Visitors   Views   Downloads

A comparison between ‘wet’ and ‘dry’ dissections for the assessment of parity in Anopheles arabiensis and determination of sac stage in mosquitoes alive or dead on collection

View preprint
A comparison between ‘wet’ and ‘dry’ dissections for the assessment of parity in Anopheles arabiensis and determination of sac stage in mosquitoes alive or dead on collection https://t.co/pQAKX6XChv
NOT PEER-REVIEWED
"PeerJ Preprints" is a venue for early communication or feedback before peer review. Data may be preliminary.

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

View peer-reviewed version

Supplemental Information

Excel files of the data

Explanations in sheet 1

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.26606v1/supp-1

Additional Information

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author Contributions

Jacques D Charlwood conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Erzelia VE Tomás conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, approved the final draft.

Amanuel Kidane contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, approved the final draft, provided logistical backup in the field.

Selam Mihreteab approved the final draft, provided logistical backup in the field.

Corey LeClair conceived and designed the experiments, analyzed the data, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Data Deposition

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

The raw data is supplied as supplemental files to the main manuscript

Funding

The work in Tanzania was supported by the Medical Research Council of Great Britain (MR/L004437/1 Rowland). The authors received no funding for the work in Eritrea. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.


Add your feedback

Before adding feedback, consider if it can be asked as a question instead, and if so then use the Question tab. Pointing out typos is fine, but authors are encouraged to accept only substantially helpful feedback.

Some Markdown syntax is allowed: _italic_ **bold** ^superscript^ ~subscript~ %%blockquote%% [link text](link URL)
 
By posting this you agree to PeerJ's commenting policies