| Literature DB >> 28077167 |
Raymond N Tabue1,2,3, Parfait Awono-Ambene4, Josiane Etang4, Jean Atangana3, Antonio-Nkondjio C4, Jean C Toto4, Salomon Patchoke3, Rose G F Leke2, Etienne Fondjo3, Abraham P Mnzava5, Tessa B Knox5, Alexis Tougordi6, Martin J Donnelly7,8, Jude D Bigoga9,10.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As part of a study to determine the impact of insecticide resistance on the effectiveness of long-lasting insecticide treated nets (LLINs) in the north of Cameroon, the unexpectedly high density and anthropophilic behaviour of Anopheles rufipes lead us to investigate this species bionomics and role in human malaria parasite transmission.Entities:
Keywords: Anopheles; Local vectors; Malaria; Northern Cameroon; Transmission
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28077167 PMCID: PMC5225577 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-016-1933-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Fig. 1Map of the North region of Cameroon showing the study Health Districts (1, 5 and 6)
Composition and abundance of mosquitoes by species and study health district
| Species | Garoua | Pitoa | Mayo Oulo | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| % ( | % ( | % ( | % ( | |
|
| ||||
|
| 14.7 (5,138) | 22.7 (7,774) | 17.0 (1,946) | 18.4 (14,858) |
|
| 0.7 (234) | 2.1 (722) | 10.6 (1,213) | 2.7 (2,169) |
|
| 2.8 (965) | 2.0 (699) | 1.2 (138) | 2.2 (1,802) |
|
| 1.4 (496) | 1.7 (591) | 1.5 (172) | 1.6 (1,259) |
|
| 0.8 (270) | 1.0 (357) | 0.3 (32) | 0.8 (659) |
| Other | 0.1 (29) | 1.4 (479) | 2.8 (316) | 1.0 (824) |
| Total 1 | 20.4 (7,132) | 31.0 (10,622) | 33.4 (3,817) | 26.7 (21,571) |
| Culicines | ||||
|
| 74.5 (26,111) | 50.0 (17,111) | 57.3 (6,554) | 61.7 (49,776) |
|
| 4.6 (1,618) | 18.8 (6,434) | 7.8 (886) | 11.1 (8,938) |
|
| 0.1 (20) | 0.1 (49) | 1.5 (171) | 0.3 (240) |
|
| 0.4 (156) | 0.0 (7) | 0.0 (1) | 0.2 (164) |
| Total 2 | 79.6 (27,905) | 69.0 (23,601) | 66.6 (7,612) | 73.3 (59,118) |
| Total 1 + 2 | 100 (35,037) | 100 (34,223) | 100 (11,429) | 100 (80,689) |
Abbreviation: n number collected
Fig. 2Distribution of members of Anopheles gambiae complex in the three study health districts
Average man biting rate (number of bites per person per night) for Anopheles species in the study sites from 2011 to 2014
|
| Garoua | Pitoa | Mayo Oulo | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | |
|
| 20.14 | 8.90 | 17.12 | 4.21 | 39.74 | 24.26 | 22.11 | 21.88 | 39.36 | 3.47 | 6.24 | 11.16 |
|
| 1.14 | 0.77 | 1.92 | 1.02 | 4.47 | 2.01 | 0.94 | 0.90 | 1.89 | 1.28 | 1.04 | 1.00 |
|
| 6.23 | 0.12 | 2.72 | 0.83 | 4.22 | 0.65 | 2.88 | 2.05 | 2.06 | 0.08 | 1.06 | 0.67 |
|
| 0.03 | 1.19 | 1.12 | 0.32 | 1.81 | 1.94 | 1.28 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.11 | 0.48 | 0.33 |
|
| 0.66 | 0.66 | 0.44 | 0.54 | 5.49 | 3.57 | 0.47 | 0.51 | 8.42 | 11.08 | 7.85 | 10.83 |
Fig. 3Biting habits of the main Anopheles species in the three study health districts. Abbreviations: IN, indoor; OUT, outdoor; ma, man biting rate
