1. Ecology
  2. Epidemiology and Global Health
Download icon

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
Research Article
  • Cited 827
  • Views 79,928
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2015;4:e08347 doi: 10.7554/eLife.08347

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.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Mark Jit, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, and Public Health England, United Kingdom

Publication history

  1. Received: April 26, 2015
  2. Accepted: June 18, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: June 30, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: July 3, 2015 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: July 7, 2015 (version 3)

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

  • 79,928
    Page views
  • 8,337
    Downloads
  • 827
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, Scopus, PubMed Central.

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)

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

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

Categories and tags

Further reading

    1. Epidemiology and Global Health
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease

    Mapping global environmental suitability for Zika virus

    Jane P Messina et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Zika virus was discovered in Uganda in 1947 and is transmitted by Aedes mosquitoes, which also act as vectors for dengue and chikungunya viruses throughout much of the tropical world. In 2007, an outbreak in the Federated States of Micronesia sparked public health concern. In 2013, the virus began to spread across other parts of Oceania and in 2015, a large outbreak in Latin America began in Brazil. Possible associations with microcephaly and Guillain-Barré syndrome observed in this outbreak have raised concerns about continued global spread of Zika virus, prompting its declaration as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization. We conducted species distribution modelling to map environmental suitability for Zika. We show a large portion of tropical and sub-tropical regions globally have suitable environmental conditions with over 2.17 billion people inhabiting these areas.

  2. Mapping mosquitos: Listen to Moritz Kraemer talk about predicting where the mosquitoes that cause Dengue fever and chikungunya fever are found.

    Podcast

    Closing in on Dengue fever and chikungunya fever.

    1. Ecology
    2. Epidemiology and Global Health

    Microbiome-pathogen interactions drive epidemiological dynamics of antibiotic resistance: a modelling study applied to nosocomial pathogen control

    David R M Smith et al.
    Research Article

    The human microbiome can protect against colonization with pathogenic antibiotic-resistant bacteria (ARB), but its impacts on the spread of antibiotic resistance are poorly understood. We propose a mathematical modelling framework for ARB epidemiology formalizing within-host ARB-microbiome competition, and impacts of antibiotic consumption on microbiome function. Applied to the healthcare setting, we demonstrate a trade-off whereby antibiotics simultaneously clear bacterial pathogens and increase host susceptibility to their colonization, and compare this framework with a traditional strain-based approach. At the population level, microbiome interactions drive ARB incidence, but not resistance rates, reflecting distinct epidemiological relevance of different forces of competition. Simulating a range of public health interventions (contact precautions, antibiotic stewardship, microbiome recovery therapy) and pathogens (Clostridioides difficile, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae) highlights how species-specific within-host ecological interactions drive intervention efficacy. We find limited impact of contact precautions for Enterobacteriaceae prevention, and a promising role for microbiome-targeted interventions to limit ARB spread.