| Literature DB >> 32159787 |
Fan Yang1, Samuel Schildhauer1, Sarah A Billeter1, Melissa Hardstone Yoshimizu1, Robert Payne1, Mary Joyce Pakingan1, Marco E Metzger1, Kelly A Liebman1, Renjie Hu1, Vicki Kramer1, Kerry A Padgett1.
Abstract
Insecticide resistance in Aedes aegypti mosquitoes poses a major threat to public health worldwide. There are two primary biological mechanisms that can lead to insecticide resistance, target site and metabolic resistance, both of which confer resistance to specific classes of insecticides. Due to the limited number of chemical compounds available for mosquito control, it is important to determine current enzymatic profiles among mosquito populations. This study assessed resistance profiles for three metabolic pathways, α-esterases, β-esterases, and mixed-function oxidases (MFOs), as well as insensitivity of the acetylcholinesterase (iAChE) enzyme in the presence of propoxur, among Ae. aegypti from the Central Valley and southern California. All field-collected Ae. aegypti demonstrated elevated MFOs and iAChE activity, indicating potential development of pyrethroid and organophosphate resistance, respectively. Although regional variations were found among α-esterase and β-esterase activity, levels were generally elevated, further suggesting additional mechanisms for developing organophosphate resistance. Furthermore, mosquito samples from southern California exhibited a higher expression level to all three metabolic enzymes and iAChE activity in comparison to mosquitoes from the central region. These results could help guide future mosquito control efforts, directing the effective use of insecticides while limiting the spread of resistance.Entities:
Keywords: zzm321990 Aedes aegyptizzm321990 ; California; insecticide resistance
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32159787 PMCID: PMC7334890 DOI: 10.1093/jme/tjaa031
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Entomol ISSN: 0022-2585 Impact factor: 2.278
Mean of α-esterases, β-esterases, MFOs, and iAChE levels in Aedes aegypti in California from 2017 to 2018
| Strain ROCK | α-Esterases | β-Esterases | MFOs | iAChE | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD |
|
| Mean ± SD |
|
| Mean ± SD |
|
| Mean ± SD |
|
| |||
| 23.36 ± 3.57 | 90 | 39.27 ± 6.33 | 90 | 0.94 ± 0.11 | 90 | 0.68 ± 0.12 | 90 | |||||||
| Region | County | Agency | Mean ± SD |
| Mean ± SD |
| Mean ± SD |
| Mean ± SD |
| ||||
| C | Fresno | CNSL | 28.61 ± 10.55 | 259 | 6.52e-10 | 36.18 ± 15.08 | 259 | 1.26e-8 | 1.08 ± 0.32 | 259 | 0.0010 | 1.25 ± 0.67 | 259 | 2.2e-16 |
| C | Fresno | FRNO | 25.07 ± 8.71 | 151 | 0.89 | 33.61 ± 11.9 | 151 | 1.52e-10 | 1.33 ± 0.93 | 151 | 3.59e-08 | 1.27 ± 0.75 | 151 | 2.2e-16 |
| C | Fresno | FRWS | 28.7 ± 6.23 | 26 | 2.74e-05 | 35.54 ± 9.37 | 26 | 0.00084 | 1.3 ± 0.82 | 26 | 0.0014 | 1.17 ± 0.72 | 26 | 1.37e-06 |
| C | Madera | MADR | 23.61 ± 4.41 | 142 | 0.95 | 37.76 ± 7.33 | 130 | 0.019 | 1.32 ± 1.39 | 286 | 0.0019 | 1.47 ± 2.81 | 280 | 1.56e-11 |
| C | Merced | MERC | 31.32 ± 25.9 | 172 | 0.0089 | 45.41 ± 59.35 | 170 | 1.62e-06 | 2.07 ± 2.39 | 179 | 2.2e-16 | 2.35 ± 3.96 | 179 | 2.2e-16 |
| C | Tulare | DLTA | 21.41 ± 6.91 | 10 | 0.39 | 28.37 ± 7.49 | 12 | 7.78e-06 | 1.91 ± 2.28 | 13 | 0.024 | 3.0 ± 4.18 | 13 | 3.59e-07 |
| C | Tulare | TLRE | 37.46 ± 11.79 | 13 | 6.68e-06 | 46.73 ± 15.98 | 13 | 0.037 | 1.47 ± 0.7 | 13 | 1.47e-08 | 1.81 ± 0.71 | 13 | 1.38e-08 |
| S | Imperial | IMPR | 29.16 ± 12.44 | 83 | 0.00054 | 48.16 ± 31.14 | 86 | 0.19 | 1.64 ± 1.6 | 87 | 1.09e-09 | 1.52 ± 1.93 | 87 | 1.13e-11 |
| S | Los Angeles | GRLA | 33.52 ± 28.15 | 145 | 9.16e-13 | 55.0 ± 68.87 | 154 | 0.59 | 1.9 ± 2.61 | 123 | 6.63e-10 | 2.36 ± 3.84 | 154 | 2.2e-16 |
