| Literature DB >> 32934291 |
Welbeck A Oumbouke1,2, Patricia Pignatelli3, Antoine M G Barreaux4,5, Innocent Z Tia6, Alphonsine A Koffi6, Ludovic P Ahoua Alou6, Eleanore D Sternberg3,5, Matthew B Thomas5, David Weetman3, Raphael N'Guessan7,6.
Abstract
Routine monitoring of occurrence, levels and mechanisms of insecticide resistance informs effective management strategies, and should be used to assess the effect of new tools on resistance. As part of a cluster randomised controlled trial evaluating a novel insecticide-based intervention in central Côte d'Ivoire, we assessed resistance and its underlying mechanisms in Anopheles gambiae populations from a subset of trial villages. Resistance to multiple insecticides in An. gambiae s.s. and An. coluzzii was detected across villages, with dose-response assays demonstrating extremely high resistance intensity to the pyrethroid deltamethrin (> 1,500-fold), and mortality following exposure to pyrethroid-treated bednets was low (< 30% mortality in cone bioassays). The 1014F kdr mutation was almost fixed (≥ 90%) in all villages but the 1575Y kdr-amplifying mutation was relatively rare (< 15%). The carbamate and organophosphate resistance-associated Ace-1 G119S mutation was also detected at moderate frequencies (22-43%). Transcriptome analysis identified overexpression of P450 genes known to confer pyrethroid resistance (Cyp9K1, Cyp6P3, and Cyp6M2), and also a carboxylesterase (COEAE1F) as major candidates. Cyp6P3 expression was high but variable (up to 33-fold) and correlated positively with deltamethrin resistance intensity across villages (r2 = 0.78, P = 0.02). Tools and strategies to mitigate the extreme and multiple resistance provided by these mechanisms are required in this area to avoid future control failures.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32934291 PMCID: PMC7493912 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-71933-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Twenty-four-hour percentage mortality of An. gambiae s.l. from each village exposed in diagnostic bioassays to (A) 0.05% deltamethrin, (B) 0.15% cyfluthrin, (C) 0.1% bendiocarb, (D) 4% DDT and (E) 1% pirimiphos methyl. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals (Cis) and the dotted line indicates WHO resistance threshold.
Generalised linear model testing the effects of village on bioassay mortality for each insecticide.
| Village (arm) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Wald χ2 | df | P | |
| Deltamethrin | 35.245 | 6 | 0.000004 |
| Cyfluthrin | 25.53 | 6 | 0.0003 |
| Bendiocarb | 14.52 | 6 | 0.024 |
| DDT | 18.03 | 6 | 0.006 |
| Pirimiphos methyl | Not calculated because mortality near 100% | ||
Intensity of resistance to deltamethrin in An. gambiae s.l. from different villages in the study area prior to the study.
| Strain | Slope (SE) | LD 50 (95% CI) | LD 95 (95% CI) | RR50 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kisumua | 1.3 (0.18) | 0.015 (0.009–0.022) | 0.261 (0.136–0.767) | – |
| Akanzakro | 1.7 (0.2) | 27.2 (20.3–35.2) | 250.1 (166.7–451.0) | 1873 |
| Kologonouan | 1.5 (0.1) | 21.9 (15.8–28.5) | 289.3 (190.0–534.4) | 1504 |
| Konzo | 1.6 (0.1) | 23.5 (19.1–28.3) | 237.4 (173.7–358.2) | 1617 |
| Kouakro | 1.7 (0.17) | 22.4 (17.3–28.0) | 213.5 (145.0–376.6) | 1542 |
| N’Guessan Pokoukro | 2.1 (0.2) | 33.7 (25.7–43.2) | 207.0 (139.6–377.6) | 2314 |
| Saoundi | 1.7 (0.1) | 35.0 (28.9–41.9) | 322.4 (237.8–477.3) | 2405 |
| Seoule | 1.7 (0.1) | 21.0 (17.2–25.0) | 183.0 (139.1–261.3) | 1441 |
| Sessenouan | 1.4 (0.1) | 27.4 (20.8–34.8) | 390.3 (256.3–708.0) | 1883 |
LD lethal doses expressed in μg/mL; RR50 resistance ratio, calculated by dividing the LD50 of the field mosquito population by that of the susceptible reference strain.
aSusceptible reference strain.
