Understanding transmission risk and predicting environmental suitability for Mayaro Virus in the Americas

Michael Celone, Sean Beeman, Barbara A. Han, Alexander M. Potter, David B. Pecor, Bernard Okech, Simon Pollett
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.04.13.23288376

Abstract

Background Mayaro virus (MAYV) is a mosquito-borne Alphavirus that is widespread in South America. MAYV infection often presents with non-specific febrile symptoms but may progress to debilitating chronic arthritis or arthralgia. Despite the pandemic threat of MAYV, its true distribution remains unknown. The objective of this study was to clarify the geographic distribution of MAYV using an established risk mapping framework. This consisted of generating evidence consensus scores for MAYV presence, modeling the potential distribution of MAYV across the Americas, and estimating at-risk population residing in areas suitable for MAYV transmission.

Methods We compiled a georeferenced compendium of MAYV occurrence in humans, animals, and arthropods. Based on an established evidence consensus framework, we integrated multiple information sources to assess the total evidence supporting ongoing transmission of MAYV within each country in our study region. We then developed high resolution maps of the disease’s estimated distribution using a boosted regression tree approach. Models were developed using ten climatic and environmental covariates that are related to the MAYV transmission cycle. Using the output of our boosted regression tree models, we estimated the total population living in regions suitable for MAYV transmission.

Findings The evidence consensus scores revealed high or very high evidence of MAYV transmission in Brazil (especially the states of Mato Grosso and Goiás), Venezuela, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, Colombia, Bolivia, and French Guiana. According to the boosted regression tree models, a substantial region of South America is suitable for MAYV transmission, including north and central Brazil, French Guiana, and Suriname. Some regions (e.g., Guyana) with low or moderate evidence of transmission were identified as highly suitable for MAYV. We estimate that approximately 77 million people in the Americas live in areas that may be suitable for MAYV transmission, including 43·4 million people in Brazil. Our results can assist public health authorities in prioritizing high-risk areas for vector control, human disease surveillance and ecological studies.

Funding This work was financially supported by the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Division—Global Emerging Infections Surveillance (AFHSD-GEIS) under awards P0065_22_WR and P0050_23_WR. The activities undertaken at WRBU were performed in part under a Memorandum of Understanding between the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR) and the Smithsonian Institution, with institutional support provided by both organizations.

Research in context

Evidence before this study

We searched PubMed on January 27, 2021 using the search term “Mayaro virus”. This search yielded 274 results including two systematic reviews of Mayaro virus (MAYV) occurrence and one study that modeled the distribution of MAYV risk. Although prior systematic reviews included some spatial information, they did not attempt to georeference MAYV occurrence with a high level of spatial precision and did not quantify uncertainty in geolocated records. Furthermore, the one published study that modeled environmental suitability for MAYV included only a limited set of MAYV occurrence locations. No additional studies have been conducted to model the risk of MAYV occurrence across space or to quantify the total population which may be at risk of MAYV infection in the Americas.

Added value of this study

We used a comprehensive, georeferenced compendium of MAYV occurrence to model the suitability for MAYV occurrence in the Americas. Our boosted regression tree model incorporated 203 MAYV occurrence locations and 10 gridded environmental covariates to generate a 5 x 5 km continuous surface of MAYV suitability across the Americas. Using this distribution model, we estimated the total population residing in areas that are suitable for MAYV transmission. Furthermore, we developed evidence consensus scores for each country in our study region that synthesized a variety of sources to assess the overall evidence of MAYV transmission.

Implications of all the available evidence

Our study provides a contemporary estimate of MAYV distribution using a well-established disease mapping framework. This information provides an evidence base that can guide disease surveillance (including human cases and ecological studies) and vector control efforts in the Americas. This is especially useful in regions with high MAYV suitability but little or no evidence of MAYV transmission (e.g., Guyana and Suriname).

Introduction

Mayaro virus (MAYV) is a mosquito-borne Alphavirus that was first detected in Trinidad in 1954.1 MAYV has caused periodic outbreaks throughout Latin America2 and serological surveys and syndromic surveillance studies suggest widespread circulation in the region.3 Some researchers have hypothesized that MAYV has broader epidemic potential and raised alarm about its increased geographic spread.4, 5

MAYV can cause debilitating arthralgia or arthritis that can persist for months after initial infection.6 However, most MAYV patients present with non-specific febrile symptoms that are clinically indistinguishable from other vector borne diseases such as dengue or Zika.7 Therefore, clinical diagnosis is often difficult and accurate estimates of disease burden remain elusive. This is further complicated by the many limitations of serological diagnostics including the cross-reactivity of antigenically similar viruses.8 Supportive care remains the current standard of clinical treatment for MAYV as no licensed vaccine or antiviral treatment currently exists.

Limited studies on MAYV ecology suggest that this virus is maintained in a sylvatic transmission cycle involving arboreal mosquito vectors and non-human animal reservoirs. High seroprevalence among non-human primates (NHPs)9 suggests they may be involved in the MAYV transmission cycle, although their precise role is inconclusive. In addition, MAYV antibodies have been detected in other mammals including rodents and marsupials10. Risk factors including residing near forested areas11 and hunting in the rainforest12 are associated with MAYV infection in humans, highlighting the importance of the sylvatic transmission cycle and the potential for spillover events. However, the occurrence of MAYV in the city of Manaus has also led to concerns about the involvement of Aedes (Ae.) mosquitoes in an urban transmission cycle.13 Though studies of wild-caught mosquito populations implicated the canopy-dwelling Haemagogus (Hg.) janthinomys mosquito as the primary vector during a major outbreak in Brazil,9 Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus have demonstrated the potential to transmit MAYV in laboratory settings.14

A recent epidemiological alert by the Pan American Health Association (PAHO) emphasized the need for increased awareness of and extended surveillance for MAYV in the Americas.15 Ideally, MAYV spillover and outbreak prevention in the Americas would be guided by granular maps of MAYV risk enabling targeted febrile surveillance and ecological surveillance efforts and better tailored risk communications to endemic populations and travelers. However, the precise areas of risk from MAYV throughout the Americas remain unclear due to limited data on MAYV occurrence16, underscoring a fundamental need for a more comprehensive and georeferenced dataset on MAYV occurrence in the Americas.

Here, we provide a critical update to the current state of knowledge on MAYV transmission risk across the Americas. We adopted a well-established machine-learning based disease mapping approach originally developed by ecologists to model species distributions but has since been successfully applied to several medically-relevant vector-borne pathogens17–19. These methods are particularly powerful for leveraging biological and ecological information underpinning a sylvatic disease system to generate biologically realistic and spatially explicit predictions when epidemiological data are still sparse. Many of these models rely on machine learning techniques including boosted regression trees (BRT)20 to develop a multivariate relationship between disease occurrence locations and relevant climatic or environmental covariates that impact disease transmission.

In order to develop a contemporary estimate of MAYV risk in the Americas, we applied a predictive mapping approach with three components: (1) scoring the total evidence supporting ongoing MAYV transmission within each country (i.e., evidence consensus scores); (2) modeling the likely distribution of MAYV suitability throughout the Americas with high predictive accuracy; (3) estimating the total population residing in areas with a high suitability for MAYV transmission. Compared to previous estimates, these updated datasets and analyses suggest that MAYV poses a substantial and possibly underestimated threat to the Americas.

Methods

Evidence Consensus

We used a well-established framework21 to generate an evidence consensus score for each country in the study region. This approach integrates several information sources to generate a score that characterizes the evidence for disease transmission. The data sources that we considered for MAYV evidence consensus scores included health organization status, date of most recent human occurrence, validity of diagnostic tests, recency of outbreaks or clinical cases, and recency of occurrence in non-human animals or arthropods. Scores ranged from 0 (“No evidence of MAYV presence”) to 21 (“Complete evidence of MAYV presence”). A more comprehensive description of the evidence consensus scoring process is presented in the Supplementary Materials (pp 3-5).

Occurrence records

We collected and georeferenced MAYV occurrence records in humans, non-human animals, and arthropods22, 23. These records were extracted from peer-reviewed and grey literature sources. Occurrences with a high level of spatial precision were designated point locations, while less precise records (e.g., administrative units) were designated polygon locations. We recorded the coordinates of all point locations and polygon centroids as well as the uncertainty associated with each record. We included occurrence records with ≤75km of uncertainty in our current analysis. Overall, our dataset comprised 203 MAYV occurrence records in humans, animals, and arthropods. This was subsequently reduced to 170 records after we thinned the dataset to reduce spatial autocorrelation. Details on the assembly of the occurrence records are available in the Supplementary Materials (p 3).

