| Literature DB >> 25245258 |
Liang Bai, Guo-ding Zhu, Hua-yun Zhou, Jian-xia Tang, Ju-lin Li, Sui Xu, Mei-hua Zhang, Li-nong Yao, Guang-quan Huang, Yong-bin Wang, Hong-wei Zhang, Si-bao Wang, Jun Cao1, Qi Gao.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anopheles sinensis is one of the most important malaria vectors in China and other Southeast Asian countries. High levels of resistance have been reported in this species due to the long-term use of insecticides, especially pyrethroids, for public health and agricultural purposes. Knockdown resistance (kdr) caused by a single base pair mutation in the gene encoding the sodium channel is strongly associated with pyrethroid insecticide resistance in many Anopheles mosquitoes. There are few methods currently available for detecting kdr mutations in An. sinensis.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25245258 PMCID: PMC4182860 DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-13-379
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Figure 1The collection sites for in central China.
Figure 2Schematic representation of the primers and probes used to detect mutations in . Arrows represent the forward primer (left) and the reverse primer (right). The box represents the location where the probe used to detect wild-type (red) and mutated genotypes anneals.
Figure 3Comparison of DNA sequencing and AllGlo-qPCR amplification of TTG, TTT and TGT in . The panels on the left show the sequencing results, and the panels on the right show the AllGlo-qPCR amplification curves. A: TTG homozygote; B: TTT homozygote; C: TGT homozygote; D: TTG/TTT heterozygote; E: TTT/TGT heterozygote; F: TTG/TGT heterozygote; NTC: no template control.
Figure 4Scatter plot analysis of mutations in detected by AllGlo-qPCR. Endpoint fluorescence intensities between (A) FAM and VIC/HEX; (B) FAM and CY5; (C) VIC/HEX and CY5. PCR was performed in 96-well plates. The FAM, VIC/HEX and CY5 fluorescence intensities were measured and corrected for background and then plotted in a bi-directional scatter plot using Microsoft Excel. NTC: no template control.
Comparison of mutations in detected by AS-PCR, -qPCR and AllGlo-qPCR versus direct sequencing
| Genotype | Detection assay* | Sensitivity (95% confidence level) | Specificity (95% confidence level) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sequencing | AS-PCR |
| AllGlo-qPCR | AS-PCR |
| AllGlo-qPCR | AS-PCR |
| AllGlo-qPCR | |
| TTG/TTG | 62 | 59 | 62 | 62 | 95% (87%,98%) | 100% (94%,100%) | 100% (94%,100%) | 100% (96%,100%) | 100% (96%,100%) | 100% (96%,100%) |
| TTT/TTT | 61 | 60a | 56 | 59 | 89% (78%,94%) | 92% (82%,96%) | 97% (89%,99%) | 94% (87%,97%) | 100% (96%,100%) | 100% (96%,100%) |
| TGT/TGT | 1 | 2b | 1 | 1 | 100% (21%,100%) | 100% (21%,100%) | 100% (21%,100%) | 99% (96%,99.9%) | 100% (98%,100%) | 100% (98%,100%) |
| TTG/TTT | 3 | 5c | 3 | 3 | 67% (21%,94%) | 100% (44%,100%) | 100% (44%,100%) | 98% (94%,99%) | 100% (98%,100%) | 100% (98%,100%) |
| TTG/TGT | 1 | 2d | 1 | 1 | 100% (21%,100%) | 100% (21%,100%) | 100% (21%,100%) | 99% (96%,99.9%) | 100% (98%,100%) | 100% (98%,100%) |
| TTT/TGT | 30 | 30e | 35f | 32g | 77% (59%,88%) | 100% (89%,100%) | 100% (89%,100%) | 95% (89%,97%) | 96% (91%,98%) | 98% (94%,99.6%) |
| Total | 158 | 158 | 158 | 158 | ||||||
| Accuracy** | - | 88.61% | 96.84% | 98.73% | ||||||
*:The superscript letter indicates an incorrect result generated by AS-PCR, TaqMan-qPCR or AllGlo-qPCR, compared to standard sequencing, as follows: a: 6 TTT/TGT; b: 1 TTT/TGT; c: 3 TTG/TTG; d: 1 TTG/TTT; e: 7 TTT/TTT; f: 5 TTT/TTT; g: 2 TTT/TTT.
**:The accuracy refers to the percentage of correct results generated by AS-PCR, TaqMan-qPCR or AllGlo-qPCR out of 158 known kdr genotype samples.
Comparison of four genotyping assays based on the need for specialized equipment, cost, safety, simplicity and speed
| Method | Equipment required | Hazardous chemicals | Protocol run time | No. of steps | Primers/probe required | No. of tubes required per sample | Cost per run* |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sequencing | PCR thermocycler | Ethidium bromide | 6 h | 2 | 2 PCR primers | 1 | $4.20 |
| Gel electrophoresis and imaging equipment | |||||||
| Nucleic acid sequencing machine | |||||||
| AS-PCR | PCR thermocycler | Ethidium bromide | 4 h 30 min | 2 | 5 PCR primers | 2 | $0.25 |
| Gel electrophoresis and imaging equipment | |||||||
|
| Real-time PCR machine | - | 1 h 45 min | 1 | 2 PCR primers | 2 | $0.70 |
| 3 fluorescently labelled probes | |||||||
| AllGlo-qPCR | Real-time PCR machine | - | 1 h 45 min | 1 | 2 PCR primers | 1 | $0.45 |
| 3 fluorescently labelled probes |
*:Refers to the average cost to run one sample; the cost of the equipment was not included.
mutation frequencies in samples from central China, as detected by AllGlo-qPCR
| Field site | Sample size | Genotype | Mutation frequency | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TTG/TTG | TTT/TTT | TGT/TGT | TTG/TTT | TTG/TGT | TTT/TGT | |||
| Henan | 42 | 1 | 18 | 7 | 6 | 0 | 10 | 90.48% |
| Hubei | 48 | 22 | 9 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 7 | 45.38% |
| Zhejiang | 131 | 1 | 105 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 18 | 97.71% |
| Shandong | 48 | 4 | 28 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 14 | 90.63% |
| Jiangsu | 108 | 12 | 61 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 30 | 86.57% |
| Total | 377 | 40 | 221 | 15 | 21 | 1 | 79 | 86.47% |