Figure 2Percentage mortality of susceptible Kisumu and resistant An. gambiae s.l. exposed to LLIN material in WHO cone bioassays. Error bars indicate 95% Cis.
Generalised linear model testing the effects of village on net induced mortality.
| Village (arm) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Wald χ2 | df | P | |
| PermaNet 2.0 | 20.87 | 7 | 0.004 |
Species composition in the study villages.
| Study villages | Hybrids (N) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Akanzakro | 117 | 0 | 2 |
| Kologonouan | 86 | 0 | 0 |
| Konzo | 99 | 2 | 0 |
| Kouakro | 53 | 53 | 0 |
| N’Guessan Pokoukro | 160 | 12 | 1 |
| Saoundi | 116 | 2 | 0 |
| Seoule | 99 | 1 | 1 |
| Sessenouan | 158 | 12 | 1 |
N: number of An. gambiae s.l. mosquitoes identified to species by SINE-PCR.
Frequencies of 1014F and 1575Y kdr alleles in An. gambiae from study villages.
| Study villages | N tested | L1014F | N1575Y | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LL | LF | FF | F (1014F) | P value | NN | NY | YY | F (1575Y) | P value | ||
| Akanzakro | 47 | 0 | 0 | 47 | 1 | 0.59 | 36 | 11 | 0 | 0.12 | 0.32 |
| Kologonouan | 46 | 0 | 1 | 45 | 0.99 | 38 | 6 | 2 | 0.11 | ||
| Konzo | 48 | 0 | 4 | 44 | 0.96 | 35 | 13 | 0 | 0.14 | ||
| Kouakro | 45 | 0 | 9 | 36 | 0.90 | 36 | 9 | 0 | 0.10 | ||
| N'Guessan Pokoukro | 47 | 0 | 5 | 42 | 0.95 | 37 | 10 | 0 | 0.11 | ||
| Saoundi | 41 | 1 | 4 | 36 | 0.93 | 34 | 6 | 1 | 0.11 | ||
| Seoule | 40 | 1 | 1 | 38 | 0.96 | 31 | 8 | 1 | 0.13 | ||
| Sessenouan | 53 | 0 | 0 | 53 | 1 | 43 | 9 | 1 | 0.10 | ||
N number of samples, L leucine, F phenylalanine, N asparagine, Y tyrosine.
P values are from χ2-squared tests.
Figure 3Genotypic frequencies of the Ace-1 G119S mutation in An. gambiae mosquitoes. GG homozygote wild type; GS heterozygote resistant, SS homozygote resistant.
Figure 4Differentially expressed probes in An. gambiae s.s. from two villages compared to two susceptible lab colonies. Average log2-transformed fold-differences are plotted against average negative log probabilities. Probes from genes chosen for qPCR validation are labelled.
Figure 5Box-whisker plots show mean fold difference in expression of candidate genes (relative to susceptible colony samples) across villages. The boxes represent the 25% and 75% quartiles and the whiskers indicate 5–95% quartile ranges. The horizontal line within each box represents the mean fold difference in gene expression, and the dots denote outliers.
Figure 6Map showing study villages involved in insecticide resistance monitoring (rm).
Location of study villages and description of mosquito breeding habitats.
| Study village | Geographic coordinates | Arm | Type of breeding habitats | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Longitude | Latitude | |||
| N'Guessan Pokoukro (NP) | 7°56′N | 5°20′W | Control (LLIN) | Water puddle |
| Kologonouan (Kolo) | 7°66′N | 5°17′W | Control (LLIN) | Water puddle |
| Konzo (Kon) | 7°46′N | 5°07′W | Control (LLIN) | Vegetable farm + rice field |
| Seoule Ahounzè (Seou) | 7°76′N | 5°42′W | Control (LLIN) | Rice field |
| Sessenouan (Sesse) | 7°69′N | 5°17′W | SET and LLIN | Vegetable farm + rice field |
| Kouakro (Koua) | 7°83′N | 5°08′W | SET and LLIN | Rice field + water puddle |
| Saoundi (Saou) | 7°78′N | 5°26′W | SET and LLIN | Rice field |
| Akazankro (Akan) | 7°62′N | 5°09′W | SET and LLIN | Vegetable farm + rice field |
SET Screening plus EaveTubes, LLIN long-lasting insecticidal net.