Description of covariates

We considered 10 ecologically relevant gridded variables (i.e., raster data) for inclusion in our model. These variables included various measures of topography, climate, land cover and vegetation that likely influence the MAYV transmission cycle and the distribution of MAYV risk throughout the region. (See Supplementary Materials for a description of the covariates and rationale for their inclusion in the model.) Values for each gridded covariate were extracted at each presence/pseudoabsence location and used in the modeling procedure described below. Climatic variables included rainfall, nighttime land surface temperature (LST Night), and daytime land surface temperature (LST Day) (Figures 1A – 1C). Measures of land cover and vegetation included two proportional land cover classes (evergreen broadleaf and urban/built-up), enhanced vegetation index (EVI), tasseled cap wetness (TCW) and tasseled cap brightness (TCB) (Figures 1D – 1H). Lastly, we included two topographic covariates: slope and elevation (Figures 1I and 1J). The covariate layers are presented as maps in Figure 1 and additional details on the covariates are presented in the Supplementary Materials (pp 5-6). We did not detect any collinearity between the covariates based on a Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.8, and thus included all 10 covariates in the final model.

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Covariates used to model the environmental suitability of MAYV.

A. and B. Land surface temperature (LST) night and LST day, respectively; C. Rainfall; D. Enhanced vegetation index (EVI); E. Evergreen forest; F. Urban/built-up land cover; G. Tasseled cap brightness (TCB); H. Tasseled cap wetness (TCW); I. Elevation; J. Slope

Mapping risk for MAYV occurrence

Although first developed by ecologists to model the potential distribution of plants and animals, ecological niche models (also known as species distribution models or environmental suitability models) are now common in the epidemiological literature to model human disease risk. A robust disease mapping framework has been established in the last decade to model the zoonotic niche of medically-relevant pathogens including dengue virus (DENV)17 and Zika virus (ZIKV)18, among others. We used BRT to model the environmental suitability for MAYV occurrence across our study region. BRT is a machine learning approach that uses regression or classification trees to partition the dataset and combines many simple models (i.e., boosting) to improve overall model accuracy.20 We fitted 100 BRT ‘sub-models’ to separate bootstraps of the dataset using the gbm.step procedure in the dismo R package.24 The predictive accuracy of the model was assessed using the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, Kappa statistic, and percent correctly classified (PCC). Metrics were calculated for each sub-model using 10-fold cross validation. The final prediction map represents the mean MAYV suitability at each 5 x 5 km pixel across our ensemble of 100 models. We also generated a map of the model uncertainty, represented by the per-pixel standard deviation.

Total population at potential risk

We estimated the total human population living in areas of high predicted MAYV suitability. We first transformed the mean prediction map into a binary risk map using a previously established protocol,18 whereby a suitability threshold value was chosen that encompassed 90% of the MAYV occurrence points. Each 5 x 5 km pixel was classified as 1 (i.e., suitable) if its predicted suitability exceeded the threshold value; otherwise, it was classified as 0 (i.e., not suitable). We then determined the total population residing in suitable areas by multiplying the population count within each grid cell by the binary suitability classification and summing these values across each country.

Results

The map of evidence consensus is presented in Figure 2A and the evidence score for each country is presented by category in the Supplementary Materials (pp 11-16). Evidence consensus scores ranged from 0 (no evidence of MAYV transmission) to 19 (very high evidence of transmission). We recorded a very high evidence consensus score for Brazil and Venezuela, with scores of 19 and 16, respectively. Other countries with a high evidence consensus score included Peru with a score of 15, French Guiana with a score of 13, and Trinidad and Tobago, Colombia, and Bolivia (all with scores of 11). We recorded evidence consensus scores ranging from very low to moderate in all Central American and Caribbean countries. Among these countries with low to moderate risk, the highest evidence consensus scores were documented for Haiti with a score of 10, and Panama with a score of 9.

Fig 2.
Fig 2. Evidence consensus scores.

Evidence consensus is presented at the Admin0 level for all countries in the study (Fig. 2A) and at the Admin1 level (Fig. 2B) for Brazil. Scores are based on health organization status, date of most recent MAYV occurrence; validity of MAYV diagnostic test, recency of MAYV outbreaks or clinical cases, and recency of MAYV occurrence in animals or arthropods. Blue represents very low evidence consensus while red represents very high evidence consensus.

In order to provide more granular data throughout Brazil, we also calculated evidence scores by state (i.e., first-administrative division). These results are presented in Figure 2B. Because health organization status was not available for each state, we assigned a baseline score of one to each state, and then calculated the remaining categories according to the methods described above. Evidence of MAYV transmission was highest in the central Brazilian states of Mato Grosso and Goiás, both with very high scores of 16. High evidence of MAYV was also documented in five Northern and Central states, including Pará (Evidence Consensus= 14), Roraima (Evidence Consensus= 13), Bahia and Piauí (Evidence Consensus= 12 for both), and Mato Grosso do Sul (Evidence Consensus= 11).

Figure 3 displays the 203 MAYV occurrences (human, animal, and arthropod) that were used to construct our model. The occurrence locations fell in 13 countries, most frequently in Brazil (n=102), French Guiana (n=27) and Peru (n=22). MAYV occurrences were reported between the years 1954 and 2021, with the majority of cases (n=140) occurring since the year 2000. One hundred and sixty (79%) of the 203 occurrence locations were detected in humans while 43 (21%) were detected in non-human animals or arthropods. An alternative model using just the reported human occurrence was also constructed using the 160 human occurrence points. This model is presented in the Supplementary Materials along with a map showing the observed difference between the all-host and the human-only models (pp 8-9).

Figure 3.
Figure 3. Geographic distribution and temporal trend of MAYV occurrence.

The map shows the distribution of the 203 occurrence locations (before the spatial thinning procedure) that were used to construct the boosted regression tree (BRT) model. The color corresponds to the host type of each point (human, animal, or arthropod). The inset chart displays total occurrences that were reported in each year since the initial human case was detected in 1954.

The predicted distribution of MAYV environmental suitability is presented in Figure 4A. This risk map represents the average output across the 100 BRT sub-models. The map of model uncertainty (i.e., the per-pixel standard deviation across the 100 model runs) is presented in Figure 4B. High suitability for MAYV transmission was evident across the Amazon rainforest ecoregion in South America. The model predicted very high suitability for MAYV across a large portion of Central and Northern Brazil, especially the states of Amazonas, Acre, Pará, and Tocantins. High suitability was also predicted throughout French Guiana, Guyana, Suriname, and Trinidad and Tobago, as well as Southern portion of Colombia and Venezuela, and the north-eastern region of Peru and northern region of Bolivia.

Fig 4.
Fig 4. Map of environmental suitability and prediction uncertainty for MAYV occurrence.

(A) Suitability ranged from blue (0 - no suitability) to red (1 - very high suitability). The inset map shows greater detail in Trinidad and Tobago. (B) The per-pixel standard deviation across the 100 sub-models is presented as a measure of the model’s uncertainty.

Certain regions of Central America with low or moderate evidence consensus scores were also found to be highly suitable for MAYV transmission, namely the Southern region of Panama and eastern coastal regions of Nicaragua, Honduras, and Belize. The results of the human-only model are presented in the Supplementary Figure 1. Overall, the results of this model were very similar to the all-host model, with only slight differences. The difference in predicted environmental suitability between the all-host model and human-only model is presented in Supplementary Figure 2.

Supplementary Figure 1.
Supplementary Figure 1. Map of environmental suitability MAYV occurrence using human-only data.

Suitability ranged from blue (0- no suitability) to red (1- very high suitability). The inset map shows greater detail in Trinidad and Tobago.

Supplementary Figure 2.
Supplementary Figure 2. Difference in predicted environmental suitability between the all-host model and human-only model.

This map was creating by subtracting the pixel-wise probability values in the all-host suitability model from the values in the human-only model. Red represents regions where the all-host model predicted higher suitability while black represents areas where the human-only model predicted higher suitability. White pixels represent agreement between the two models.

Our models showed MAYV suitability to be especially influenced by climatic variables including nighttime LST (relative importance of 44·8%) and rainfall (relative importance of 23·6%) as well as EVI (relative importance of 8·1%). The partial dependence plots for nighttime LST and rainfall are presented in Figure 5 and partial dependence plots for the remaining variables are presented in the Supplementary Figure 3. The partial dependence plot for nighttime LST reveals a steep increase in MAYV suitability around 12℃ that peaks at ∼22℃. The plot for rainfall reveals a similarly steep increase starting at ∼80mm that peaks at ∼110mm and then plateaus, with only a minor peak at ∼375mm. After applying pairwise distance sampling to remove spatial sorting bias, the model demonstrated good predictive power with an AUC of 0·78 + 0·007 standard error. Other statistics from the 10-fold cross-validation procedure included the following: PCC= 83%, sensitivity= 0·75, specificity= 0·91, and Kappa= 0·6.

Supplementary Figure 3.
Supplementary Figure 3. Partial dependence plots of the two eight additional variables.

The solid black line represents average response over 100 sub-models and the gray region represents one standard deviation. Tick marks represent values of each variable at occurrence location. Partial dependence plots for the two most important variables are presented in the main text (Figure 5).

