| Literature DB >> 29391526 |
Nsa Dada1,2, Mili Sheth3, Kelly Liebman1,4, Jesus Pinto5, Audrey Lenhart6.
Abstract
In light of the declining global malaria burden attained largely due to insecticides, a deeper understanding of the factors driving insecticide resistance is needed to mitigate its growing threat to malaria vector control programs. Following evidence of microbiota-mediated insecticide resistance in agricultural pests, we undertook a comparative study of the microbiota in mosquitoes of differing insecticide resistance status. The microbiota of wild-caught Anopheles albimanus, an important Latin American malaria vector, that were resistant (FEN_Res) or susceptible (FEN_Sus) to the organophosphate (OP) insecticide fenitrothion were characterized and compared using whole metagenome sequencing. Results showed differing composition of the microbiota and its functions between FEN_Res and FEN_Sus, with significant enrichment of OP-degrading bacteria and enzymes in FEN_Res compared to FEN_Sus. Lower bacterial diversity was observed in FEN_Res compared to FEN_Sus, suggesting the enrichment of bacterial taxa with a competitive advantage in response to insecticide selection pressure. We report and characterize for the first time whole metagenomes of An. albimanus, revealing associations between the microbiota and phenotypic resistance to the insecticide fenitrothion. This study lays the groundwork for further investigation of the role of the mosquito microbiota in insecticide resistance.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29391526 PMCID: PMC5794770 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-20367-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Differential bacterial composition between fenitrothion resistant and susceptible An. albimanus. Based on the alignment of sequencing reads (FEN_Res, n = 83,947,332; FEN_Sus, n = 60,444,900) to the NCBI-NR protein database, 37 bacterial genera and one uncultured β-proteobacterium* were identified in fenitrothion resistant and susceptible An. albimanus samples. Five genera; Klebsiella, Enterobacter, Acinetobacter, Escherichia and Salmonella comprised over 93% of identified genera in both samples and are considered as the predominant genera in this study. Plot (a) shows the proportions of each predominant genera as well as the proportions of unclassified reads in fenitrothion resistant and susceptible samples. Thirty two bacterial genera comprising the remaining proportion (1.8%) of the microbiota are grouped as ‘other genera’ and expanded in plot (b). Bacterial genera that are unique to either resistant or susceptible An. albimanus are presented in bold typeface. There were differential abundances of predominant (a) and other (b) genera between FEN_Res and FEN_Sus, with significant (p < 0.001) enrichment of Klebsiella in FEN_Res.
Differential abundance of identified bacterial genera in fenitrothion resistant and susceptible An. albimanus. The table shows the relative abundance (%) of bacterial genera identified in each sample, and the difference in relative abundance of each genera with 95% confidence intervals, calculated using two-sided Fisher’s exact test with Benjamini Hochberg’s false discovery rate p-value corrections. The level of significance was set to p < 0.05. Bacterial genera unique to either sample are presented in bold typeface. The relative abundance of 21 of these bacterial genera was significantly higher in FEN_Res compared to FEN_Sus, with the proportion of Klebsiella showing the greatest enrichment (Diff 25.1%, p < 0.0001). Conversely, the proportion of Enterobacter was the most reduced in FEN_Res compared to FEN_Sus (Diff −21.5% p < 0.0001).
