Comparability between insecticide resistance bioassays for mosquito vectors: time to review current methodology?

Particle and Fibre Toxicology

Pie Müller²  David Malone¹  Danica Jančáryová²  Henry F Owusu² 

[1] Innovative Vector Control Consortium, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Place, Liverpool L3 5QA, UK;University of Basel, Petersplatz 1, Basel, CH-2003, Switzerland

关键词: Bioassay;    WHO susceptibility assay;    CDC bottle assay;    Susceptibility;    Resistance;    Insecticide;    Mosquitoes;   

Others  :  1222257
DOI  :  10.1186/s13071-015-0971-6

 received in 2015-03-18, accepted in 2015-06-30,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Insecticides play an integral role in the control of mosquito-borne diseases. With resistance to insecticides on the rise, surveillance of the target population for optimal choice of insecticides is a necessity. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) bottle assay and the World Health Organization (WHO) susceptibility test are the most frequently used methods in insecticide resistance monitoring. However, the two bioassays differ in terms of insecticide delivery and how insecticide susceptibility is measured. To evaluate how equivalent data from the two assays are, we compared the two methods side-by-side.

Methods

We did a literature search from 1998 to December 2014 to identify publications that performed both assays on the same mosquito population and compared the results. We then tested the WHO and CDC bioassays on laboratory strains of Aedes aegypti, Anopheles stephensi, An. gambiae and An. arabiensis with different insecticide resistance levels against permethrin, λ-cyhalothrin, DDT, bendiocarb and malathion. In addition, we also measured the relationship between time-to-knockdown and 24 h mortality.

Results

Both published data and results from the present laboratory experiments showed heterogeneity in the comparability of the two bioassays. Following their standard procedures, the two assays showed poor agreement in detecting resistance at the WHO cut-off mark of 90 % (Cohen’s κ = 0.06). There was better agreement when 24 h mortality was recorded in the CDC bottle assay and compared with that of the WHO susceptibility test (Cohen’s κ = 0.5148). Time-to-knockdown was shown to be an unreliable predictor of 24 h mortality.

