Table 1.
Number of females exposed (1) in xenodiagnoses, and (2) to susceptible hosts, by species of Leishmania and infected host.
Table 2.
Lutzomyia cruzi females that fed during xenodiagnoses, according to host and species of Leishmania.
Table 3.
Number of engorged, dissected, infected, and potentially infective Lutzomyia cruzi females in relation to host, number of days after the xenodiagnosis, and species of Leishmania.
Fig 1.
Digestion of amplified products of the ITS1 region of Leishmania with the HaeIII restriction enzyme.
1: 100-bp ladder marker; 2: negative control; 3–10: sand flies fed on hamsters infected with L. amazonensis; 11–14: sand flies fed on dogs infected with L. infantum; 15: positive control L. amazonensis (IFLA/BR/1967/PH8); 16: positive control L. infantum (MHOM/BR/1972/BH46); 17: sample not digested by HaeIII; 18: 100-bp ladder marker.
Fig 2.
Survival estimates using the Kaplan-Meier estimator for engorged, non-engorged, infected, and non-infected females from cohorts exposed to dogs (A) and hamsters (B).
Table 4.
Descriptive measures (in days) obtained using the Kaplan-Meier estimator, by host and species of Leishmania.
Table 5.
Estimates obtained from the Cox regression models for the female sand fly group that was engorged after xenodiagnosis with dogs.
Table 6.
Estimates obtained for the Cox regression model adjusted by considering the covariates L. infantum infection, egg-laying, and egg-laying time.
Table 7.
Estimates obtained for the Cox regression model adjusted by considering the covariates egg-laying and egg-laying time.
Table 8.
Estimates obtained from the Cox regression models for the female sand fly group that was engorged after xenodiagnosis with hamsters.
Table 9.
Attractiveness of hosts to sand flies, according to the different methods employed.