| S/N | Bacterial genera | FEN_Res Rel. abundance (%) | FEN_Sus Rel. abundance (%) | Diff. Rel abundance (%) | 95% lower CI | 95% upper CI | p-values | Corrected p-values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
| 77.571 | 52.424 | 25.148 | 25.129 | 25.167 | <1E-301 | <1E-301 |
| 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
| 2.239 | 1.846 | 0.393 | 0.387 | 0.398 | <1E-301 | <1E-301 |
| 4 |
| 0.196 | 0.100 | 0.096 | 0.094 | 0.097 | <1E-301 | <1E-301 |
| 5 |
| 0.103 | 0.076 | 0.028 | 0.026 | 0.029 | <1E-301 | <1E-301 |
| 6 |
| 0.738 | 0.718 | 0.020 | 0.016 | 0.023 | 1.70E-28 | 3.82E-28 |
| 7 |
| 0.065 | 0.046 | 0.018 | 0.018 | 0.019 | 1.54E-301 | 6.04E-301 |
| 8 |
| 0.044 | 0.032 | 0.012 | 0.011 | 0.012 | 3.40E-173 | 1.23E-172 |
| 9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
| 0.035 | 0.024 | 0.011 | 0.010 | 0.012 | 7.82E-208 | 2.94E-207 |
| 11 |
| 0.037 | 0.028 | 0.009 | 0.008 | 0.010 | 1.37E-124 | 4.44E-124 |
| 12 |
| 0.027 | 0.022 | 0.006 | 0.005 | 0.006 | 3.26E-69 | 9.28E-69 |
| 13 |
| 0.031 | 0.026 | 0.005 | 0.005 | 0.006 | 3.80E-51 | 9.65E-51 |
| 14 |
| 0.017 | 0.012 | 0.005 | 0.005 | 0.006 | 2.40E-94 | 7.53E-94 |
| 15 |
| 0.023 | 0.018 | 0.005 | 0.004 | 0.006 | 3.75E-60 | 9.78E-60 |
| 16 |
| 0.016 | 0.012 | 0.003 | 0.003 | 0.004 | 6.02E-43 | 1.49E-42 |
| 17 |
| 0.097 | 0.094 | 0.003 | 0.002 | 0.004 | 1.10E-06 | 1.85E-06 |
| 18 |
| 0.015 | 0.012 | 0.003 | 0.003 | 0.004 | 2.53E-36 | 5.94E-36 |
| 19 |
| 0.049 | 0.046 | 0.003 | 0.002 | 0.004 | 5.99E-10 | 1.10E-09 |
| 20 | * | 0.016 | 0.013 | 0.003 | 0.002 | 0.003 | 3.61E-24 | 7.72E-24 |
| 21 |
| 0.017 | 0.016 | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 0.02556166 | 0.039390101 |
| 22 |
| 0.015 | 0.015 | −0.001 | −0.001 | 0.000 | 0.02829376 | 0.042896987 |
| 23 |
| 0.021 | 0.022 | −0.001 | −0.002 | −0.001 | 1.01E-05 | 1.66E-05 |
| 24 |
| 0.017 | 0.019 | −0.002 | −0.002 | −0.001 | 2.97E-10 | 5.58E-10 |
| 25 |
| 0.026 | 0.028 | −0.002 | −0.002 | −0.001 | 2.62E-07 | 4.56E-07 |
| 26 |
| 0.014 | 0.016 | −0.002 | −0.003 | −0.002 | 7.66E-18 | 1.56E-17 |
| 27 |
| 0.012 | 0.014 | −0.002 | −0.003 | −0.002 | 3.05E-25 | 6.66E-25 |
| 28 |
| 0.052 | 0.055 | −0.003 | −0.004 | −0.002 | 1.03E-10 | 2.02E-10 |
| 29 |
| 0.036 | 0.039 | −0.003 | −0.004 | −0.002 | 1.47E-15 | 2.95E-15 |
| 30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 31 |
| 0.027 | 0.044 | −0.017 | −0.017 | −0.016 | <1E-301 | <1E-301 |
| 32 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 33 |
| 0.013 | 0.042 | −0.029 | −0.030 | −0.028 | <1E-301 | <1E-301 |
| 34 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 35 |
| 0.227 | 0.276 | −0.049 | −0.051 | −0.047 | <1E-301 | <1E-301 |
| 36 |
| 0.052 | 0.115 | −0.063 | −0.064 | −0.061 | <1E-301 | <1E-301 |
| 37 |
| 7.742 | 11.913 | −4.172 | −4.184 | −4.159 | <1E-301 | <1E-301 |
| 38 |
| 5.563 | 27.091 | −21.528 | −21.543 | −21.513 | <1E-301 | <1E-301 |
| 39 | Unclassified Bacteria | 4.381509301 | 4.674589901 | −0.2930806 |
Previously identified in Anopheles.
