Advancing vector biology research: a community survey for future directions, research applications and infrastructure requirements

Figures & data

Table 1 Research areas and interests of the survey participants. Numbers of responses are indicated as Major or Minor depending on vector listed, or in the category ‘Other’ which incorporates other vectors not specifically listed (selection of responses shown)

Arthropod	Major	Minor
Aedes spec.	102	38
Culex spec.	66	46
Anopheles spec.	79	42
Culicoides spec.	24	32
Ticks	55	44
Other	42	49

Notes:

Vectors mentioned under ‘Other’ (selection of most mentioned): phlebotomines/sandflies³³, fleas,¹³ tsetse flies,⁷ triatomines,⁴ tabanids/horse flies.⁶

Table 2 Pathogens relevant to the survey participants. Numbers of responses are indicated as Major or Minor depending on pathogen category listed, or in the category ‘Other’ which incorporates other pathogens not specifically listed (selection of responses shown)

Pathogen category	Major	Minor
Arboviruses, human	96	40
Arboviruses, livestock	44	45
Plasmodium spec.	66	31
Other	68	28

Pathogens mentioned under ‘Other’ (selection of most mentioned): Leishmania,¹⁵ trypanosomes,⁸ tick-borne pathogens²³

Table 3 Details of research areas relevant to survey participants. Numbers of responses are shown by research area, or in the category ‘Other’ which incorporates fields not specifically listed (selection of responses shown)

Research area	Response counts	Research area	Response counts
Vector biology	119	Host–pathogen interactions	102
Vector genetics/genomics	68	Vector–pathogen interactions	116
Vector immunity	32	Epidemiology	99
Vector behavior	77	Surveillance	96
Vector ecology	117	Diagnostics	69
Vector control	98	Other	29
Genetically modified arthropods	20
Pathogen biology	88
Genetically modified pathogens	28

Other: evolution/population genetics, insecticide, etc. (few precise indications given).

Table 4 Research infrastructures and resources available to survey participants. Various types of structures relevant to vector and pathogen research are indicated

Available facilities and resources	Response counts
Furnish vectors to external users	74
Furnish BSL2/BSL3 infected vectors/extracts to external users	32
BSL2 containment: arthropod infections	91
BSL3 containment: arthropod infections	60
Pathogen work in cell culture	128
BSL2 or BSL3 containment: small animal work	83
BSL2 or BSL3 containment: large animal work	27

Table 5 Infrastructure services (vector infection and vector–pathogen interactions) for the vector research community. Survey participants responded whether the services listed here (vector infection and vector–pathogen interactions) to study vector infections and vector–pathogen interactions would be of use if offered free of cost. Response counts are grouped into Likely, Not likely, or Possible use of the infrastructure/service

Infrastructure/service: vector infection and vector–pathogen interactions	Likely	Not likely	Possible
Arboviruses	90	46	31
Plasmodium falciparum	36	77	33
Infected vector and insecticide studies	83	38	50
Behavioral studies with infected vectors	64	50	42
In vivo imaging with infected vectors	48	58	41
Functional siRNA screens of vector cells	35	68	36
Other needs	21	39	15

Category ‘Other needs’ included various Plasmodium species, Leishmania, tsetse flies, etc.

Table 6 Infrastructure services (vector genomics and bioinformatics) for the vector research community. Survey participants responded whether the services listed here (vector genomics and bioinformatics) would be of use if offered free of cost. Response counts are grouped into Likely, Not likely, or Possible use of the infrastructure/service

Infrastructure/service: vector genomics and bioinformatics	Likely	Not likely	Possible
Transcriptional profiling	75	42	53
Genome or population analysis	72	43	54
Bacterial microbiome profiling	45	63	41
Population or focused SNP genotyping	39	63	48
Other needs	10	41	8

Category ‘Other needs’ included proteomics, metabolomics.

Table 7 Infrastructure services (vector genome editing) for the vector research community. Survey participants responded whether vector genome editing would be of use if offered free of cost. Response counts are grouped into Likely, Not likely, or Possible use of the infrastructure/service

Infrastructure/service: vector genome editing	Likely	Not likely	Possible
Anopheles spec.	35	71	44
Aedes spec.	60	60	33
Culicoides spec.	20	85	17
Other	27	53	7

‘Other’ included ticks,¹⁷ phlebotomines,⁵ Culex spec., and tsetse flies (both 4).