| S | Los Angeles | LACW | 37.14 ± 21.47 | 110 | 2.2e-16 | 73.16 ± 63.56 | 110 | 2.2e-16 | 1.85 ± 2.23 | 110 | 2.08e-14 | 2.44 ± 3.81 | 110 | 4.69e-14 |
| S | Los Angeles | SGVA | 26.11 ± 11.59 | 70 | 0.68 | 40.19 ± 16.97 | 71 | 0.083 | 1.4 ± 0.51 | 71 | 2.2e-16 | 1.66 ± 0.98 | 71 | 2.2e-16 |
| S | Orange | ORCO | 29.87 ± 7.78 | 390 | 2.2e-16 | 42.65 ± 14.46 | 393 | 0.55 | 1.3 ± 0.62 | 375 | 9.30e-16 | 1.51 ± 1.11 | 393 | 2.2e-16 |
| S | Riverside | COAV | 28.45 ± 13.04 | 25 | 0.053 | 55.27 ± 46.39 | 33 | 0.035 | 3.37 ± 2.96 | 34 | 2.98e-13 | 4.32 ± 4.35 | 34 | 2.35e-16 |
| S | Riverside | NWST | 30.8 ± 6.96 | 63 | 6.37e-12 | 41.46 ± 13.12 | 63 | 0.66 | 1.53 ± 0.97 | 63 | 8.41e-11 | 1.21 ± 0.7 | 63 | 7.26e-11 |
| S | Riverside | RIVR | 49.62 ± 64.84 | 94 | 2.2e-16 | 60.93 ± 70.93 | 95 | 0.00095 | 2.04 ± 2.11 | 95 | 2.2e-16 | 2.05 ± 2.12 | 95 | 2.2e-16 |
| S | San Bernardino | SANB | 36.55 ± 18.85 | 332 | 2.2e-16 | 53.52 ± 34.37 | 345 | 1.08e-05 | 2.29 ± 3.04 | 388 | 2.2e-16 | 2.55 ± 3.42 | 379 | 2.2e-16 |
| S | San Bernardino | WVAL | 42.13 ± 11.91 | 19 | 1.53e-11 | 60.55 ± 16.77 | 19 | 1.25e-09 | 1.47 ± 0.7 | 19 | 8.78e-10 | 1.48 ± 0.87 | 19 | 1.31e-09 |
| S | San Diego | SAND | 51.6 ± 26.86 | 51 | 2.2e-16 | 68.96 ± 72.02 | 51 | 3.49e-10 | 3.53 ± 2.37 | 51 | 2.2e-16 | 2.95 ± 2.5 | 51 | 2.2e-16 |
P-values were calculated by unpaired Wilcoxon rank sum test and compared to ROCK strain.
C = Central California, S = southern California.
Central Region: Consolidated Mosquito Abatement District: CNSL, Delta Vector Control District: DLTA, Fresno Mosquito Vector Control District: FRNO, Fresno Westside Mosquito Abatement District: FRWS, Madera County Mosquito Vector Control District: MADR, Merced County Mosquito Abatement District: MERC, Tulare Mosquito Abatement District: TLRE; Southern Region: Coachella Valley Mosquito Vector Control District: COAV, Greater Los Angeles County Vector Control District: GRLA, Imperial County Vector Control Program: IMPR, Los Angeles County West Vector Control District: LACW, Northwest Mosquito Vector Control District: NWST, Orange County Mosquito Vector Control District: ORCO, Riverside County Vector Control Program: RIVR, San Bernardino County Vector Control Program: SANB, San Diego County Vector Control Program: SAND, San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District: SGVA, West Valley Mosquito Vector Control District: WVAL.
Fig. 1.Central and southern California counties. Mosquitoes from the highlighted counties were submitted for biochemical assay testing. Map generated using ArcGIS-ArcMap 10.5 (ESRI, Redlands, CA).
Fig. 2.Boxplot of detoxification enzyme levels measured in Aedes aegypti from 2017 to 2018 (combined). * On the top of graph indicates statistically significantly differences between Ae. aegypti sampled by vector control agency and the susceptible ROCK strain. (P-value < 0.05) higher; * on the bottom of graph indicated significantly (P-value < 0.05) less. ROCK: Aedes aegypti Rockefeller susceptible strain. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, ****P < 0.0001.
Mean of α-esterases, β-esterases, MFOs, and iAChE levels detected in Aedes aegypti from central and southern California, 2017–2018
| Susceptible ROCK reference strain ( | Central | Southern |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | ||
| α-Esterases | 23.36 ± 3.57 | 27.69 ± 14.7 ( | 34.65 ± 24.54 ( | 2.2e-16 |
| β-Esterases | 39.27 ± 6.33 | 38.75 ± 31.4 ( | 51.77 ± 43.58 ( | 2.2e-16 |
| MFOs | 0.94 ± 0.11 | 1.49 ± 1.56 ( | 1.85 ± 2.16 ( | 2.2e-16 |
| iAChE | 0.68 ± 0.12 | 1.66 ± 2.61 ( | 2.03 ± 2.69 ( | 3.53e-15 |
Results demonstrate Ae. aegypti results combined by region and not by individual agency. p-values were calculated by unpaired Wilcoxon rank sum test between Central and Southern populations.
N = sample size.