations

The potential impacts of vector host species fidelity on zoonotic arbovirus transmission

Tijani A Sulaimon et al. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. .

Abstract

The interaction between vector host preference and host availability on vector blood feeding behaviour has important implications for the transmission of vector-borne pathogens. However, to our knowledge, the effect of bias towards feeding on the same host species from which a first meal was taken, termed fidelity, has not been quantified. Using a mathematical model we showed that vector fidelity to the host species they take a first blood meal from leads to non-homogeneous mixing between hosts and vectors. Taking Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV) as a case study, we investigated how vector preference for amplifying vs dead-end hosts and fidelity can influence JEV transmission. We show that in regions where pigs (amplifying hosts) are scarce compared to cattle (dead-end hosts preferred by common JEV vectors), JEV could still be maintained through vector fidelity. Our findings demonstrate the importance of considering fidelity as a potential driver of transmission, particularly in scenarios such as Bangladesh and India where the composition of the host community might initially suggest that transmission is not possible.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. (a): Biting behaviour of mosquitoes, when (i) imprinted on an amplifying host A, and (ii) on a dead-end host D.
A mosquito’s first bite is determined by host density and the host preference (modulated by the parameters ρA, ρD=1ρA). All subsequent bites are determined by a mixture of fidelity (modulated by the parameter f), and host preference if the mosquito is not loyal to its imprinted host species. (b): Compartmental models. (i) Mosquitoes are introduced nulliparous (Sm), and imprinted onto the host species they first bite (SmSDm, SmSAm), and later may become infected by biting infected amplifying hosts (SDmIDm, SAmIAm, with potential for SmIAm if infected on their imprinting bite). Mosquitoes can die in any compartment. (ii), (iii) Amplifying and dead-end hosts respectively. Hosts can become infected if bitten by an infected mosquito and later go on to recover. Hosts are born susceptible and can die in any compartment. Cow and pig images obtained from https://www.phylopic.org, licensed under CC0 1.0.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Variation of feeding patterns of mosquitoes with fidelity, in the instance where cows (D) and pigs (A) are available in equal proportions.
The height of the bars indicates the proportion of mosquitoes that are imprinted on that host species (x-axis). The fill indicates the proportion of subsequent bites by those imprinted mosquitoes. With an increasing preference for pigs (left-to-right), a higher proportion of imprinting bites are on pigs. With increasing fidelity (top-to-bottom), the proportion of subsequent bites remaining loyal to the imprinted host increases. In the case of no fidelity (f = 0, top row), the proportion of subsequent bites replicates the proportion of initial bites. While the overall proportions feeding on D or A does not change with fidelity  —  as fidelity increases the population feeding on cattle vs pigs becomes increasingly isolated from each other.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Basic reproduction number R0 values based on Eq B in S1 Text and values in Table 2.
The top panel represents the initial preference for amplifying hosts, and the right panel is the mosquito-to-host ratio. Blue indicates regions where R0<1, i.e. there is no outbreak.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Dynamics of infected amplifying and dead-end host assuming 5 mosquitoes per host and fixed parameter values in Table 2.
The right panel indicates host composition and initial preference for amplifying hosts, while the top panel indicates different fidelity values. While outbreak size in amplifying hosts increases with fidelity, less than perfect fidelity leads to larger outbreaks in the dead-end host.
Fig 5
Fig 5. Basic reproduction number (R0) for Cx. tritaeniorhynchus, Cx. gelidus, and Cx. vishnui based on varying host composition (HAHD[0.01,1]).
The initial preference for amplifying host species (ρA) and fidelity values (f) are provided in Table A in S1 Text, along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Other parameters held constant: transmission probability—1, biting rate—1/3 day−1, mosquito mortality and birth rate—1/30 day−1, host recovery rate—1/5 day−1, host mortality, birth rate—1/365 day−1, and mosquitoes-to-host ratio—5.

References

    1. Ribeiro J. Blood-feeding arthropods: live syringes or invertebrate pharmacologists?. Infect Agents Dis. 1995;4(3):143–52. - PubMed
    1. Besansky NJ, Hill CA, Costantini C. No accounting for taste: host preference in malaria vectors. Trends Parasitol. 2004;20(6):249–51. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2004.03.007 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Takken W, Verhulst NO. Host preferences of blood-feeding mosquitoes. Annu Rev Entomol. 2013;58(1):433–53. doi: 10.1146/annurev-ento-120811-153618 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Clements A N. The biology of mosquitoes. Volume 2: sensory reception and behaviour. CABI Publishing; 1999.
    1. Gurtler RE, Cohen JE, Cecere MC, Chuit R. Shifting host choices of the vector of Chagas disease, Triatoma infestans, in relation to the availability of host in houses in North-West Argentina. J Appl Ecol. 1997:699–715.

MeSH terms