Fig 5.
Fig 5. Partial dependence plots of the two most important variables.

The solid black line represents average response over 100 sub-models and the gray region represents one standard deviation. Tick marks represent values of each variable at occurrence location.

We identified 0·488 as the threshold suitability value that encompassed 90% of the MAYV occurrence locations. We applied this conservative value to classify pixels as either suitable or unsuitable for MAYV transmission. Overall, we estimate that approximately 77 million people in the Americas live in areas that are potentially suitable for MAYV transmission. Countries with the greatest at-risk population include Brazil (43.4 million people), Colombia (6.9 million people), and Mexico (4.9 million people). The majority of the Brazilian population living in high-risk areas reside in the Amazon rainforest ecoregion.

View this table:
Table 1. Total population living in areas potentially suitable for MAYV transmission (millions).

Table 1 indicates the five countries in each region with the largest population in suitable transmission regions. The North/Central American region includes Caribbean Island nations.

Discussion

In this paper we present an ensemble BRT model of MAYV environmental suitability in the Americas and an evidence consensus framework that integrates multiple information sources. In the absence of comprehensive epidemiological data and reliable and affordable methods for large scale arboviral diagnosis, distribution models can serve an important role in guiding arboviral surveillance (in humans and other hosts) and targeting vector control efforts. This is especially true in the case of MAYV given its nonspecific febrile presentation and the uncertainty surrounding its true distribution and non-human animal reservoirs. Our model provides important information regarding regions of Central and South America that are at highest risk of MAYV transmission allowing us to estimate the total population living in areas suitable for MAYV transmission. Furthermore, we are able to identify areas with high predicted MAYV suitability despite low or moderate evidence consensus.

Our model predicted the distribution of MAYV with relatively high accuracy, identifying several regions of high environmental suitability. This included large areas of North and Central Brazil (e.g., the states of Mato Grosso, Pará, and Goiás), French Guiana, Trinidad & Tobago, and Northern Peru, all areas with well-documented evidence of MAYV transmission.25 In addition, several regions with minimal or no published evidence of MAYV transmission were also found to be highly suitable for transmission, including the majority of Guyana as well as coastal regions of Belize, Nicaragua, and Honduras. This finding highlights the utility of distribution models in identifying areas that are particularly receptive to MAYV transmission that could be targeted for increased surveillance or vector control.

The wide predicted geographic distribution of MAYV underscores the need for increased surveillance and diagnostic capacity throughout the Americas. Our findings suggest that MAYV is likely vastly underreported and that co-occurring arboviral epidemics (e.g., DENV or CHIKV) may obfuscate the true MAYV disease burden. This is especially true in Brazil, where ∼43 million people reside in areas that are potentially suitable for MAYV transmission. An additional concern is the detection of MAYV in Haiti,26 where ∼3 million people are predicted to be at potential risk according to our model. The discovery of MAYV in Haiti has prompted additional questions about its potential vectors and the possibility of urban transmission, due to the lack of Haemagogus mosquitoes and non-human primates on the island. These questions require further entomological investigations in order to elucidate the vectorial capacity of urban mosquitoes and potential animal reservoirs other than non-human primates.

Our model has several important limitations that must be considered when interpreting the findings presented here. Georeferenced reports of disease occurrence are subject to sampling bias related to the accessibility of certain locations, availability of laboratory infrastructure, or the presence of a robust surveillance system that is able to detect arbovirus occurrence. Therefore, the presence locations used in our model are likely subject to sampling bias and do not reflect the true distribution of MAYV across the Americas. Following previously published modeling studies,27 we attempted to correct for the sampling bias in our dataset through the use of pseudoabsence points with a similar spatial bias as the presence points. However, it is likely that the model is still affected by some level of bias in the occurrence locations. Ideally, future MAYV distribution models will be updated when new occurrence locations are reported (as in Pigott et al.28 updates to the Ebola niche map), leading to a more accurate prediction of the true MAYV distribution.

Another limitation relates to the covariate set used to construct our model. Many aspects of the MAYV epidemiology remain poorly understood and current knowledge of MAYV ecology is lacking. We attempted to include covariates that likely have a strong influence on MAYV transmission, including climate, landcover, and vegetation indices, which impact vector ecology and therefore transmission risk. However, disease risk is influenced by other unknown or understudied variables including socioeconomic factors and the presence of non-human reservoir hosts. Although several non-human primate species appear to be important MAYV reservoirs,9 we opted not to include primate distribution in our model due to the lack of certainty regarding their precise role in the transmission cycle. For systems like YFV, where the role of particular primate species is better understood, the distributions of particular primate reservoir species may be incorporated directly into predictive models.29 As more research is conducted on MAYV ecology and additional animal reservoirs are identified, future MAYV distribution models should be updated to include primate distribution as a contributor to overall spillover risk. Our results here may assist in targeting and designing animal reservoir studies.

Our model contributes several crucial additions to the limited literature on MAYV distribution.16 By including a comprehensive compendium of MAYV occurrence points along with high-resolution, remotely sensed covariates at each point, the current ensemble model generates actionable predictions through its demonstrated high predictive accuracy20 across a wider geographic range than any previously published model. Furthermore, the evidence consensus scores provide an alternate method for estimating MAYV transmission, which complements the modeled predictions. These estimates thus inform where and when both human and non-human MAYV surveillance should be targeted. While it remains difficult to accurately estimate the costs of epidemic response30 our estimates of the total at-risk human population across multiple countries also make clear that the potential risk to human health is disproportionately high compared to investments in understanding the basic ecology and epidemiology of MAYV needed to mitigate the risk of future spillover transmission.

Disclaimer

Material has been reviewed by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. There is no objection to its presentation and/or publication. The contents, views or opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect official policy or position of Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, Inc., Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, the Department of Defense (DoD), or Departments of the Army, Navy, or Air Force. Mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

SP was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, https://www.niaid.nih.gov/, under Inter-Agency Agreement Y1-AI-5072, and the Defense Health Program, U.S. DoD, under award HU0001190002. AP and DP were financially supported by the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Division – Global Emerging Infections Surveillance (AFHSD-GEIS) award P0065_22_WR. The activities undertaken at the Walter Reed Biosystematics Unit were performed in part under a Memorandum of Understanding between the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR) and the Smithsonian Institution, with institutional support provided by both organizations. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors

Appendices

Occurrence records

We previously developed a georeferenced compendium of MAYV occurrence based on methods that have been established for other pathogens including dengue and leishmaniasis.1–4 MAYV occurrence among humans, non-human animals, and arthropods was compiled through a systematic review of the literature, including an evaluation of the quality of such evidence. These methods were described previously in greater detail.5 All occurrences were assigned to a point or polygon location, depending on the spatial resolution provided by the authors. Point data comprised precise locations with less than 5km of uncertainty (e.g., specific coordinates or a small town) while polygon data comprised larger areas or administrative units that exceeded 5km of uncertainty. The coordinates of point locations and polygon centroids were recorded in our database and used as the presence records in our current modeling study.

Presence points with ≤75km of uncertainty were included in our current analysis, although the majority of points had substantially less uncertainty. Following a previously published modeling study that accepted up to 65km of uncertainty,6 we chose to accept a greater level of uncertainty in our occurrence data in order to include more occurrence locations during the model development process. Due to the limited size of our occurrence dataset, we deemed that the extra information gained from each occurrence record outweighed any issues associated with the greater uncertainty of some occurrence records.

The final MAYV database contained 265 unique georeferences in 15 countries, published between 1954 and 2022. Two-hundred and three of these occurrence points met the ≤75km uncertainty threshold, and thus were eligible for inclusion in our model. We used the spThin package in the R statistical software to reduce clustering of presence records.7 A 5km distance threshold was applied to ensure that no more than one presence point occurred within each pixel of our covariate layers.

Evidence Consensus

Collating published reports of MAYV is an important first step in clarifying its distribution. However, heterogeneous surveillance capacity across countries and incomplete or unclear reporting of epidemiological data may impact our ability to definitively say that MAYV is present in a certain location. An evidence consensus approach takes several information sources into account in order to score the total available evidence supporting the presence or absence of a disease in a given country. This approach has been used previously to provide a refined description of the spatial limits of several pathogens including dengue virus,8 leishmaniasis,9 podoconiosis,10 and Lassa fever.11 These studies considered multiple data sources to develop an evidence consensus score for disease presence or absence, including health organization status, peer reviewed evidence, case data, animal infection, economic status, and other supplementary evidence. We followed a similar procedure to generate a consensus score for each country in Latin America that quantifies the evidence supporting MAYV presence. This score ranged from 0 (“No evidence of MAYV presence”) to 21 (“Complete evidence of MAYV presence”) based on the categories described below.

