| Literature DB >> 34725401 |
Antsa Rakotonirina1, Cédric Caruzzo2, Valentine Ballan1, Malia Kainiu3, Marie Marin1, Julien Colot3, Vincent Richard4, Myrielle Dupont-Rouzeyrol5, Nazha Selmaoui-Folcher2, Nicolas Pocquet6.
Abstract
The mosquito Aedes aegypti is the major vector of arboviruses like dengue, Zika and chikungunya viruses. Attempts to reduce arboviruses emergence focusing on Ae. aegypti control has proven challenging due to the increase of insecticide resistances. An emerging strategy which consists of releasing Ae. aegypti artificially infected with Wolbachia in natural mosquito populations is currently being developed. The monitoring of Wolbachia-positive Ae. aegypti in the field is performed in order to ensure the program effectiveness. Here, the reliability of the Matrix‑Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization‑Time Of Flight (MALDI‑TOF) coupled with the machine learning methods like Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) to detect Wolbachia in field Ae. aegypti was assessed for the first time. For this purpose, laboratory reared and field Ae. aegypti were analyzed. The results showed that the CNN recognized Ae. aegypti spectral patterns associated with Wolbachia-infection. The MALDI-TOF coupled with the CNN (sensitivity = 93%, specificity = 99%, accuracy = 97%) was more efficient than the loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), and as efficient as qPCR for Wolbachia detection. It therefore represents an interesting method to evaluate the prevalence of Wolbachia in field Ae. aegypti mosquitoes.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34725401 PMCID: PMC8560810 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-00888-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Overview of mosquitoes used for MALDI-TOF MS analysis.
| MSPs creation | Blind testing [number of spectra obtained] | |
|---|---|---|
| Laboratory strain | 5 | 30 [60] |
| Laboratory strain WT | 5 | 30 [60] |
| Field-mosquito | – | 56 [102] |
| Field-mosquito WT | – | 138 [249] |
| Total | 10 | 254 [471] |
Figure 1Architecture of the convolutional neural network used for Wolbachia detection in Ae. aegypti.
Figure 2Architecture of the ensemble learning used during analysis.
Figure 3Comparison between the spectra of Ae. aegypti infected with Wolbachia and Ae. aegypti uninfected using FlexAnalysis software. (a): spectra of infected Ae. aegypti from the laboratory. (b): spectra of uninfected Ae. aegypti from the laboratory. (c): spectra of infected Ae. aegypti from the field. (d): spectra of uninfected Ae. aegypti from the field. Abbreviations: A.U, arbitrary unity; m/z, mass-to-charge ratio.
Confusion matrices of field and laboratory mosquitoes’ classification with CNN on MALDI-TOF MS spectra.
| Laboratory mosquitoes | Predicted positive | Predicted negative | Field mosquitoes | Predicted positive | Predicted negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Actual Positive | 27 | 3 | Actual Positive | 52 | 4 |
| Actual Negative | 0 | 30 | Actual Negative | 2 | 136 |
Figure 4Boxplot showing the 12 mass points of distinct m/z (Daltons) considered over 85% by the CNN to discriminate Ae. aegypti infected and uninfected with Wolbachia. (a): results obtained for laboratory-reared mosquitoes (wMel: n = 30; WT: n = 30). (b): results obtained for field mosquitoes (wMel: n = 56; WT: n = 138). The boxplot colors correspond to the infection status of the mosquitoes determined by qPCR (yellow: wMel; pink: WT). Abbreviations: A.U, arbitrary unity; m/z, mass-to-charge ratio.
Figure 5Classification of field wMel Ae. aegypti according to their Wolbachia density by LAMP, MALDI-TOF MS protein profiling, and MALDI-TOF MS coupled to CNN. (a): results obtained with LAMP assay. (b): results obtained with MALDI-TOF MS protein profiling. (c): results obtained with MALDI-TOF MS coupled to CNN. Each dot represents one field Ae. aegypti detected as positive for Wolbachia by qPCR (n = 56). Y axis corresponds to the decimal logarithm of Wolbachia density according to the qPCR results. In the X-axis, wMel corresponds to the true positive results, equivocal (only for LAMP) and WT correspond to the false negative results.
Comparison of LAMP, MALDI-TOF MS profiling, and MALDI-TOF MS coupled to CNN performances when analyzing field-mosquitoes (n = 194).
| Technic | Se [95% CI] | Sp [95% CI] | PPV [95% CI] | NPV [95% CI] | Accuracy [95% CI] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LAMP | 80% [68–90] | 100% [97–100] | 100% | 93% [88–95] | 94% [90–97] |
| MALDI-TOF | 77% [64–87] | 99% [96–100] | 98% [86–100] | 91% [87–94] | 93% [88—96] |
| CNN on MALDI-TOF | 93% [89–96] | 99% [97–100] | 96% [94–99] | 97% [95–99] | 97% [94–99] |
Abbreviations: Se, sensitivity; Sp, specificity; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value.
The performance indicators were calculated in comparison to the results of the gold standard qPCR technique.