Previously identified in Latin American Anopheles.
*Uncultured β-proteobacteria.
Reported in Anopheles for the first time in this study.
Only reported in Aedes previously.
Only reported in Culex previously.
♦Reported in mosquitoes for the first time in this study.
Figure 2Differential abundance of predominant bacterial genera in fenitrothion resistant and susceptible An. albimanus. Plots show the difference in relative abundance (%) of each bacterial genera between fenitrothion resistant and susceptible samples (p < 0.0001).
Figure 3Relative abundance of bacterial enzyme classes associated with xenobiotic degradation pathways in fenitrothion resistant and susceptible An. albimanus. Bar plot shows the relative abundance (%) of reads assigned to each enzyme class in FEN_Res (n = 458,614) and FEN_Sus (n = 311,919).
Figure 4Putative bacterial enzymes involved in microbial xenobiotic degradation in fenitrothion resistant and susceptible An. albimanus. The plot shows the proportion (%) of sequencing reads (FEN_Res, n = 458,614; and FEN_Sus, n = 311,919) aligned to bacterial enzymes in the microbial xenobiotic degradation pathway, and the difference in relative abundance of identified enzymes between fenitrothion resistant and susceptible An. albimanus (Diff.). Only enzymes with Diff. ≥ 0.2% at p < 0.0001 are shown, and significantly enriched enzymes in FEN_Res are presented in bold typeface.
Bacterial species associated with microbial xenobiotic degradation in fenitrothion resistant An. albimanus. The table lists identified bacterial species, documented OP compounds, and other pesticides metabolized by each associated bacteria.
| S/N |
| OPs metabolized | Other pesticides metabolized | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
| Fenitrothion, Diazinon, Chlorpyrifos, Malathion, Methyl parathion | Diclofop-methyl |
[ |
| 2 | Acinetobacter calcoaceticus | Chlorpiryfos, Biological phosphorus in activated sludge | — |
[ |
| 3 |
| — | — | — |
| 4 |
| — | — | — |
| 5 |
| Dimethoate, Malathion, Chlorpiryfos, Malaoxon, Monocrotophos, Acephate, Phosphonates | DDT, Cypermethrin, Fenvalerate |
[ |
| 6 |
| Malathion | Fipronil |
[ |
| 7 |
| Glyphosphate, Profenofos | — |
[ |
| 8 |
| Malathion | Bifenthrin, Fenpropathrin, Cypermethrin, DDT |
[ |
| 9 |
| Acephate, Glyphosphate | Cypermethrin, Endosulfan, Quizalofop-p-ethyl, Clodinafop, Metribuzin |
[ |
| 10 |
| Dimethoate, Glyphosphate | DDT, Endosulfan |
[ |
| 11 |
| — | — | — |
| 12 |
| Fenitrothion, Phosphonates | Cypermethrin, DDT, Aldicarb |
[ |
| 13 |
| Dimethoate, Chlorpiryfos, Phosphonates | Endosulfan |
[ |
| 14 |
| Fensulfothion, Tributyl phosphate, Methyl-parathion, Phosphonates | DDT, Endosulfan, Triazines, Bromoxynil, Imidacloprid |
[ |
| 15 |
| — | — | — |
| 17 |
| — | — | — |
| 18 |
| Phosphonates | — |
[ |
| 19 |
| — | — | — |
| 20 |
| Phosphonates | — |
[ |
| 21 |
| Fenitrothion, Chlorpiryfos, Diazinon, Coumaphos, Parathion, Isazofos, Monocrotophos | — |
[ |
†Only identified in fenitrothion resistant An. albimanus.