Health Organization Reports (max 3 points)

International health organizations have been used previously to support evidence of pathogen presence or absence in specific countries.8 We followed a similar procedure, using health reports from two sources: Pan American Health Organization (PAHO)/World Health Organization (WHO) and the Global Infectious Diseases and Epidemiology Online Network (GIDEON). The PAHO issues weekly epidemiological alerts to update the public on the occurrence of significant health events. Similarly, the WHO issues Disease Outbreak News (DONs) related to public health issues of international importance. We searched these PAHO/WHO bulletins for relevant alerts related to MAYV in a given country. Countries were assigned a score of 1 if WHO/PAHO had issued an epidemiological alert for MAYV in that country.

GIDEON is a web application that compiles relevant news on infectious disease outbreaks and designates countries as endemic/potentially endemic for each pathogen. If a country was listed as endemic/potentially endemic for MAYV in the GIDEON database, it was assigned a score of 1. If a country fulfilled both criteria (i.e., listed as endemic in GIDEON and a relevant PAHO/WHO health alert) it was assigned a score of 3.

Peer-reviewed Evidence of Human Infection (max 6 points)

Based on methods proposed by Brady et al.,8 peer-reviewed evidence of human infection was scored based on the following two categories: contemporariness (3 for 2011-2020, 2 for 2000-2010, and 1 for 1999 and earlier) and diagnostic accuracy (3 for PCR, viral culture, or PRNT, 2 for serological methods only, 1 for presumed cases without diagnostic test or cases with unspecified diagnostic test). In the case of multiple MAYV reports in a given country, the highest scoring report was used. For example, if one study in Brazil reported serological evidence of MAYV transmission (score of 2) in 1990 (score of 1) and another study in Brazil reported MAYV viral culture (score of 3) in 2019 (score of 3), Brazil would receive a score of 6 for this category. We also considered returning traveler reports for this category if the case was definitively linked to the country of travel. These reports are useful for establishing evidence of pathogen presence because diagnosis is often pursued rigorously for travelers upon returning to their country of origin.8

Outbreaks and Clinical Cases (max 6 points)

Reported outbreaks of MAYV or clinical cases that were detected using PCR were scored according to total case numbers and contemporariness. Previous studies have used only the occurrence of reported outbreaks (with no consideration to clinical cases) to assign a score for this category.8 However, because only a limited number of MAYV outbreaks have occurred and because diagnostic techniques have been inconsistent across these outbreaks, we also considered clinical cases diagnosed by PCR or viral culture that were not necessarily considered to be an outbreak. The scoring system for this category was adapted based on methods used by Mylne et al.,11 where higher scores were assigned to contemporary reports with 20 or more cases. In order to calculate a score for each country, we summed the cases detected across multiple studies within a single time period. For example, if two separate reports from Peru each detected 10 cases of MAYV using PCR between 2011 and 2020, we summed the reported cases (20 total) and assigned Peru 6 points for this category. However, cases from multiple reports were not summed across different time periods.

A lack of MAYV case reports in a given country is not necessarily indicative of a lack of virus transmission. It is likely that MAYV cases may go undetected due to insufficient surveillance or diagnostic capacity. We attempted to account for this uncertainty using healthcare expenditure (HE) as a proxy of a country’s capacity for detecting MAYV occurrence. If no outbreaks or clinical cases were reported in a given country, we used the current HE per capita from the World Health Organization 2017 dataset. Total HE for each country was designated as low (HE < $100), medium ($100 < HE < $500), or high (HE > $500) according to methods that were previously described.8 We also considered a country’s proximity to other countries that have reported outbreaks or clinical cases diagnosed by PCR.11 Adjacency to countries with outbreaks or clinical cases was combined with HE to assign a score. The highest score was assigned to countries with MAYV outbreaks/clinical cases in two or more neighboring countries and a low HE.

Animal and Arthropod Data (max 6 points)

Detection of MAYV occurrence in non-human animal or arthropod species provides additional evidence of MAYV presence. This may be indicative of the potential for disease spillover into the human population. Previous studies have considered the presence of competent vector species when calculating the evidence consensus score.12, 13 However, because of uncertainties regarding the role of various mosquitoes in the MAYV transmission cycle (e.g., the possible role of Aedes aegypti in urban transmission14), we considered reports of any wild-caught arthropods that were identified as MAYV positive. Similarly, we assigned a separate score based on reports of infection in potential animal reservoirs. The highest scores for both animal and arthropod MAYV positivity were assigned to more contemporary studies. In the case of multiple MAYV reports in a given country, the highest scoring report was used. All data on MAYV positivity in non-human animals and arthropods was compiled in a systematic review that was previously described.5

Explanatory covariates

We considered several variables for inclusion in our models based on both previous studies of and hypotheses about MAYV ecology. Rainfall data and remotely sensed variables from the MODIS platform were provided by the Malaria Atlas Project (https://malariaatlas.org/) after a gap-filling algorithm was used to account for cloud cover.15 The variables were transformed to ensure matching spatial resolution of 2·5 arc-minutes (∼5km) and matching extent. The variables were transformed to ensure that spatial resolution, extent, and boundaries were identical before modeling. Several variables described here were derived from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) remote sensing platform.16

Temperature and rainfall play an important role in vector abundance and activity.17 Entomological surveys have demonstrated an association between Hg. janthinomys abundance and temperature18, 19 and Alencar et al. reported that the mosquito’s presence was correlated with high temperatures ranging from 24℃–30℃.20 Several studies have also demonstrated that large diurnal temperature range can impact larval development time, adult survival, and reproductive output in Aedes and Anopheles populations21–23 and an ecological niche model demonstrated that mean diurnal range was one of the most important predictors of Hg. janthinomys distribution.24 Humidity and rainfall have also been shown to impact the density of adult Hg. janthinomys mosquito populations18, 25–28 and Hg. janthinomys biting activity was shown to peak during intense rainfall in January.26 Due to the impact of temperature and rainfall on vector abundance and vectorial capacity, we included three climate variables in our model, namely night-time and daytime land surface temperature (LST) and cumulative rainfall. LST Night and LST Day are remotely sensed variables from the NASA MODIS MOD11A2 satellite.29 Annual LST Day and LST Night raster layers spanning the years 2000–2020 were used to calculate a single layer representing the mean values over this time period. We also used rainfall data from the Climate Hazards Group InfraRed Precipitation with Station (CHIRPS),30 a quasi-global data set that incorporates satellite imagery at 0·05° resolution and meteorological station data to construct gridded rainfall estimates.

In addition, Hg. janthinomys mosquitoes thrive in arboreal habitats (e.g., tropical rainforests) and oviposit in water-filled natural plant cavities (e.g., tree holes or broken bamboo).31 Adult mosquitoes have predominantly been found in the forest canopy at heights of 16m and 30m.18 Therefore, the density of vegetation canopy and moisture supply may influence Hg. janthinomys abundance in a given area. To account for these factors, we included three covariates related to vegetation and surface moisture: enhanced vegetation index (EVI), tasseled cap wetness (TCW) and tasseled cap brightness (TCB). The EVI is a measure of vegetation canopy greenness displayed at a 500m spatial resolution32 and is derived from the MODIS MCD43B4 product.33 The EVI has been used as a covariate in previous niche models of arboviruses including Yellow Fever,34 chikungunya virus,12 and Zika virus.35 TCW and TCB, measures of surface moisture that are used to assess land cover change, were also generated from the MODIS MCD43B4 product.36

Previous outbreaks of MAYV have occurred in towns close to the rainforest or jungle outposts in close proximity to the forest edge.37–39 MAYV most likely circulates in a sylvatic cycle involving canopy-dwelling mosquitoes and non-human primates, with occasional spill-overs into humans living close to the forest.40 Entomological surveys have demonstrated that Hg. janthinomys are predominantly found in forest canopies at heights of 16m and 30m.18 Due to the strong impact of land cover on the probability of MAYV occurrence in a given area, we included two land cover covariates, namely evergreen broadleaf forest and urban/built-up, from the MODIS MOD13Q1 product.41, 42 These covariates represent the proportion of each raster grid cell (ranging from 0-100) that is covered by the land cover class in question, whereby a value of zero represents the absence of land cover and 100 represents complete coverage. Lastly, we included slope and elevation covariates that we accessed from the US Geological Survey’s Global Multi-resolution Terrain Elevation Data (GMTED).43

Covariate selection

We implemented a data-driven variable selection process in the R package SDMtune to identify variables for inclusion in our models. This process involves removal of highly correlated variables based on an algorithm that first ranks the variables by permutation importance and evaluates the correlation between the most important variable and the remaining variables. A leave-one-out Jack-knife test is then used to remove the variable that has the smallest impact on model performance according to the AUC. However, no variables met the threshold for exclusion based on a Spearman correlation coefficient of 0·8. Therefore, all variables were included in the analysis.