Table 8 Infrastructure services (vector ecology and behavior) for the vector research community. Survey participants responded whether specific services or infrastructures to study vector ecology and behavior would be of use if offered free of cost. Response counts are grouped into Likely, Not likely, or Possible use of the infrastructure/service

Infrastructure/service: vector ecology and behavior	Likely	Not likely	Possible
Facilitated work at endemic country field sites	96	39	43
Electrophysiology	14	99	23
Standardized vector behavioral assays and bioassays	65	52	52
Large cage studies (controlled large indoor insectary)	64	61	46
Large cage studies (semi-controlled outdoor large cages)	46	77	40
Other needs	7	44	3

Very few responses to ‘Other needs’ given, for example, cage trials in Europe.

Table 9 Infrastructure services (vector biology resources) for the vector research community. Survey participants responded whether specific resources for vector biology would be of use if offered free of cost. Response counts are grouped into Likely, Not likely, or Possible use of the infrastructure/service

Infrastructure/service: vector biology resources	Likely	Not likely	Possible
Bank of standard vector reference strains (genome and RNA sequenced)	85	34	54
Colonization of novel vector strains and species	76	45	53
Production of new reference vector cell lines (genome & RNA sequenced)	38	74	38
Production of cloned vector cell lines	39	75	37
Production of microbiome-free mosquitoes	28	82	40
Wolbachia-trans-infected vector strains	23	76	52
Vector systematics and collections	62	52	55
Other needs	5	44	3

Very few responses to ‘Other needs’ given, mainly mentioning training needs.

Table 10 Infrastructure services (training and networking activities) for the vector research community. Survey participants responded whether specific services or infrastructures in the areas of training and networking activities would be of use if offered free of cost. Response counts are grouped into Likely, Not likely, or Possible use of the infrastructure/service

Infrastructure/service: training and networking activities	Likely	Not likely	Possible
Training in BSL2 and 3 vector infection and study techniques	96	30	51
Training in bioinformatics and genomic analysis	107	25	53
Conferencing	102	16	59
Other needs	8	32	7

Very few responses to ‘Other needs’ given; one example: training of field workers and students in field identification.

Fraser MJ Jr. Insect transgenesis: current applications and future prospects. Annu Rev Entomol. 2012;57:267–89.10.1146/annurev.ento.54.110807.090545

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Xie X, Zou J, Wang QY, Shi PY. Targeting dengue virus NS4B protein for drug discovery. Antiviral Res. 2015;118:39–45.10.1016/j.antiviral.2015.03.007

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hoffman SL, Vekemans J, Richie TL, Duffy PE. The march toward malaria vaccines. Vaccine. 2015;33:D13–D23.10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.07.091

 Google Scholar

Miller LH, Ackerman HC, Su XZ, Wellems TE. Malaria biology and disease pathogenesis: insights for new treatments. Nat Med. 2013;19:156–67.10.1038/nm.3073

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Halbroth BR, Draper SJ. Recent developments in malaria vaccinology. Adv Parasitol. 2015;88:1–49.10.1016/bs.apar.2015.03.001

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Kortekaas J. One health approach to Rift valley fever vaccine development. Antiviral Res. 2014;106:24–32.10.1016/j.antiviral.2014.03.008

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Thomas SJ, Rothman AL. Trials and tribulations on the path to developing a dengue vaccine. Vaccine. 2015;33:D24–D31.10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.05.095

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sande S, Zimba M, Chinwada P, Masendu HT, Mazando S, Makuwaza A. The emergence of insecticide resistance in the major malaria vector Anopheles funestus (Diptera: Culicidae) from sentinel sites in Mutare and Mutasa Districts, Zimbabwe. Malar J. 2015;14:466.10.1186/s12936-015-0993-8

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Newby G, Hwang J, Koita K, Chen I, Greenwood B, von Seidlein L, et al. Review of mass drug administration for malaria and its operational challenges. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2015;93:125–34.10.4269/ajtmh.14-0254

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Neafsey DE, Juraska M, Bedford T, Benkeser D, Valim C, Griggs A, et al. Genetic diversity and protective efficacy of the RTS, S/AS01 malaria vaccine. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2025–37.10.1056/NEJMoa1505819

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar