The global distribution of the arbovirus vectors Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus

  1. Moritz U G Kraemer  Is a corresponding author
  2. Marianne E Sinka
  3. Kirsten A Duda
  4. Adrian Mylne
  5. Freya M Shearer
  6. Christopher M Barker
  7. Chester G Moore
  8. Roberta G Carvalho
  9. Giovanini E Coelho
  10. Wim Van Bortel
  11. Guy Hendrickx
  12. Francis Schaffner
  13. Iqbal RF Elyazar
  14. Hwa-Jen Teng
  15. Oliver J Brady
  16. Jane P Messina
  17. David M Pigott
  18. Thomas W Scott
  19. David L Smith
  20. GR W Wint
  21. Nick Golding
  22. Simon I Hay
  1. University of Oxford, United Kingdom
  2. University of California, Davis, United States
  3. Colorado State University, United States
  4. Ministry of Health, Brazil
  5. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, Sweden
  6. Avia-GIS, Belgium
  7. Eijkman-Oxford Clinical Research Unit, Indonesia
  8. Centers for Disease Control, Taiwan
  9. National Institutes of Health, United States
  10. University of Oxford, United States

Abstract

Dengue and chikungunya are increasing global public health concerns due to their rapid geographical spread and increasing disease burden. Knowledge of the contemporary distribution of their shared vectors, Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus remains incomplete and is complicated by an ongoing range expansion fuelled by increased global trade and travel. Mapping the global distribution of these vectors and the geographical determinants of their ranges is essential for public health planning. Here we compile the largest contemporary database for both species and pair it with relevant environmental variables predicting their global distribution. We show Aedes distributions to be the widest ever recorded; now extensive in all continents, including North America and Europe. These maps will help define the spatial limits of current autochthonous transmission of dengue and chikungunya viruses. It is only with this kind of rigorous entomological baseline that we can hope to project future health impacts of these viruses.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Moritz U G Kraemer

    Spatial Ecology and Epidemiology Group, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    moritz.kraemer@zoo.ox.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Marianne E Sinka

    Spatial Ecology and Epidemiology Group, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Kirsten A Duda

    Spatial Ecology and Epidemiology Group, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Adrian Mylne

    Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Freya M Shearer

    Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Christopher M Barker

    Department of Pathology, Microbiology, and Immunology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Chester G Moore

    Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Roberta G Carvalho

    National Dengue Control Program, Ministry of Health, Brasilia, Brazil
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Giovanini E Coelho

    National Dengue Control Program, Ministry of Health, Brasilia, Brazil
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. Wim Van Bortel

    European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, Stockholm, Sweden
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  11. Guy Hendrickx

    Avia-GIS, Zoersel, Belgium
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  12. Francis Schaffner

    Avia-GIS, Zoersel, Belgium
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  13. Iqbal RF Elyazar

    Eijkman-Oxford Clinical Research Unit, Jakarta, Indonesia
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  14. Hwa-Jen Teng

    Center for Research, Diagnostics and Vaccine Development, Centers for Disease Control, Taipei, Taiwan
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  15. Oliver J Brady

    Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  16. Jane P Messina

    Spatial Ecology and Epidemiology Group, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  17. David M Pigott

    Spatial Ecology and Epidemiology Group, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  18. Thomas W Scott

    Fogarty International Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  19. David L Smith

    Spatial Ecology and Epidemiology Group, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  20. GR W Wint

    Spatial Ecology and Epidemiology Group, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  21. Nick Golding

    Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  22. Simon I Hay

    Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    Simon I Hay, Reviewing editor, eLife.

Copyright

This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Metrics

  • 82,928
    views
  • 9,803
    downloads
  • 1,456
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Moritz U G Kraemer
  2. Marianne E Sinka
  3. Kirsten A Duda
  4. Adrian Mylne
  5. Freya M Shearer
  6. Christopher M Barker
  7. Chester G Moore
  8. Roberta G Carvalho
  9. Giovanini E Coelho
  10. Wim Van Bortel
  11. Guy Hendrickx
  12. Francis Schaffner
  13. Iqbal RF Elyazar
  14. Hwa-Jen Teng
  15. Oliver J Brady
  16. Jane P Messina
  17. David M Pigott
  18. Thomas W Scott
  19. David L Smith
  20. GR W Wint
  21. Nick Golding
  22. Simon I Hay
(2015)
The global distribution of the arbovirus vectors Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus
eLife 4:e08347.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08347

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08347

Further reading

  1. Closing in on Dengue fever and chikungunya fever.

    1. Ecology
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Rebecca D Tarvin, Jeffrey L Coleman ... Richard W Fitch
    Research Article

    Understanding the origins of novel, complex phenotypes is a major goal in evolutionary biology. Poison frogs of the family Dendrobatidae have evolved the novel ability to acquire alkaloids from their diet for chemical defense at least three times. However, taxon sampling for alkaloids has been biased towards colorful species, without similar attention paid to inconspicuous ones that are often assumed to be undefended. As a result, our understanding of how chemical defense evolved in this group is incomplete. Here, we provide new data showing that, in contrast to previous studies, species from each undefended poison frog clade have measurable yet low amounts of alkaloids. We confirm that undefended dendrobatids regularly consume mites and ants, which are known sources of alkaloids. Thus, our data suggest that diet is insufficient to explain the defended phenotype. Our data support the existence of a phenotypic intermediate between toxin consumption and sequestration — passive accumulation — that differs from sequestration in that it involves no derived forms of transport and storage mechanisms yet results in low levels of toxin accumulation. We discuss the concept of passive accumulation and its potential role in the origin of chemical defenses in poison frogs and other toxin-sequestering organisms. In light of ideas from pharmacokinetics, we incorporate new and old data from poison frogs into an evolutionary model that could help explain the origins of acquired chemical defenses in animals and provide insight into the molecular processes that govern the fate of ingested toxins.