| Literature DB >> 36234887 |
Nelly Armanda Kala-Chouakeu1,2, Paulette Ndjeunia-Mbiakop2,3, Idriss Nasser Ngangue-Siewe2,4, Konstantinos Mavridis5, Vasileia Balabanidou5, Roland Bamou1,2, Mabu Maxim Bindamu2,6, Abdou Talipouo2,3, Landre Djamouko-Djonkam1,2, Jean Arthur Mbida-Mbida4, Jeanette Tombi3, John Vontas6,7, Timoléon Tchuinkam1, Christophe Antonio-Nkondjio2.
Abstract
Rapid emergence and spread of pyrethroid resistance in Anopheles gambiae populations is among the main factors affecting malaria vector control in Cameroon, but there is still not enough data on the exact pyrethroid resistance status across Cameroon. The present study assessed pyrethroid resistance profile in different eco-epidemiological settings in Cameroon. Susceptibility bioassay tests were performed with F0 An. gambiae females aged three to five days. Mosquito susceptibility to both permethrin and deltamethrin was assessed. Species of the An. gambiae s.l. complex were identified using molecular diagnostic tools. Target site mutations conferring resistance were detected using Taqman assays. Quantitative reverse transcription-real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) 3-plex TaqMan® assays were used for the quantification of detoxification genes implicated in pyrethroid resistance. An. gambiae, An. coluzzii and An. arabiensis were identified in the different settings. An. gambiae was dominant in Santchou, Kékem, Bélabo, Bertoua and Njombé, while An. coluzzii was abundant in Tibati and Kaélé. High frequencies of the kdr L1014F allele ranging from 43% to 100% were recorded in almost all sites. The L1014S kdr allele was detected at low frequency (4.10-10%) only in mosquito populations from Njombé and Tibati. The N1575Y mutation was recorded in Kaélé, Santchou, Tibati and Bertoua with a frequency varying from 2.10% to 11.70%. Six Cytochrome P450 genes (Cyp6p3, Cyp6m2, Cyp9k1, Cyp6p4, Cyp6z1, and Cyp4g16) were found to be overexpressed in at least one population. Analysis of cuticular hydrocarbon lipids indicated a significant increase in CHC content in mosquito populations from Kaélé and Njombé compared to Kékem, Bélabo and Bertoua populations. The study indicated high pyrethroid resistance across different ecological settings in Cameroon with different profile of resistance across the country. The present situation calls for further actions in order to mitigate the impact of insecticide resistance on vector control measures.Entities:
Keywords: Cameroon; anopheles; detoxification genes; eco-epidemiological settings; pyrethroid resistance
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36234887 PMCID: PMC9573433 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27196343
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
Figure 1Map showing study sites with the number of collection periods (the number of red star * in site denote the number of collection time).
Figure 2Susceptibility profile of Anopheles gambiae s.l. to permethrin 0.75% (A) and deltamethrin 0.05% (B) (+ no bioassay conducted in the site).
Figure 3Resistance intensity of An. gambiae (s.l.) populations to permethrin (A) and deltamethrin (B) in the different study sites in Cameroon. (Permethrin (1×, = 0.75%, 5×, = 3.75%, 10×, = 7.5%) and deltamethrin (1×, = 0.05%, 5×, = 0.25%, 10×, = 0.5%)).
Figure 4Mortality rate of An. gambiae s.l. after synergist assays with permethrin (A) and deltamethrin (B).
Frequencies of kdr L1014F, L1014S and N1575Y resistance alleles in An. gambiae s.l. populations.
| Ecological Setting/Strain | Population | Sample Size | Resistant Allele Frequencies (Mean ± SE) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % kdr L1014F | % kdr L1014S | N1575Y | |||
| Kisumu & Ngousso Susceptible strain | Kisumu lab strain | 40 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 |
| Ngousso lab strain | 40 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | |
| Sahelian Zone | Kaélé | 40 | 43.4 ± 5.7 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 11.7 ± 4.8 |
| Humid savanah | Tibati | 40 | 79.9 ± 5.1 | 4.9 ± 0.1 | 3.75 ± 1.3 |
| Highland zone | Santchou | 40 | 100.0 ± 0.0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 5.5 ± 4.0 |
| Kékem | 40 | 100.0 ± 0.0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | |
| Forest zone | Njombé | 30 | 86.1 ± 8.7 | 10.0 ± 2.1 | 0.0 ± 0.0 |
| Bertoua | 40 | 94.6 ± 3.2 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 2.1 ± 0.9 | |
| Bélabo | 40 | 98.8 ± 1.25 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | |
SE: standard error.