Conclusion

Even though the two assays can detect insecticide resistance, they may not be used interchangeably. While the diagnostic dose in the WHO susceptibility test does not allow for detecting shifts at low or extreme resistance levels, time-to-knockdown measured in the CDC bottle assay is a poor predictor of 24 h mortality. Therefore, dose–response assays could provide the most flexibility. New standardized bioassays are needed that produce consistent dose–response measurements with a minimal number of mosquitoes.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Owusu et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Melander AL. Can Insects Become Resistant to Sprays?. J Econ Entomol. 1914;7:167-172.
• [2]Ranson H, N’Guessan R, Lines J, Moiroux N, Nkuni Z, Corbel V. Pyrethroid resistance in African anopheline mosquitoes: what are the implications for malaria control? Trends Parasitol. 2011; 27:91-8.
• [3]Hemingway J. The role of vector control in stopping the transmission of malaria: threats and opportunities. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2014; 369:20130431.
• [4]WHO Global Plan for Insecticide Resistance Management in Malaria Vectors (GPIRM). http://www. who.int/malaria/vector_control/ivm/gpirm/en/index.html webcite
• [5]World Malaria Report 2013. http://www. who.int/malaria/publications/world_malaria_report_2013/en/ webcite
• [6]Strode C, Donegan S, Garner P, Enayati AA, Hemingway J. The impact of pyrethroid resistance on the efficacy of insecticide-treated bed nets against African anopheline mosquitoes: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2014; 11: Article ID e1001619
• [7]Thomsen EK, Strode C, Hemmings K, Hughes AJ, Chanda E, Musapa M et al.. Underpinning sustainable vector control through informed insecticide resistance management. PloS One. 2014; 9: Article ID e99822
• [8]WHO. Test procedures for insecticide resistance monitoring in malaria vector mosquitoes. 2013.
• [9]Brogdon WG, McAllister JC. Simplification of adult mosquito bioassays through use of time-mortality determinations in glass bottles. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 1998; 14:159-64.
• [10]Aizoun N, Osse R, Azondekon R, Alia R, Oussou O, Gnanguenon V et al.. Comparison of the standard WHO susceptibility tests and the CDC bottle bioassay for the determination of insecticide susceptibility in malaria vectors and their correlation with biochemical and molecular biology assays in Benin, West Africa. Parasit Vectors. 2013; 6:147. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg Lond Engl. 2010; 8:336-41.
• [12]CDC: Guideline for evaluating insecticide resistance in vectors using the CDC bottle bioassay. 2010.
• [13]WHO. Discriminating concentrations of insecticides for adult mosquitoes. 2012.
• [14]R Development Core Team. R Development Core Team (2013). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL. http://www. R-project.org webcite
• [15]Mandrekar JN. Measures of interrater agreement. J Thorac Oncol. 2011; 6:6-7.
• [16]Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med. 2005; 37:360-3.
• [17]Therneau TM. A package for survival analysis in S. R Package, Version 2.38. URL: http://CRAN.R-Project.org/package=survival. 2015.
• [18]Borgan Ø. Modeling survival data: extending the cox model. Terry M. Therneau and Patricia M. Grambsch, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2000. No. of Pages: Xiii + 350. Price: $69.95. ISBN. Volume 20; 2001.
• [19]Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S, Christensen RHB, Singmann H et al.. lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. 2014.
• [20]Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. ArXiv14065823 Stat 2014.
• [21]Zamora Perea E, Balta León R, Palomino Salcedo M, Brogdon WG, Devine GJ. Adaptation and evaluation of the bottle assay for monitoring insecticide resistance in disease vector mosquitoes in the Peruvian Amazon. Malar J. 2009; 8:208. BioMed Central Full Text
• [22]Matowo J, Kulkarni MA, Mosha FW, Oxborough RM, Kitau JA, Tenu F et al.. Biochemical basis of permethrin resistance in Anopheles arabiensis from Lower Moshi, north-eastern Tanzania. Malar J. 2010; 9:193. BioMed Central Full Text
• [23]Ochomo E, Bayoh MN, Brogdon WG, Gimnig JE, Ouma C, Vulule JM et al.. Pyrethroid resistance in Anopheles gambiae s.s. and Anopheles arabiensis in western Kenya: phenotypic, metabolic and target site characterizations of three populations. Med Vet Entomol. 2013; 27:156-64.
• [24]Hargreaves K, Koekemoer LL, Brooke BD, Hunt RH, Mthembu J, Coetzee M. Anopheles funestus resistant to pyrethroid insecticides in South Africa. Med Vet Entomol. 2000; 14:181-9.
• [25]WHO. Guidelines for testing mosquito adulticides for indoor residual spraying and treatment of mosquito nets. 2006.
• [26]WHO. Test procedures for insecticide resistance monitoring in malaria vectos, bio-efficacy and persistence of insecticides on treated surfaces. 1998.
• [27]Toe KH, Jones CM, N’Fale S, Ismail HM, Dabire RK, Ranson H. Increased pyrethroid resistance in malaria vectors and decreased bed net effectiveness, Burkina Faso. Emerg Infect Dis. 2014; 20:1691-6.
• [28]Mitchell SN, Stevenson BJ, Muller P, Wilding CS, Egyir-Yawson A, Field SG et al.. Identification and validation of a gene causing cross-resistance between insecticide classes in Anopheles gambiae from Ghana. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012; 109:6147-52.
• [29]Ramphul U, Boase T, Bass C, Okedi LM, Donnelly MJ, Müller P. Insecticide resistance and its association with target-site mutations in natural populations of Anopheles gambiae from eastern Uganda. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2009; 103:1121-6.
• [30]Insecticide Resistance Action Committee (IRAC). Prevention and management of insecticide resistance in vectors of public health importance. 2011.
• [31]Wilson EB. Probable inference, the law of succession, and statistical inference. J Am Stat Assoc. 1927; 22:209-12.
• [32]Fonseca-González I, Quiñones ML, Lenhart A, Brogdon WG. Insecticide resistance status of Aedes aegypti (L.) from Colombia. Pest Manag Sci. 2011; 67:430-7.
• [33]Ocampo CB, Salazar-Terreros MJ, Mina NJ, McAllister J, Brogdon W. Insecticide resistance status of Aedes aegypti in 10 localities in Colombia. Acta Trop. 2011; 118:37-44.
• [34]Fonseca-González I, Quiñones ML, McAllister J, Brogdon WG. Mixed-function oxidases and esterases associated with cross-resistance between DDT and lambda-cyhalothrin in Anopheles darlingi Root 1926 populations from Colombia. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2009; 104:18-26.
• [35]Fonseca-González I, Cárdenas R, Quiñones ML, McAllister J, Brogdon WG. Pyrethroid and organophosphates resistance in Anopheles (N.) nuneztovari Gabaldón populations from malaria endemic areas in Colombia. Parasitol Res. 2009; 105:1399-409.