Fig. 4Hourly biting activity of Anopheles vector species in three health districts. Abbreviation: ma, man biting rate
Parity rates of Anopheles vectors of malaria in the three study health districts
| Health district |
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Garoua | No. dissected (No. parous) | 2,119 (765) | 449 (177) | 276 (68) | 69 (18) | 80 (25) |
| Parous rate (%) (95% CI) | 36.10 (34.08–38.17) | 39.42 (35.01–44.01) | 24.64 (19.93–30.05) | 26.09 (17.19–37.51) | 31.25 (22.15–42.07) | |
| Pitoa | No. dissected (No. parous) | 3,856 (2,207) | 367 (132) | 342 (124) | 172 (49) | 178 (84) |
| Parous rate (%) (95% CI) | 57.24 (55.67–58.79) | 35.97 (31.23–41.00) | 36.26 (31.34–41.48) | 28.49 (22.27–35.65) | 47.19 (39.99–54.51) | |
| Mayo Oulo | No. dissected (No. parous) | 1,184 (387) | 136 (52) | 60 (19) | 12 (3) | 925 (328) |
| Parous rate (%) (95% CI) | 32.69 (30.07–35.41) | 38.24 (30.50–46.62) | 31.67 (21.31–44.23) | 25.00 (8.89–53.23) | 35.46 (32.44–38.60) | |
| Total | No. dissected (No. parous) | 7,159 (3,359) | 952 (361) | 678 (211) | 253 (70) | 1,183 (437) |
| Parous rate (%) (95% CI) | 46.92 (45.77–48.08) | 37.92 (34.89–41.04) | 31.12 (27.75–34.70) | 27.67 (22.52–33.48) | 36.94 (34.24–39.73) |
Note: The difference in parity rate between health districts and anopheline species was not significant (χ 2 = 6.62, df = 8, P = 0.58)
Abbreviation: CI confidence interval
Fig. 5Percentage of blood meal origin of the main Anopheles species in the three health districts
Summary of overall entomological data
| Health district | Anopheline species | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CSP+ ( | IR | ma | EIR | CSP+ ( | IR | ma | EIR | CSP+ ( | IR | ma | EIR | CSP+ ( | IR | ma | EIR | ||
| Garoua |
| 15 (888) | 0.017 | 20.137 | 0.340 | 8 (661) | 0.012 | 8.902 | 0.108 | 32 (1,408) | 0.023 | 17.118 | 0.389 | 6 (318) | 0.019 | 4.206 | 0.079 |
|
| 1 (49) | 0.020 | 1.137 | 0.023 | 1 (56) | 0.018 | 0.775 | 0.014 | 4 (158) | 0.025 | 1.922 | 0.049 | 2 (70) | 0.029 | 1.020 | 0.029 | |
|
| 5 (344) | 0.015 | 6.225 | 0.090 | 0 (12) | 0 | 0.118 | 0 | 4 (230) | 0.017 | 2.716 | 0.047 | 1 (14) | 0.071 | 0.833 | 0.060 | |
|
| 1 (21) | 0.048 | 0.657 | 0.031 | 1 (39) | 0.026 | 0.657 | 0.017 | 1 (43) | 0.023 | 0.441 | 0.010 | 0 (0) | – | 0.539 | – | |
|
| 0 (0) | 0 | 0.029 | – | 2 (51) | 0.039 | 1.186 | 0.047 | 3 (88) | 0.034 | 1.118 | 0.038 | 0 (7) | 0 | 0.324 | 0 | |
| Pitoa |
| 39 (1,133) | 0.034 | 39.736 | 1.368 | 26 (1,045) | 0.025 | 24.264 | 0.604 | 14 (396) | 0.035 | 22.111 | 0.782 | 11 (859) | 0.013 | 21.880 | 0.280 |
|
| 5 (161) | 0.031 | 4.472 | 0.139 | 2 (88) | 0.023 | 2.014 | 0.046 | 1 (36) | 0.028 | 0.944 | 0.026 | 0 (31) | 0 | 0.9 | 0 | |
|
| 8 (169) | 0.047 | 4.222 | 0.200 | 0 (31) | 0 | 0.653 | 0 | 2 (54) | 0.037 | 2.875 | 0.106 | 0 (10) | 0 | 2.05 | 0 | |
|
| 4 (99) | 0.040 | 5.486 | 0.222 | 1 (164) | 0.006 | 3.569 | 0.022 | 1 (19) | 0.053 | 0.472 | 0.025 | 0 (14) | 0 | 0.51 | 0 | |
