The Analytical Scientist
  • Explore

    Explore

    • Latest
    • News & Research
    • Trends & Challenges
    • Keynote Interviews
    • Opinion & Personal Narratives
    • Product Profiles
    • App Notes
    • The Product Book

    Featured Topics

    • Mass Spectrometry
    • Chromatography
    • Spectroscopy

    Issues

    • Latest Issue
    • Archive
  • Topics

    Techniques & Tools

    • Mass Spectrometry
    • Chromatography
    • Spectroscopy
    • Microscopy
    • Sensors
    • Data and AI

    • View All Topics

    Applications & Fields

    • Clinical
    • Environmental
    • Food, Beverage & Agriculture
    • Pharma and Biopharma
    • Omics
    • Forensics
  • People & Profiles

    People & Profiles

    • Power List
    • Voices in the Community
    • Sitting Down With
    • Authors & Contributors
  • Business & Education

    Business & Education

    • Innovation
    • Business & Entrepreneurship
    • Career Pathways
  • Events
    • Live Events
    • Webinars
  • Multimedia
    • Video
    • Content Hubs
Subscribe
Subscribe

False

The Analytical Scientist / Issues / 2026 / August / A Matter of Mosquito Taste
Environmental Environmental News and Research

A Matter of Mosquito Taste

Behavioral testing, GC-MS, and microbiome profiling show that three mosquito species differ in which people they find attractive

08/13/2026 3 min read
  • Full Article
  • Summary
  • Report
  • Quiz
  • Poll

Share

A mosquito is examined under a microscope in the lab of FIU professor Matthew DeGennaro. Credit: Christopher Necuze/Florida International University

A study of 119 human volunteers has found that three disease-spreading mosquito species are attracted to different people, suggesting that bite risk depends not only on human scent but on which mosquito species is doing the sensing. 

The Florida International University-led study compared attraction patterns in Aedes aegypti, Aedes albopictus, and Culex quinquefasciatus, mosquitoes associated with the spread of diseases including dengue, Zika, yellow fever, and West Nile virus. Rather than identifying a universal “mosquito magnet,” each species favored a different subset of volunteers. 

“We didn’t expect the species to prefer different people when we started the study,” said lead author Kaylee Marrero in FIU’s press release. “Each species having a distinct microbial signature that they use as a cue was so surprising to me.” 

To link mosquito preference with chemical and microbial signatures, the team combined behavioral testing in a uniport olfactometer with volatile and microbiome profiling. Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus were tested against participants’ arms, while night-feeding Culex quinquefasciatus was tested using participant-worn nylon sleeves. The researchers also collected dynamic headspace samples from participants’ arms for gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and used full-length 16S sequencing to profile skin bacteria. 

The behavioral tests showed that no participant was highly attractive to all three species. Attraction patterns were only weakly correlated between Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus, and showed little correlation between either Aedes species and Culex quinquefasciatus. 

Those species-specific preferences were reflected in the chemical data. High attraction for Aedes aegypti and Culex quinquefasciatus was associated largely with lower abundance of certain volatile compounds, while Aedes albopictus attraction was associated with the presence of specific odor cues, including ketones and plant-like volatile compounds. 

Microbial patterns also varied by species. The team detected 246 bacterial taxa across the participants, with only one shared by all individuals. Skin bacterial signatures differed between high- and low-attraction groups, and the taxa associated with attraction were not the same across mosquito species. 

A separate analysis found that Aedes aegypti was slightly more attracted to male than female participants, a difference not observed for the other two species. The authors caution that further work will be needed to determine which odor or microbiome features are driving that effect. 

“Isolating the components of human odor that attract or repel mosquitoes could lead to novel strategies to combat vector-borne diseases,” said Matthew DeGennaro, who leads the research team and directs FIU’s Biomolecular Sciences Institute. 

The study moves mosquito attraction beyond the idea of a single “mosquito magnet” profile. Instead, it points to species-specific chemical and microbial cues that could be tested as targets for repellents, attractants, or surveillance tools matched to the mosquitoes driving local disease risk. 

Newsletters

Receive the latest analytical science news, personalities, education, and career development – weekly to your inbox.

Newsletter Signup Image

False

Advertisement

Recommended

False

Related Content

 This Week’s Mass Spec News
Environmental
This Week’s Mass Spec News

April 4, 2025

2 min read

The Climate Conversation: Part Two – Michael Gonsior
Environmental
The Climate Conversation: Part Two – Michael Gonsior

December 5, 2024

7 min read

In the second part of our interview, Michael Gonsior explores the pressing challenges in carbon cycle research, transformative tools and technologies, as well as analytical glimmers of hope

More Bang for Your Buck
Environmental
More Bang for Your Buck

December 4, 2024

1 min read

Researchers develop more stable catalysts for dry reforming of methane – a promising method for carbon capture and utilization (CCU)

Portable PFAS Profiling
Environmental
Portable PFAS Profiling

December 13, 2024

1 min read

Using nanopore technology, Chang Liu and Xiaojun Wei discuss their accessible and inexpensive new option for detecting “forever chemicals” PFAS

Affiliations:

Specialties:

Areas of Expertise:

Contributions:

False

The Analytical Scientist
Subscribe

About

  • About Us
  • Work at Conexiant Europe
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertise With Us
  • Contact Us

Copyright © 2026 Texere Publishing Limited (trading as Conexiant), with registered number 08113419 whose registered office is at Booths No. 1, Booths Park, Chelford Road, Knutsford, England, WA16 8GS.