Modelling approach

We used boosted regression trees (BRT) to model the environmental suitability for MAYV occurrence. BRT is a machine learning approach that has been used extensively to develop risk maps of vector-borne pathogens.12, 13, 35, 44, 45 This algorithm uses regression or classification trees to partition the dataset using recursive binary splits. It also incorporates boosting into the model-building process, a procedure that combines many simple models to improve overall model accuracy. The boosting algorithm is an iterative process that fits many small trees sequentially, building on previously fitted trees to improve model performance.46 This process incorporates a level of stochasticity by randomly selecting a subset of the data to fit each tree, thereby reducing the model variance.46 BRT have several advantages including their ability to fit complex nonlinear relationships, handle missing data, and to accommodate many different types of covariates without any need for data transformation.46

One of the most important aspects of modeling species distributions with presence-only data is the selection of pseudo-absence points that represent the range of environmental conditions where the species or pathogen was not detected. Random selection of pseudo-absence points may not be appropriate if the presence locations are spatially biased.47 In most cases, the detection of disease presence locations may be subject to sampling bias if some locations are more likely to be surveyed than others (e.g., locations that are closer to roads).48 Therefore, pseudo-absence points should be selected with a similar level of bias as the presence points to ensure that background and presence locations are biased in the same manner.48 Following the methods of previous modeling studies,11, 49–51 we selected 10,000 background points from the study region, biased towards more populous areas. Therefore, population density was used as a proxy for sampling bias. Pseudoabsence points were selected using the 2° method proposed by Barbet-Massin (2012),52 whereby each pseudo-absence point was at least 2° away from a presence location. In order to improve the model’s discrimination capacity, the pseudoabsence points were down-weighted to ensure that the weighted sum of presence records equaled the sum of weighted background points.52

We subsequently fitted 100 BRT ‘sub-models’ to separate bootstraps of the dataset. The bootstrapped datasets were chosen with replacement, subject to the condition that a minimum of 25 presence and 25 pseudo-absence points were selected. This bootstrapping procedure allowed us to quantify the uncertainty across models and to increase the model’s robustness.53 Each sub-model was fit in R using the gbm.step procedure in the dismo package.54 This function uses cross-validation to identify the optimal number of trees for each sub-model to improve predictive capacity. The remaining BRT hyperparameters were held at their default values (tree complexity = 4, learning rate = 0·005, bag fraction = 0·75, cross-validation folds = 10, step size = 10). The final prediction map represents the mean MAYV suitability of each 5 x 5 km pixel across our ensemble of 100 models. We also generated a map of the model uncertainty, represented by per-pixel standard deviation. In order to avoid extrapolating the model to regions far outside of the MAYV niche, the model predictions were restricted to the Americas.

Two models were constructed. The model presented in the main text (“all-host”) included all human, arthropod, and non-human animal occurrence data (203 occurrence points overall and 170 points after the spatial thinning procedure). An additional model presented in the Supplementary materials (“human-only”) included only human occurrence data (160 occurrence points overall and 143 points after the spatial thinning procedure). Similar to a previous model of Marburg virus risk,51 we opted to use all occurrence points in the primary model to leverage all available data. We were also interested in exploring how the model predictions might change with the inclusion of multiple host types. We compared the output of the two models by subtracting the raster pixel values, allowing us to visualize the difference in predicted suitability between the human-only model and the all-host model. The all-host model is presented in the results below while the human-only model and comparison of model output is presented in Supplementary Materials.

Model evaluation

The predictive accuracy of the model was assessed using several performance metrics including the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, Kappa statistic, and percent correctly classified (PCC). Metrics were calculated for each sub-model using 10-fold cross validation. The cross-validation procedure involved randomly splitting each bootstrapped dataset into 10 folds with approximately the same number of presence and absence records in each fold. The model was subsequently trained on nine of the folds and the withheld fold was used to evaluate the model performance. The performance metrics for each sub-model represent the mean values across the 10 folds. These values were then averaged across each of the 100 sub-models to generate an estimate of overall model performance.

View this table:
Supplementary Table 1.

Evidence Categories and Possible Scores

View this table:
Supplementary Table 2:

Evidence consensus score by country

View this table:
Supplementary Table 3.

Evidence consensus by state (Brazil)

References

  1. ↵
    Anderson, C. R., Downs, W. G., Wattley, G. H., Ahin, N. W. & Reese, A. A. Mayaro virus: a new human disease agent. II. Isolation from blood of patients in Trinidad, B.W.I. Am J Trop Med Hyg 6, 1012–1016, doi:10.4269/ajtmh.1957.6.1012 (1957).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    LeDuc, J. W., Pinheiro, F. P. & Travassos da Rosa, A. P. An outbreak of Mayaro virus disease in Belterra, Brazil. II. Epidemiology. Am J Trop Med Hyg 30, 682–688, doi:10.4269/ajtmh.1981.30.682 (1981).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    Forshey, B. M. et al. Arboviral etiologies of acute febrile illnesses in Western South America, 2000-2007. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 4, e787, doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0000787 (2010).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    Mota, M. T. D., Avilla, C. M. S. & Nogueira, M. L. Mayaro virus: a neglected threat could cause the next worldwide viral epidemic. Future Virology 14, 375–378, doi:10.2217/fvl-2019-0051 (2019).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. ↵
    Hotez, P. J. & Murray, K. O. Dengue, West Nile virus, chikungunya, Zika-and now Mayaro? PLoS Negl Trop Dis 11, e0005462, doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0005462 (2017).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    Halsey, E. S. et al. Long-term clinical, immunologic and virologic follow-up in a cohort infected with mayaro virus. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 87, 126 (2012).
  7. ↵
    Suhrbier, A., Jaffar-Bandjee, M. C. & Gasque, P. Arthritogenic alphaviruses--an overview. Nat Rev Rheumatol 8, 420–429, doi:10.1038/nrrheum.2012.64 (2012).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    Hassing, R. J., Leparc-Goffart, I., Tolou, H., van Doornum, G. & van Genderen, P. J. Cross-reactivity of antibodies to viruses belonging to the Semliki forest serocomplex. Euro Surveill. 15 (2010).
  9. ↵
    Hoch, A. L., Peterson, N. E., LeDuc, J. W. & Pinheiro, F. P. An outbreak of Mayaro virus disease in Belterra, Brazil. III. Entomological and ecological studies. Am J Trop Med Hyg 30, 689–698, doi:10.4269/ajtmh.1981.30.689 (1981).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    de Thoisy, B., Gardon, J., Salas, R. A., Morvan, J. & Kazanji, M. Mayaro virus in wild mammals, French Guiana. Emerg Infect Dis 9, 1326–1329, doi:10.3201/eid0910.030161 (2003).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. ↵
    Talarmin, A. et al. Mayaro virus fever in French Guiana: isolation, identification, and seroprevalence. Am J Trop Med Hyg 59, 452–456, doi:10.4269/ajtmh.1998.59.452 (1998).
    OpenUrlAbstract
  12. ↵
    Izurieta, R. O. et al. Hunting in the Rainforest and Mayaro Virus Infection: An emerging Alphavirus in Ecuador. J Glob Infect Dis 3, 317–323, doi:10.4103/0974-777x.91049 (2011).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    Mourao, M. P. et al. Mayaro fever in the city of Manaus, Brazil, 2007-2008. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 12, 42–46, doi:10.1089/vbz.2011.0669 (2012).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. ↵
    Wiggins, K., Eastmond, B. & Alto, B. W. Transmission potential of Mayaro virus in Florida Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus mosquitoes. Med Vet Entomol 32, 436–442, doi:10.1111/mve.12322 (2018).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    Pan American Health Organization / World Health Organization. Epidemiological Alert: Mayaro Fever. (2019).
  16. ↵
    Lorenz, C., Freitas Ribeiro, A. & Chiaravalloti-Neto, F. Mayaro virus distribution in South America. Acta Trop 198, 105093, doi:10.1016/j.actatropica.2019.105093 (2019).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    Bhatt, S. et al. The global distribution and burden of dengue. Nature 496, 504–507, doi:10.1038/nature12060 (2013).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. ↵
    Messina, J. P. et al. Mapping global environmental suitability for Zika virus. Elife 5, doi:10.7554/eLife.15272 (2016).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    Nsoesie, E. O. et al. Global distribution and environmental suitability for chikungunya virus, 1952 to 2015. Euro Surveill 21, doi:10.2807/1560-7917.Es.2016.21.20.30234 (2016).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. ↵
    Elith, J., Leathwick, J.R., Hastie, T. A working guide to boosted regression trees. Journal of Animal Ecology 77, 802–813 (2008).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  21. ↵
    Brady, O. J. et al. Refining the global spatial limits of dengue virus transmission by evidence-based consensus. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 6, e1760, doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0001760 (2012).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    Celone, M. et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the potential non-human animal reservoirs and arthropod vectors of the Mayaro virus. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 15, e0010016, doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0010016 (2021).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. ↵
    Celone, M. J. et al. A geopositioned, evidence-graded, pan-species compendium of Mayaro Virus occurrence. medRxiv, 2023.2003.2007.23286930, doi:10.1101/2023.03.07.23286930 (2023).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    Hijmans RJ, P. S., Leathwick J, Elith J. dismo: Species Distribution Modeling. 2016. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dismo.
  25. ↵
    Ganjian, N. & Riviere-Cinnamond, A. Mayaro virus in Latin America and the Caribbean. Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health 44, e14, doi:10.26633/rpsp.2020.14 (2020).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  26. ↵
    Blohm, G. et al. Mayaro as a Caribbean traveler: Evidence for multiple introductions and transmission of the virus into Haiti. Int J Infect Dis 87, 151–153, doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2019.07.031 (2019).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    Pigott, D. M. et al. Mapping the zoonotic niche of Ebola virus disease in Africa. Elife 3, e04395, doi:10.7554/eLife.04395 (2014).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    Pigott, D. M. et al. Updates to the zoonotic niche map of Ebola virus disease in Africa. Elife 5, doi:10.7554/eLife.16412 (2016).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. ↵
    Shearer, F. M. et al. Existing and potential infection risk zones of yellow fever worldwide: a modelling analysis. Lancet Glob Health 6, e270–e278, doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(18)30024-x (2018).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  30. ↵
    Dobson, A. P. et al. Ecology and economics for pandemic prevention. Science (New York, N.Y.) 369, 379–381, doi:10.1126/science.abc3189 (2020).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text

