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.

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

  • 80,727
    Page views
  • 8,625
    Downloads
  • 1,035
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Scopus, Crossref, 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)

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

Further reading

  1. Closing in on Dengue fever and chikungunya fever.

    1. Ecology
    Jolle Wolter Jolles et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Predation is one of the main evolutionary drivers of social grouping. While it is well appreciated that predation risk is likely not shared equally among individuals within groups, its detailed quantification has remained difficult due to the speed of attacks and the highly dynamic nature of collective prey response. Here, using high-resolution tracking of solitary predators (Northern pike) hunting schooling fish (golden shiners), we not only provide insights into predator decision-making, but show which key spatial and kinematic features of predator and prey predict the risk of individuals to be targeted and to survive attacks. We found that pike tended to stealthily approach the largest groups, and were often already inside the school when launching their attack, making prey in this frontal ‘strike zone’ the most vulnerable to be targeted. From the prey’s perspective, those fish in central locations, but relatively far from, and less aligned with, neighbours, were most likely to be targeted. While the majority of attacks were successful (70%), targeted individuals that did manage to avoid being captured exhibited a higher maximum acceleration response just before the attack and were further away from the pike‘s head. Our results highlight the crucial interplay between predators’ attack strategy and response of prey underlying the predation risk within mobile animal groups.