Gene expression analysis in the seven resistant mosquito populations compared to the susceptible strains. Bold letters indicate statistically significant upregulation, and asterisks (*) indicate consistent upregulation compared to both susceptible strains.
| Population | Fold Change (95% CI) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comparison |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Njombé vs. KIS | 2.59 | 0.490 | 21.2 * | 1.92 | 2.23 * | 1.36 | 1.53 |
| (0.746–6.99) | (0.306–0.874) | (9.14–79.8) | (0.690–6.695) | (1.63–3.69) | (0.929–2.33) | (0.831–4.13) | |
| Njombé vs. NG | 0.683 | 0.267 | 8.14 * | 1.29 | 1.60 * | 0.639 | 1.02 |
| (0.244–1.65) | (0.140–0.458) | (4.910–13.81) | (0.553–3.789) | (1.22–2.10) | (0.446–1.11) | (0.753–1.31) | |
| Bertoua vs. KIS | 2.70 | 2.16 | 8.29 * | 2.99 * | 1.627 | 1.30 | 1.40 |
| (1.44–3.80) | (1.46–3.39) | (3.14–30.9) | (1.70–5.04) | (0.996–3.076) | (0.910–2.09) | (0.564–4.29) | |
| Bertoua vs. NG | 0.713 | 1.18 | 3.18 * | 2.01 * | 1.17 | 0.611 | 0.928 |
| (0.545–0.910) | (0.670–1.72) | (1.81–5.09) | (1.37–2.85) | (0.745–1.78) | (0.436–0.993) | (0.511–1.34) | |
| Kaélé vs. KIS | 3.8 | 0.169 | 3.72 | 18.2 * | 0.981 | 1.32 | 0.560 |
| (2.00–5.52) | (0.117–0.294) | (1.24–15.1) | (6.94–33.9) | (0.768–1.591) | (0.990–1.83) | (0.218–1.91) | |
| Kaélé vs. NG | 1.02 | 0.092 | 1.43 | 12.2 * | 0.703 | 0.621 | 0.372 |
| (0.745–1.32) | (0.051–0.154) | (0.713–2.528) | (5.57–18.9) | (0.562–0.908) | (0.482–0.871) | (0.198–0.647) | |
| Kékem vs. KIS | 3.05 | 5.69 * | 11.2 * | 2.04 | 0.646 | 1.37 | 1.15 |
| (0.957–7.09) | (4.35–8.20) | (4.73–40.7) | (0.821–4.04) | (0.443–1.20) | (0.990–1.73) | (0.666–3.02) | |
| Kékem vs. NG | 0.802 | 3.10 * | 4.28 * | 1.37 | 0.463 | 0.642 | 0.761 |
| (0.313–1.67) | (1.92–4.13) | (2.61–6.86) | (0.658–2.28) | (0.331–0.712) | (0.475–0.830) | (0.603–0.974) | |
| Tibati vs. KIS | 2.25 | 0.332 | 1.69 | 0.902 | 1.025 | 1.95 | 2.42 * |
| (1.15–3.57) | (0.191–0.549) | (0.713–5.87) | (0.519–1.39) | (0.771–1.73) | (1.48–2.52) | (1.27–7.47) | |
| Tibati vs. NG | 0.593 | 0.180 | 0.650 (0.408–0.945) | 0.607 | 0.735 | 0.914 | 1.61 * |
| (0.455–0.840) | (0.094–0.271) | (0.408–0.945) | (0.416–0.786) | (0.567–1.01) | (0.701–1.20) | (1.16–2.61) | |
| Bélabo vs. KIS | 7.47 * | 3.18 | 7.37 | 3.49 * | 1.48 | 1.54 | 1.93 |
| (3.83–10.9) | (2.10–5.38) | (1.36–40.9) | (2.50–5.43) | (0.969–2.83) | (1.21–1.99) | (0.980–4.94) | |
| Bélabo vs. NG | 1.97 * | 1.73 | 2.83 | 2.35 * | 1.06 | 0.725 | 1.28 |
| (1.40–2.61) | (0.945–2.82) | (0.780–6.91) | (1.35–3.51) | (0.725–1.69) | (0.582–0.946) | (0.994–1.53) | |
| Santchou vs. KIS | 0.641 | 0.934 | 5.27 | 0.848 | 2.17 * | 0.814 | 1.29 |
| (0.286–1.25) | (0.586–1.77) | (1.31–24.1) | (0.324–1.73) | (1.44–4.10) | (0.674–0.959) | (0.810–3.14) | |
| Santchou vs. NG | 0.169 | 0.508 | 2.02 | 0.570 | 1.557 * | 0.382 | 0.854 |
| (0.108–0.295) | (0.262–0.930) | (0.754–3.94) | (0.260–0.981) | (1.08–2.45) | (0.323–0.460) | (0.750–1.10) | |
KIS: Kisumu susceptible laboratory strain; NG: Ngousso susceptible laboratory strain.
Figure 5Mean CHC amounts from Anopheles gambiae populations from Kaélé, Bertoua, Njombé, Kékem and Bélabo (Cameroon).