| Literature DB >> 31973737 |
Jehidys Montiel1,2, Luisa F Carbal1, Alberto Tobón-Castaño1,3, Gissella M Vásquez4, Michael L Fisher4, Berlin Londono-Rentería5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The humoral immune response against Anopheles salivary glands proteins in the vertebrate host can reflect the intensity of exposure to Anopheles bites and the risk of Plasmodium infection. In Colombia, the identification of exposure biomarkers is necessary due to the several Anopheles species circulating. The purpose of this study was to evaluate risk of malaria infection by measuring antibody responses against salivary glands extracts from Anopheles (Nyssorhynchus) albimanus and Anopheles (Nys.) darlingi and also against the gSG6-P1 peptide of Anopheles gambiae in people residing in a malaria endemic area in the Colombian Pacific coast.Entities:
Keywords: An. (Nys.) albimanus; An. (Nys.) darlingi; Antibodies; Asymptomatic malaria; Bite exposure
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31973737 PMCID: PMC6979332 DOI: 10.1186/s12936-020-3128-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Fig. 1Study sites in Tumaco, Nariño, Colombia
Fig. 2IgG responses to Anopheles per status of infection. a The individual anti CTG IgG levels, b STE, c An. (Nys.) darlingi SGE and d gSG6‑P1 peptide. Legend: Horizontal lines in the boxes indicate median values; lengths of boxes correspond to the inter-quartile ranges. Pairwise significance was tested with Mann–Whitney test
Fig. 3IgG responses to Anopheles per status of infection and per site. a The individual anti CTG IgG levels, b STE, c An. (Nys.) darlingi and d gSG6‑P1 peptide. Horizontal lines in the boxes indicate median values; lengths of boxes correspond to the inter-quartile ranges. Pairwise significance was tested with Mann–Whitney test
Fig. 4IgG responses to Anopheles per infection group: uninfected, submicroscopic (positive PCR and negative LM) and microscopic (positive by both PCR and LM). a The individual anti CTG IgG levels, b STE, c An. (Nys.) darlingi and d gSG6‑P1 peptide. Horizontal lines in the boxes indicate median values; lengths of boxes correspond to the inter‑quartile ranges. Pairwise significance was tested with Mann–Whitney test
Socio-demographic characteristics, malaria history and IgG levels in the study population
| Characteristic | Uninfected | Asymptomatic malaria | Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N = 50 | n = 63 | n = 113 | ||||
| n | % | n | % | n | % | |
| Age | ||||||
| < 5 | 4 | 8.0 | 3 | 4.8 | 7 | 6.2 |
| 5–15 | 16 | 32.0 | 17 | 27.0 | 33 | 29.2 |
| > 15 | 30 | 60.0 | 43 | 68.3 | 73 | 64.6 |
| Site | ||||||
| California | 15 | 30.0 | 24 | 38.1 | 39 | 34.5 |
| Tangareal | 19 | 38.0 | 31 | 49.2 | 50 | 44.2 |
| Robles | 10 | 20.0 | 5 | 7.9 | 15 | 13.3 |
| Candelillas | 6 | 12.0 | 3 | 4.8 | 9 | 8.0 |
| Gender | ||||||
| Male | 20 | 40.0 | 28 | 44.4 | 48 | 42.5 |
| Female | 30 | 60.0 | 35 | 55.6 | 65 | 57.5 |
| Episodes of malaria | ||||||
| 0 | 25 | 50.0 | 21 | 33.3 | 46 | 40.7 |
| 1 | 11 | 22.0 | 16 | 25.4 | 27 | 23.9 |
| > 1 | 14 | 28.0 | 26 | 41.3 | 40 | 35.4 |
| Malaria last year | ||||||
| No | 38 | 76.0 | 42 | 66.7 | 80 | 70.8 |
| Yes | 12 | 24.0 | 21 | 33.3 | 33 | 29.2 |
| Education level | ||||||
| High school or lower | 35 | 70.0 | 49 | 77.8 | 84 | 74.3 |
| Undergraduate or graduate | 15 | 30.0 | 14 | 22.2 | 29 | 25.7 |
| Occupation | ||||||
| Housewife | 14 | 28.0 | 19 | 30.2 | 33 | 29.2 |
| Farmer | 4 | 8.0 | 9 | 14.3 | 13 | 11.5 |
| Student | 19 | 38.0 | 24 | 38.1 | 43 | 38.1 |
| Others | 13 | 26.0 | 11 | 17.5 | 24 | 21.2 |
aNormalized optical density
bInterquartile range
Fig. 5Correlation between anti- Anopheles IgG levels and anti-Plasmodium IgG levels in the whole population. Legend: Anti CTG and anti-Pf-MSP (a), STE and anti-Pf-MSP (b), An. (Nys.) darlingi and anti-Pf-MSP (c), and gSG6-P1 anti-Pf-MSP (d). The red solid line indicates the correlation curve
Linear mixed effects models to explain exposure to Anopheles in a malaria-endemic area in Colombia
| Anti- | Anti-CTG IgG | Anti-STE IgG | Anti-gSG6-P1 IgG | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimated coefficient | SE | 95% CI | Estimated coefficient | SE | 95% CI | Estimated coefficient | SE | 95% CI | Estimated coefficient | SE | 95% CI | |
| Fixed effects | ||||||||||||
| Intercept | 0.428 | 0.046 | 0.191 | 0.036 | 0.313 | 0.047 | 0.128 | 0.024 | ||||
| Infectious status | ||||||||||||
| Uninfected | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| Infected | − 0.022 | 0.037 | − 0.096 to 0.051 | 0.007 | 0.029 | − 0.051 to 0.064 | − 0.005 | 0.038 | − 0.080 to 0.069 | 0.021 | 0.020 | − 0.018 to 0.060 |
| Age | − 0.003 | 0.001 | − 0.004 to − 0.001 | − 0.002 | 0.001 | − 0.003 to − 0.001 | − 0.003 | 0.001 | − 0.005 to − 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.000 to 0.002 |
| Residence time | ||||||||||||
| < 5 years | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| ≥ 5 years | − 0.031 | 0.030 | − 0.090 to 0.029 | − 0.007 | 0.024 | − 0.054 to 0.040 | − 0.032 | 0.031 | − 0.093 to 0.029 | − 0.035 | 0.016 | − 0.070 to − 0.003 |
| Pf-MSP | 0.066 | 0.054 | − 0.041 to 0.172 | 0.106 | 0.043 | 0.022 to 0.189 | 0.092 | 0.055 | − 0.017 to 0.200 | 0.070 | 0.029 | 0.013 to 0.126 |
| Village level | 6.51E−22 | 1.56E−20 | 4.31E−27 | 9.71E−26 | 7.13E−27 | 1.48E−25 | 2.46E−05 | 1.96E−04 | ||||