|
| 2 (74) | 0.027 | 1.806 | 0.049 | 0 (60) | 0 | 1.944 | 0 | 2 (49) | 0.041 | 1.278 | 0.052 | 0 (0) | – | 0.04 | – | |
| Mayo Oulo |
| 19 (492) | 0.039 | 39.361 | 1.520 | 1 (122) | 0.008 | 3.472 | 0.028 | 8 (157) | 0.051 | 6.241 | 0.318 | 0 (24) | 0 | 11.163 | 0 |
|
| 2 (22) | 0.091 | 1.889 | 0.172 | 1 (40) | 0.025 | 1.278 | 0.032 | 1 (33) | 0.030 | 1.037 | 0.031 | 0 (0) | – | 1 | – | |
|
| 0 (36) | 0 | 2.056 | – | 0 (2) | 0 | 0.083 | 0 | 1 (24) | 0.042 | 1.056 | 0.044 | 1 (29) | 0.034 | 0.667 | 0.023 | |
|
| 2 (35) | 0.057 | 8.417 | 0.481 | 4 (155) | 0.026 | 11.083 | 0.286 | 2 (49) | 0.041 | 7.852 | 0.320 | 0 (0) | – | 10.833 | – | |
|
| 0 (0) | 0 | 0.028 | – | 0 (3) | 0 | 0.111 | 0 | 0 (13) | 0 | 0.481 | 0 | 0 (0) | – | 0.333 | – | |
Abbreviations: CSP+ number of mosquitoes positive to CSP, CSP circumsporozoite protein, EIRentomological inoculation rate (infectious bites/person/night, IR infection rate, ma man biting rate (bites/person/night), n number of mosquitoes examined by CSP ELISA
Implication of members of Anopheles gambiae complex in malaria transmission
| Health district | Anopheline species | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CSP+ ( | ma | IR | EIR | CSP+ ( | ma | IR | EIR | CSP+ ( | ma | IR | EIR | CSP+ ( | ma | IR | EIR | ||
| Garoua |
| 1 (78) | 0.76 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 1 (31) | 0.3 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 3 (75) | 0.74 | 0.04 | 0.029 | 1 (7) | 0.07 | 0.14 | 0.0098 |
|
| 1 (49) | 0.48 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0 (23) | 0.23 | 0 | 0 | 1 (42) | 0.41 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0 (18) | 0.18 | 0 | 0 | |
|
| 0 (11) | 0.11 | 0 | 0 | 0 (7) | 0.07 | 0 | 0 | 1 (2) | 0.02 | 0.5 | 0.01 | 0 (4) | 0.04 | 0 | 0 | |
| Pitoa |
| 2 (113) | 1.57 | 0.02 | 0.028 | 1 (67) | 0.93 | 0.01 | 0.014 | 1 (86) | 1.19 | 0.01 | 0.014 | 1 (71) | 0.7 | 0.01 | 0.0098 |
|
| 1 (67) | 0.93 | 0.01 | 0.014 | 1 (33) | 0.46 | 0.03 | 0.014 | 0 (15) | 0.21 | 0 | 0 | 1 (20) | 0.2 | 0.05 | 0.0098 | |
|
| 0 (14) | 0.19 | 0 | 0 | 0 (17) | 0.24 | 0 | 0 | 0 (6) | 0.08 | 0 | 0 | 0 (15) | 0.15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Mayo Oulo |
| 5 (83) | 1.54 | 0.06 | 0.093 | 2 (6) | 0.11 | 0.33 | 0.037 | 2 (17) | 0.31 | 0.12 | 0.037 | 0 (3) | 0.06 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 0 (8) | 0.15 | 0 | 0 | 0 (1) | 0.02 | 0 | 0 | 0 (3) | 0.06 | 0 | 0 | 0 (0) | 0 | – | – | |
|
| 1 (5) | 0.09 | 0.2 | 0.019 | 0 (1) | 0.02 | 0 | 0 | 0 (2) | 0.04 | 0 | 0 | 0 (2) | 0.04 | 0 | 0 | |
Abbreviations: CSP+ number of mosquitoes positive to CSP, CSP circumsporozoite protein, EIR entomological inoculation rate (infectious bites/person/night, IR infection rate, ma man biting rate (bites/person/night), n number of mosquitoes examined by CSP ELISA
Fig. 6Night entomological inoculation rates of Anopheles species by year and health district. Abbreviation: ib/p/n, infective bites per person per night