Global Distribution Maps of the Leishmaniases

  1. David M Pigott  Is a corresponding author
  2. Samir Bhatt
  3. Nick Golding
  4. Kirsten A Duda
  5. Katherine E Battle
  6. Oliver J Brady
  7. Jane P Messina
  8. Yves Balard
  9. Patrick Bastien
  10. Francine Pratlong
  11. John S Brownstein
  12. Clark Freifeld
  13. Sumiko R Mekaru
  14. Peter W Gething
  15. Dylan B George
  16. Monica F Myers
  17. Richard Reithinger
  18. Simon I Hay
  1. University of Oxford, United Kingdom
  2. UFR Médecine, Université Montpellier 1 and UMR 'MiVEGEC', CNRS 5290/IRD 224, France
  3. CHRU de Montpellier, Centre National de Référence des Leishmanioses, France
  4. Harvard Medical School, United States
  5. Boston University, United States
  6. Boston Children's Hospital, United States
  7. National Institutes of Health, United States
  8. RTI International, United States

Abstract

The leishmaniases are vector-borne diseases that have a broad global distribution throughout much of the Americas, Africa and Asia. Despite representing a significant public health burden, our understanding of the global distribution of the leishmaniases remains vague, reliant upon expert opinion and limited to poor spatial resolution. A global assessment of the consensus of evidence for leishmaniasis was performed at a sub-national level by aggregating information from a variety of sources. A database of records of cutaneous and visceral leishmaniasis occurrence was compiled from published literature, online reports, strain archives and GenBank accessions. These, with a suite of biologically relevant environmental covariates, were used in a boosted regression tree modelling framework to generate global environmental risk maps for the leishmaniases. These high-resolution evidence-based maps can help direct future surveillance activities, identify areas to target for disease control and inform future burden estimation efforts.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. David M Pigott

    University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    david.pigott@zoo.ox.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Samir Bhatt

    University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Nick Golding

    University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Kirsten A Duda

    University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Katherine E Battle

    University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Oliver J Brady

    University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Jane P Messina

    University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Yves Balard

    UFR Médecine, Université Montpellier 1 and UMR 'MiVEGEC', CNRS 5290/IRD 224, Montpellier, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Patrick Bastien

    CHRU de Montpellier, Centre National de Référence des Leishmanioses, Montpellier, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Francine Pratlong

    CHRU de Montpellier, Centre National de Référence des Leishmanioses, Montpellier, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. John S Brownstein

    Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Clark Freifeld

    Boston University, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Sumiko R Mekaru

    Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Peter W Gething

    University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Dylan B George

    National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Monica F Myers

    University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Richard Reithinger

    RTI International, Washington DC, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Simon I Hay

    University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Stephen Tollman, Wits University, South Africa

Version history

  1. Received: March 23, 2014
  2. Accepted: June 26, 2014
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: June 27, 2014 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: July 22, 2014 (version 2)

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

  • 9,087
    views
  • 1,173
    downloads
  • 186
    citations

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

Download links

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

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

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

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

  1. David M Pigott
  2. Samir Bhatt
  3. Nick Golding
  4. Kirsten A Duda
  5. Katherine E Battle
  6. Oliver J Brady
  7. Jane P Messina
  8. Yves Balard
  9. Patrick Bastien
  10. Francine Pratlong
  11. John S Brownstein
  12. Clark Freifeld
  13. Sumiko R Mekaru
  14. Peter W Gething
  15. Dylan B George
  16. Monica F Myers
  17. Richard Reithinger
  18. Simon I Hay
(2014)
Global Distribution Maps of the Leishmaniases
eLife 3:e02851.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02851

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02851

Further reading

    1. Epidemiology and Global Health
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Edited by Prabhat Jha et al.
    Collection Updated

    eLife has published papers on many tropical diseases, including malaria, Ebola, leishmaniases, Dengue and African sleeping sickness.

    1. Epidemiology and Global Health
    Xiaoxin Yu, Roger S Zoh ... David B Allison
    Review Article

    We discuss 12 misperceptions, misstatements, or mistakes concerning the use of covariates in observational or nonrandomized research. Additionally, we offer advice to help investigators, editors, reviewers, and readers make more informed decisions about conducting and interpreting research where the influence of covariates may be at issue. We primarily address misperceptions in the context of statistical management of the covariates through various forms of modeling, although we also emphasize design and model or variable selection. Other approaches to addressing the effects of covariates, including matching, have logical extensions from what we discuss here but are not dwelled upon heavily. The misperceptions, misstatements, or mistakes we discuss include accurate representation of covariates, effects of measurement error, overreliance on covariate categorization, underestimation of power loss when controlling for covariates, misinterpretation of significance in statistical models, and misconceptions about confounding variables, selecting on a collider, and p value interpretations in covariate-inclusive analyses. This condensed overview serves to correct common errors and improve research quality in general and in nutrition research specifically.