Table 2 Advantages and disadvantages between Direct Skin Feeding Assay (DSFA) and Membrane Feeding Assay (MFA)
DSFA | MFA | |
|---|---|---|
Advantages | • Closely resembles natural feeding • No delay between obtaining patient blood sample and and mosquito feeding • Prevents needle-stick injury • Higher mosquito feeding rates | • Most diagnostic assay require venous blood • Patient more likely to give consent • Fewer ethical considerations/constraints • Allows sampling from wider age-range group (including children) • Allows using large number of mosquitoes and/or different species of mosquitoes • Allows manipulation of viral titre |
Disadvantages | • Patient less likely to provide consent • Ethical approval required (difficult or impossible to obtain in some countries) • Exclusion of children based on ethical considerations • Potential exposure of patients to other arboviruses • Risk of experiments being terminated during feeding due to patient’s discomfort | • Delay between sampling and mosquito feeding • Potential exposure of phlebotomist to blood-borne pathogens (needle-stick injury) • Need for patient to undergo needle penetration (potentially aversive in some cases) • Low mosquito feeding rates |