References

  1. ↵
    Ramshaw, R. E. et al. A database of geopositioned Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus occurrences. Sci Data 6, 318, doi:10.1038/s41597-019-0330-0 (2019).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. Messina, J. P. et al. A global compendium of human dengue virus occurrence. Sci Data 1, 140004, doi:10.1038/sdata.2014.4 (2014).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. Messina, J. P. et al. A global compendium of human Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever virus occurrence. Sci Data 2, 150016, doi:10.1038/sdata.2015.16 (2015).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    Pigott, D. M. et al. Global database of leishmaniasis occurrence locations, 1960-2012. Sci Data 1, 140036, doi:10.1038/sdata.2014.36 (2014).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    Celone, M. et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the potential non-human animal reservoirs and arthropod vectors of the Mayaro virus. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 15, e0010016, doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0010016 (2021).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. ↵
    Carlson, C. J., Dougherty, E. R. & Getz, W. An Ecological Assessment of the Pandemic Threat of Zika Virus. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 10, e0004968, doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0004968 (2016).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. ↵
    Aiello-Lammens, M. E., Boria, R. A., Radosavljevic, A., Vilela, B. & Anderson, R. P. spThin: an R package for spatial thinning of species occurrence records for use in ecological niche models. Ecography 38, 541–545 (2015).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. ↵
    Brady, O. J. et al. Refining the global spatial limits of dengue virus transmission by evidence-based consensus. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 6, e1760, doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0001760 (2012).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    Pigott, D. M. et al. Global distribution maps of the leishmaniases. Elife 3, doi:10.7554/eLife.02851 (2014).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    Deribe, K. et al. Mapping the global distribution of podoconiosis: Applying an evidence consensus approach. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 13, e0007925, doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0007925 (2019).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. ↵
    Mylne, A. Q. et al. Mapping the zoonotic niche of Lassa fever in Africa. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 109, 483–492, doi:10.1093/trstmh/trv047 (2015).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    Nsoesie, E. O. et al. Global distribution and environmental suitability for chikungunya virus, 1952 to 2015. Euro Surveill 21, doi:10.2807/1560-7917.Es.2016.21.20.30234 (2016).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. ↵
    Messina, J. P. et al. The global distribution of Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 109, 503–513, doi:10.1093/trstmh/trv050 (2015).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    Mourao, M. P. et al. Mayaro fever in the city of Manaus, Brazil, 2007-2008. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 12, 42–46, doi:10.1089/vbz.2011.0669 (2012).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. ↵
    Weiss, D. J. et al. An effective approach for gap-filling continental scale remotely sensed time-series. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 98, 106–118, doi:10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2014.10.001 (2014).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. ↵
    Tatem, A. J., Goetz, S. J. & Hay, S. I. Terra and Aqua: new data for epidemiology and public health. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 6, 33–46, doi:10.1016/j.jag.2004.07.001 (2004).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. ↵
    Huber, J. H., Childs, M. L., Caldwell, J. M. & Mordecai, E. A. Seasonal temperature variation influences climate suitability for dengue, chikungunya, and Zika transmission. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 12, e0006451, doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0006451 (2018).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. ↵
    Pinto, C. S., Confalonieri, U. E. & Mascarenhas, B. M. Ecology of Haemagogus sp. and Sabethes sp. (Diptera: Culicidae) in relation to the microclimates of the Caxiuanã National Forest, Pará, Brazil. Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 104, 592–598 (2009).
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    Hendy, A. et al. The vertical stratification of potential bridge vectors of mosquito-borne viruses in a central Amazonian forest bordering Manaus, Brazil. Sci Rep 10, 18254, doi:10.1038/s41598-020-75178-3 (2020).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. ↵
    Alencar, J. et al. Circadian and seasonal preferences for hematophagy among Haemagogus capricornii, Hg. janthinomys, and Hg. leucocelaenus (Diptera: Culicidae) in different regions of Brazil. Journal of Vector Ecology 33, 389–392 (2008).
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    Beck-Johnson, L. M. et al. The importance of temperature fluctuations in understanding mosquito population dynamics and malaria risk. R Soc Open Sci 4, 160969, doi:10.1098/rsos.160969 (2017).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. Carrington, L. B., Seifert, S. N., Willits, N. H., Lambrechts, L. & Scott, T. W. Large diurnal temperature fluctuations negatively influence Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) life-history traits. J Med Entomol 50, 43–51, doi:10.1603/me11242 (2013).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    Lambrechts, L. et al. Impact of daily temperature fluctuations on dengue virus transmission by Aedes aegypti. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108, 7460–7465, doi:10.1073/pnas.1101377108 (2011).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    Celone, M. et al. An ecological niche model to predict the geographic distribution of Haemagogus janthinomys, Dyar, 1921 a yellow fever and Mayaro virus vector, in South America. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 16, e0010564, doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0010564 (2022).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. ↵
    Chadee, D. D., Tikasingh, E. S. & Ganesh, R. Seasonality, biting cycle and parity of the yellow fever vector mosquito Haemagogus janthinomys in Trinidad. Med Vet Entomol 6, 143–148, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2915.1992.tb00592.x (1992).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    Tubaki, R. M., de Menezes, R. M. T., Vesgueiro, F. T. & Cardoso, R. P. Observations on Haemagogus janthinomys Dyar (Diptera: Culicidae) and other Mosquito Populations within Tree Holes in a Gallery Forest in the Northwestern Region of Sao Paulo State, Brazil. Neotropical Entomology 39, 664–670, doi:10.1590/s1519-566x2010000400030 (2010).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. Alencar, J. et al. INFLUENCE OF CLIMATIC FACTORS ON THE POPULATION DYNAMICS OF HAEMAGOGUS JANTHINOMYS (DIPTERA: CULICIDAE), A VECTOR OF SYLVATIC YELLOW FEVER. Entomological News 121, 45–52, doi:10.3157/021.121.0109 (2010).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  28. ↵
    Silva, S. O. F., Ferreira de Mello, C., Figueiró, R., de Aguiar Maia, D. & Alencar, J. Distribution of the Mosquito Communities (Diptera: Culicidae) in Oviposition Traps Introduced into the Atlantic Forest in the State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Vector borne and zoonotic diseases (Larchmont, N.Y.) 18, 214–221, doi:10.1089/vbz.2017.2222 (2018).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. ↵
    Wan, Z. & Li, Z.-L. A physics-based algorithm for retrieving land-surface emissivity and temperature from EOS/MODIS data. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 35, 980–996 (1997).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  30. ↵
    Funk, C. et al. The climate hazards infrared precipitation with stations--a new environmental record for monitoring extremes. Sci Data 2, 150066, doi:10.1038/sdata.2015.66 (2015).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    Ali, R. et al. Changing patterns in the distribution of the Mayaro virus vector Haemagogus species in Trinidad, West Indies. Acta Trop 199, 105108, doi:10.1016/j.actatropica.2019.105108 (2019).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. ↵
    Didan, K. (ed NASA EOSDIS Land Processes DAAC) (2015).
  33. ↵
    Lin, Q. in 2012 5th International Congress on Image and Signal Processing. 1043–1046.
  34. ↵
    Shearer, F. M. et al. Existing and potential infection risk zones of yellow fever worldwide: a modelling analysis. Lancet Glob Health 6, e270–e278, doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(18)30024-x (2018).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  35. ↵
