| Literature DB >> 35505366 |
Daibin Zhong1, Pyae Linn Aung2, Maung Maung Mya2, Xiaoming Wang3, Qian Qin4, Myat Thu Soe2, Guofa Zhou3, Myat Phone Kyaw2, Jetsumon Sattabongkot5, Liwang Cui6, Guiyun Yan3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Myanmar is one of the six countries in the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) of Southeast Asia. Malaria vectors comprise many Anopheles species, which vary in abundance and importance in malaria transmission among different geographical locations in the GMS. Information about the species composition, abundance, and insecticide resistance status of vectorial systems in Myanmar is scarce, hindering our efforts to effectively control malaria vectors in this region.Entities:
Keywords: Anopheles malaria vectors; Community structure; Insecticide resistance; Kdr mutation; Myanmar; Ribosomal internal transcribed spacer 2
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35505366 PMCID: PMC9062858 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-022-05262-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 4.047
Fig. 1Map of study sites in Banmauk Township, Katha District, Sagaing Region of northern-central Myanmar. Red triangles indicate the locations of the three villages. The map was generated using ArcGIS Pro software based on map
source at: www.esri.com
Mortality rates and knockdown times of Anopheles mosquitoes exposed to deltamethrin in Myanmar
| Species group | Female adults from cow-baited tent collection (CBTC) | Female adults reared from field-collected larvae (RFCL) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KT50/min (95% CI) | MR (%) (mean ± SE) | Status | KT50/min (95% CI) | MR (%) (mean ± SE) | Status | ||||
| 170 | 24.9(22.4–27.6) | 81.1 ± 3.2 | R | 166 | 26.6(24.3–29.2) | 71.5 ± 3.0 | R | 0.0462 | |
| 260 | 16.5(14.8–18.5) | 77.9 ± 2.7 | R | 168 | 21.1(18.7–23.7) | 67.9 ± 3.5 | R | 0.0241 | |
| 144 | 17.6(15.4–20.1) | 98.7 ± 0.9 | S | 115 | 18.8(16.8–21.2) | 93.9 ± 1.0 | PR | 0.0052 | |
| 110 | 11.6(10.4–13.0) | 100 | S | 148 | 15.8(14.1–17.6) | 97.6 ± 0.7 | PR | 0.0426 | |
| 0 | na | na | na | 102 | 20.6(18.4–23.1) | 72.5 ± 2.9 | R | na | |
| 93 | 13.3(11.5–15.3) | 96.7 ± 3.2 | PR | 0 | na | na | na | na | |
| 64 | 12.9(11.1–14.9) | 100 | S | 56 | 19.3(17.5–21.5) | 100 | S | na | |
KT50, time to knockdown 50% mosquitoes; MR, mortality rate; CI, confidence interval; S, susceptible (mortality rate ≥ 98%); SE, standard error; PR, probably resistant (mortality rate 90–97%); R, resistant (mortality rate < 90%). Values for P < 0.05 indicate significant difference in mortality rates between the two sampling methods (CBTC and RFCL). An An. sinensis susceptible laboratory strain was used as a control for comparison
Fig. 2Mortality rate of Anopheles mosquitoes exposed to deltamethrin following the WHO susceptibility test procedure for insecticide monitoring in malaria vectors. The mortality rate was recorded after a 24-h recovery period. NA, not available. Red dashed line indicates cutoff for confirmed resistance (< 90%) (WHO 2018 update). Anopheles sinensis susceptible laboratory strain showed 100% mortality
Molecular identification of species composition and abundance in northern-central Myanmar
| Species group | Species | CBTC | FCL | Total | % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R | S | R | S | ||||
| 32 | 138 | 46 | 120 | 336 | 20.5 | ||
| 57 | 157 | 24 | 80 | 318 | 19.4 | ||
| 0 | 44 | 0 | 64 | 108 | 6.6 | ||
| 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0.1 | ||
| 2 | 48 | 0 | 20 | 70 | 4.3 | ||
| 0 | 94 | 7 | 88 | 189 | 11.5 | ||
| 0 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 10 | 0.6 | ||
| 0 | 102 | 0 | 114 | 216 | 13.2 | ||
| 0 | 4 | 0 | 24 | 28 | 1.7 | ||
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 0.2 | ||
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.1 | ||
| 0 | 0 | 28 | 74 | 102 | 6.2 | ||
| 3 | 90 | 0 | 0 | 93 | 5.7 | ||
| 0 | 64 | 0 | 56 | 120 | 7.3 | ||
| 3 | 5 | 8 | 0.5 | ||||
| 5 | 6 | 11 | 0.7 | ||||
| 4 | 1 | 5 | 0.3 | ||||
| 3 | 1 | 4 | 0.2 | ||||
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.1 | ||||
| 7 | 2 | 9 | 0.5 | ||||
| 2 | 0 | 2 | 0.1 | ||||
| 2 | 0 | 2 | 0.1 | ||||
| Total | 868 | 770 | 1638 | 100.0 | |||
CBTC, female adults from cow-baited tent collection; RFCL, female adults reared from field-collected larvae; R, resistant; S, susceptible
Fig. 3Phylogenetic tree inferred from UPGMA method based on ITS2 sequences (a) and kdr sequences (b). Bootstrap support values ≥ 50% are displayed by colored dots next to the branches. Tips of the tree are labeled as GenBank accession followed by Anopheles species identified in this study