    Messina, J. P. et al. Mapping global environmental suitability for Zika virus. Elife 5, doi:10.7554/eLife.15272 (2016).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    Lobser, S. & Cohen, W. MODIS tasselled cap: land cover characteristics expressed through transformed MODIS data. International Journal of Remote Sensing 28, 5079–5101 (2007).
    OpenUrl
  37. ↵
    Izurieta, R. O. et al. Hunting in the Rainforest and Mayaro Virus Infection: An emerging Alphavirus in Ecuador. J Glob Infect Dis 3, 317–323, doi:10.4103/0974-777x.91049 (2011).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. Schaeffer, M., Gajdusek, D. C., Lema, A. B. & Eichenwald, H. Epidemic jungle fevers among Okinawan colonists in the Bolivian rain forest. I. Epidemiology. Am J Trop Med Hyg 8, 372–396, doi:10.4269/ajtmh.1959.8.372 (1959).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. ↵
    LeDuc, J. W., Pinheiro, F. P. & Travassos da Rosa, A. P. An outbreak of Mayaro virus disease in Belterra, Brazil. II. Epidemiology. Am J Trop Med Hyg 30, 682–688, doi:10.4269/ajtmh.1981.30.682 (1981).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    Hoch, A. L., Peterson, N. E., LeDuc, J. W. & Pinheiro, F. P. An outbreak of Mayaro virus disease in Belterra, Brazil. III. Entomological and ecological studies. Am J Trop Med Hyg 30, 689–698, doi:10.4269/ajtmh.1981.30.689 (1981).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. ↵
    Friedl, M. & Sulla-Menashe, D. (ed NASA EOSDIS Land Processes DAAC.) (2015).
  42. ↵
    Friedl, M. A. et al. MODIS Collection 5 global land cover: Algorithm refinements and characterization of new datasets. Remote sensing of Environment 114, 168–182 (2010).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  43. ↵
    Danielson, J. J. & Gesch, D. B. Global Multi-resolution Terrain Elevation Data 2010 (GMTED2010). 26 (2011).
  44. ↵
    Hardcastle, A. N. et al. Informing Rift Valley Fever preparedness by mapping seasonally varying environmental suitability. Int J Infect Dis 99, 362–372, doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2020.07.043 (2020).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  45. ↵
    Messina, J. P. et al. The current and future global distribution and population at risk of dengue. Nat Microbiol 4, 1508–1515, doi:10.1038/s41564-019-0476-8 (2019).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    Elith, J., Leathwick, J.R., Hastie, T. A working guide to boosted regression trees. Journal of Animal Ecology 77, 802–813 (2008).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  47. ↵
    Phillips, S. J. D. M. Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: new extensions and acomprehensive evaluation. Ecography 31, 161–175 (2008).
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  48. ↵
    Phillips, S. J. et al. Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo-absence data. Ecol Appl 19, 181–197, doi:10.1890/07-2153.1 (2009).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  49. ↵
    Pigott, D. M. et al. Mapping the zoonotic niche of Ebola virus disease in Africa. Elife 3, e04395, doi:10.7554/eLife.04395 (2014).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. Pigott, D. M. et al. Mapping the zoonotic niche of Marburg virus disease in Africa. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 109, 366–378, doi:10.1093/trstmh/trv024 (2015).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. ↵
    Shearer, F. M. et al. Estimating Geographical Variation in the Risk of Zoonotic Plasmodium knowlesi Infection in Countries Eliminating Malaria. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 10, e0004915, doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0004915 (2016).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  52. ↵
    Barbet-Massin, M., Jiguet, F., Albert, C. H. & Thuiller, W. Selecting pseudo-absences for species distribution models: how, where and how many? Methods in ecology and evolution 3, 327–338 (2012).
    OpenUrl
  53. ↵
    Araújo, M. B. & New, M. Ensemble forecasting of species distributions. Trends in ecology & evolution 22, 42–47 (2007).
    OpenUrl
  54. ↵
    Hijmans RJ, P. S., Leathwick J, Elith J. dismo: Species Distribution Modeling. 2016. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dismo.
  55. Outbreak News. Brazil: 8 Mayaro virus cases reported in Pará in 2021, <https://outbreaknewstoday.com/brazil-8-mayaro-virus-cases-reported-in-para-in-2021/> (2022).
  56. de Paula Silveira-Lacerda, E., et al. Molecular epidemiological investigation of Mayaro virus in febrile patients from Goiania City, 2017-2018. Infect Genet Evol, 104981, doi:10.1016/j.meegid.2021.104981 (2021).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  57. Gomes, F. A. et al. Serological evidence of arboviruses and coccidia infecting horses in the Amazonian region of Brazil. PloS One 14, e0225895, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0225895 (2019).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. de Curcio, J. S. et al. Detection of Mayaro virus in Aedes aegypti mosquitoes circulating in Goiânia-Goiás-Brazil. Microbes Infect 24, 104948, doi:10.1016/j.micinf.2022.104948 (2022).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  59. Pan American Health Organization. Epidemiological Alert, Outbreak of Mayaro Fever in the Americas (7 June 2010), <https://iris.paho.org/handle/10665.2/50840> (2010).
  60. Blohm, G. M. et al. Isolation of Mayaro Virus from a Venezuelan Patient with Febrile Illness, Arthralgias, and Rash: Further Evidence of Regional Strain Circulation and Possible Long-Term Endemicity. Am J Trop Med Hyg 101, 1219–1225, doi:10.4269/ajtmh.19-0357 (2019).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  61. Auguste, A. J. et al. Evolutionary and Ecological Characterization of Mayaro Virus Strains Isolated during an Outbreak, Venezuela, 2010. Emerging Infectious Diseases 21, 1742–1750, doi:10.3201/eid2110.141660 (2015).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. Medina, G. et al. Genetic diversity of Venezuelan alphaviruses and circulation of a Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus subtype IAB strain during an interepizootic period. Am J Trop Med Hyg 93, 7–10, doi:10.4269/ajtmh.14-0543 (2015).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  63. Gobierno Regional de Cusco - Direccion Regional de Salud Cusco. Boletín de Vigilancia en Salud Pública. Direccion Ejecutiva de Intelligencia Sanitaria, Vol. XIX - No. 8 (2019).
  64. de la Cruz, C. H., Martínez, S. L. A., Failoc-Rojas, V. E. & Aguilar-Gamboa, F. R. Momento de considerar otras arbovirosis luego del virus mayaro. Rev Cubana Med Gen Integr 35 (2019).
  65. Aguilar-Luis, M. A. et al. A silent public health threat: emergence of Mayaro virus and co-infection with Dengue in Peru. BMC Res Notes 14, 29, doi:10.1186/s13104-021-05444-8 (2021).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  66. Perez, J. G. et al. Serologic Evidence of Zoonotic Alphaviruses in Humans from an Indigenous Community in the Peruvian Amazon. Am J Trop Med Hyg, doi:10.4269/ajtmh.18-0850 (2019).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. World Health Organization. Mayaro virus disease - French Guiana, France, <https://www.who.int/csr/don/25-october-2020-mayaro-fever-french-guiana-france/en/> (2020).
  68. de Thoisy, B., Gardon, J., Salas, R. A., Morvan, J. & Kazanji, M. Mayaro virus in wild mammals, French Guiana. Emerg Infect Dis 9, 1326–1329, doi:10.3201/eid0910.030161 (2003).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  69. Gonzalez-Escobar, G., Churaman, C., Rampersad, C., Singh, R. & Nathaniel, S. Mayaro virus detection in patients from rural and urban areas in Trinidad and Tobago during the Chikungunya and Zika virus outbreaks. Pathog Glob Health, 1–9, doi:10.1080/20477724.2021.1878445 (2021).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  70. Ali, R. et al. Characterization of the virome associated with Haemagogus mosquitoes in Trinidad, West Indies. Sci Rep 11, 16584, doi:10.1038/s41598-021-95842-6 (2021).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  71. Forshey, B. M. et al. Arboviral etiologies of acute febrile illnesses in Western South America, 2000-2007. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 4, e787, doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0000787 (2010).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. Prías-Landínez, D. E., Bernal-Cúbides, C., de Torres, S. V. & Romero-León, M. Encuesta serologica de virus transmitidos por artropodos. Bol Oficina Sanit Panam (1970).
  73. Groot, H. Estudios sobre virus transmitidos por artropodos en Colombia. Rev Acad Colomb Cienc 12, 191–217, doi:10.18257/raccefyn.565 (1964).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  74. Groot, H., Morales, A. & Vidales, H. Virus isolations from forest mosquitoes in San Vicente de Chucuri, Colombia. Am J Trop Med Hyg 10, 397–402, doi:10.4269/ajtmh.1961.10.397 (1961).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  75. Blohm, G. et al. Mayaro as a Caribbean traveler: Evidence for multiple introductions and transmission of the virus into Haiti. Int J Infect Dis 87, 151–153, doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2019.07.031 (2019).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  76. Pan American Health Organization / World Health Organization. Epidemiological Alert: Mayaro Fever. (2019).
  77. Downs, W. G. & Anderson, C. R. Distribution of Immunity to Mayaro Virus Infection in the West Indies. West Indian Med J 7, 190–194 (1958).
    OpenUrl
  78. Carrera, J.-P., et al. Endemic and epidemic human alphavirus infections in Eastern Panama; An Analysis of Population-based Cross-Sectional Surveys. bioRxiv, 2020.2001.2010.901462, doi:10.1101/2020.01.10.901462 (2020).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  79. Seymour, C., Peralta, P. H. & Montgomery, G. G. Serologic evidence of natural togavirus infections in Panamanian sloths and other vertebrates. Am J Trop Med Hyg 32, 854–861, doi:10.4269/ajtmh.1983.32.854 (1983).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  80. Galindo, P., Adames, A., Peralta, P., Johnson, C. & Read, R. Impacto de la hidroeléctrica de Bayano en la transmisión de arbovirus. Rev Med Pan 8, 89–134 (1983).
    OpenUrl
  81. Karbaat, J. Arbovirus infections in Dutch military personnel stationed in Surinam. Trop Geogr Med 17, 187–189 (1964).
    OpenUrl
  82. Metselaar, D. Isolation of arboviruses of group A and group C in Surinam. Trop Geogr Med 18, 137–142 (1966).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  83. Navarrete-Espinosa, J. & Gomez-Dantes, H. Arbovirus causales de fiebre hemorrágica en pacientes del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc 44, 347–353 (2006).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  84. Fuentes, L. G. & Mora, J. A. Encuesta serologica sobre arbovirus en Costa Rica. Rev. Latinoam. Microbiol. 13, 25–28 (1971).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  85. Fumagalli, M. J. et al. Development of an Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay To Detect Antibodies Targeting Recombinant Envelope Protein 2 of Mayaro Virus. Journal of clinical microbiology 57, doi:10.1128/jcm.01892-18 (2019).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  86. de Souza Costa, M. C., et al. Arbovirus investigation in patients from Mato Grosso during Zika and Chikungunya virus introdution in Brazil, 2015-2016. Acta Trop 190, 395–402, doi:10.1016/j.actatropica.2018.12.019 (2019).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  87. Pilatti, M., et al. Perfil clínico-epidemiológico dos pacientes infectados com o vírus Mayaro (MAYV) em Mato Grosso. TCC-Biomedicina (2018).
  88. Zuchi, N., Heinen, L. B., Santos, M. A., Pereira, F. C. & Slhessarenko, R. D. Molecular detection of Mayaro virus during a dengue outbreak in the state of Mato Grosso, Central-West Brazil. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 109, 820–823, doi:10.1590/0074-0276140108 (2014).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  89. da Silva Neves, N. A., et al. Chikungunya, Zika, Mayaro, and Equine Encephalitis virus detection in adult Culicinae from South Central Mato Grosso, Brazil, during the rainy season of 2018. Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] 53, 63–70, doi:10.1007/s42770-021-00646-5 (2022).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  90. Correa, J. F. Avaliação sorológica e molecular de pacientes com suspeita de arboviroses em uma unidade municipal de saúde de Goiânia-Goiás. 2020. Mestrado em Ciências Biológicas thesis, Universidade Federal de Goiás, (2020).
  91. Saatkamp, C. J. et al. Mayaro virus detection in the western region of Pará state, Brazil. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop 54, e0055–2020, doi:10.1590/0037-8682-0055-2020 (2021).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  92. Casseb, A. d. R., et al. Prevalence of antibodies to equine alphaviruses in the State of Pará, Brazil. Arq. Inst. Biol. 83, doi:10.1590/1808-1657000202014 (2016).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  93. Azevedo, R. S. et al. Mayaro fever virus, Brazilian amazon. Emerg Infect Dis 15, 1830, doi:10.3201/eid1511.090461 (2009).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  94. Meneses, C. A. R. Identificação de arbovírus, mayaro e oropouche em amostras com dengue negativo NS1 no estado de Roraima, no ano de 2012 Mestrado em Ciencias da Saude thesis, Universidade Federal de Roraima, (2013).
  95. Tavares-Neto, J. et al. Pesquisa de anticorpos para arbovírus no soro de residentes no povoado de Corte de Pedra, Valença, Bahia. Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 81, 351–358, doi:10.1590/S0074-02761986000400001 (1986).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  96. Moreira-Soto, A. et al. Limited Evidence for Infection of Urban and Peri-urban Nonhuman Primates with Zika and Chikungunya Viruses in Brazil. mSphere 3, doi:10.1128/mSphere.00523-17 (2018).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  97. Catenacci, L. S. Abordagem one health para vigilância de arbovirus na Mata Atlântica do sul da Bahia, Brasil. Doutorado em Virologia thesis, Instituto Evandro Chagas, (2017).
  98. Barros, E. L. T. Caracterização molecular de Chikungunya virus e investigação dos arbovírus Dengue virus e Mayaro virus no estado do Piauí Mestre em Ciências Biomédicas thesis, Universidade Federal do Piauí, (2018).
  99. Laroque, P. O. et al. Levantamento soroepidemiológico para arbovírus em macaco-prego-galego (Cebus flavius) de vida livre no estado da Paraíba e em macaco-prego (Cebus libidinosus) de cativeiro do nordeste do Brasil. Pesq Vet Bras 34, 462–468 (2014).
    OpenUrl
  100. Coimbra, T. L. et al. Mayaro virus: imported cases of human infection in Sao Paulo State, Brazil. Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo 49, 221–224, doi:10.1590/s0036-46652007000400005 (2007).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  101. Paulo, M. B. et al. Serosurvey of Arbovirus in Free-Living Non-Human Primates (Sapajus Spp.) in Brazil. Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry 2 (2015).
  102. da Silva, M. S. Estudo de casos suspeitos de dengue negativos no teste sorológico para detecção do antígeno NS1: falha no diagnóstico ou emergência de outras arboviroses? Mestrado em Imunologia Básica e Aplicada thesis, Universidade Federal do Amazonas, (2017).
  103. Nunes, J. P. P. One-Step reverse transcriptase PCR for detection of arboviruses in serum samples of patients assisted in Basic health Units in the State of Maranhão, Brazil. Braz J Dev 5 (2019).
  104. Dos Santos Souza Marinho, R., et al. Re-emergence of mayaro virus and coinfection with chikungunya during an outbreak in the state of Tocantins/Brazil. BMC Res Notes 15, 271, doi:10.1186/s13104-022-06153-6 (2022).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  105. da Silva-Nunes, M. The Acre Project: the epidemiology of malaria and arthropod-borne virus infections in a rural Amazonian population. Cad. Saúde Pública (2006).
  106. Romeiro, M. F., Fumagalli, M. J., Dos Anjos, A. B. & Figueiredo, L. T. M. Serological evidence of Mayaro virus infection in blood donors from São Carlos, São Paulo, Brazil. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 114, 686–689, doi:10.1093/trstmh/traa016 (2020).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  107. Souto, R. N. P. & Souto, R. C. C. Sorologia para arbovírus em população humana da região da Reserva Extrativista do Cajari, Amapá, Brasil. Biota Amazônia 2, 8–14, doi:DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18561/2179-5746/biotaamazonia.v2n2p8-14 (2012).
    OpenUrl
  108. Niederman, J. C., Henderson, J. R., Opton, E. M., Black, F. L. & Skvrnova, K. A nationwide serum survey of Brazilian military recruits, 1964. II. Antibody patterns with arboviruses, polioviruses, measles and mumps. Am J Epidemiol 86, 319–329 (1967).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  109. Araujo, F. A. A. et al. Anticorpos antialfavírus detectados em equinos durante diferentes epizootias de encefalite equina, Paraíba, 2009. Rev Bras Ciênc Vet 19, 80–85, doi:10.4322/rbcv.2014.086 (2012).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  110. Araujo, F. A. A., et al. Vol. 1 (ed Ministério da Saúde Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde) (Boletim Eletrônico Epidemiologico, 2003).
  111. Degallier, N. et al. Modifications of arbovirus transmission in relation to construction of dams in Brazilian Amazonia Ciência e Cultura 44, 124–135 (1992).
    OpenUrl
  112. Ziegler, M. F. Mechanism that triggers the inflammatory process by Mayaro virus is discovered, <https://agencia.fapesp.br/mechanism-that-triggers-the-inflammatory-process-during-infection-by-mayaro-virus-is-discovered/32066/> (2019).
Back to top
Posted April 17, 2023.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
Understanding transmission risk and predicting environmental suitability for Mayaro Virus in the Americas
Michael Celone, Sean Beeman, Barbara A. Han, Alexander M. Potter, David B. Pecor, Bernard Okech, Simon Pollett
medRxiv 2023.04.13.23288376; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.04.13.23288376
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area