Open Access

A pre-intervention study of malaria vector abundance in Rio Muni, Equatorial Guinea: Their role in malaria transmission and the incidence of insecticide resistance alleles

  • Frances C Ridl1Email author,
  • Chris Bass2,
  • Miguel Torrez3,
  • Dayanandan Govender1,
  • Varsha Ramdeen1,
  • Lee Yellot3,
  • Amado Edjang Edu4,
  • Christopher Schwabe5,
  • Peter Mohloai6,
  • Rajendra Maharaj1 and
  • Immo Kleinschmidt7
Malaria Journal20087:194

https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-7-194

Received: 24 June 2008

Accepted: 29 September 2008

Published: 29 September 2008

Abstract

Background

Following the success of the malaria control intervention on the island of Bioko, malaria control by the use of indoor residual spraying (IRS) and long-lasting insecticide-treated nets (LLITN) was extended to Rio Muni, on the mainland part of Equatorial Guinea. This manuscript reports on the malaria vectors present and the incidence of insecticide resistant alleles prior to the onset of the programme.

Methods

Anopheles mosquitoes were captured daily using window traps at 30 sentinel sites in Rio Muni, from December 2006 to July 2007. The mosquitoes were identified to species and their sporozoite rates, knockdown resistance (kdr) and acetylcholinesterase (AChE) sensitivity measured, to define the role of vector species in malaria transmission and their potential susceptibility to insecticides.

Results

A total of 6,162 Anopheles mosquitoes were collected of which 4,808 were morphologically identified as Anopheles gambiae s.l., 120 Anopheles funestus, 1,069 Anopheles moucheti, and 165 Anopheles nili s.l.. Both M and S molecular forms of Anopheles gambiae s.s. and Anopheles melas were identified. Anopheles ovengensis and Anopheles carnevalei were the only two members of the An. nili group to be identified. Using the species-specific sporozoite rates and the average number of mosquitoes per night, the number of infective mosquitoes per trap per 100 nights for each species complex was calculated as a measure of transmission risk. Both kdr-w and kdr-e alleles were present in the S-form of An. gambiae s.s. (59% and 19% respectively) and at much lower frequencies in the M-form (9.7% and 1.8% respectively). The kdr-w and kdr-e alleles co-occurred in 103 S-form and 1 M-form specimens. No insensitive AChE was detected.

Conclusion

Anopheles gambiae s.s, a member of the Anopheles gambiae complex was shown to be the major vector in Rio Muni with the other three groups playing a relatively minor role in transmission. The demonstration of a high frequency of kdr alleles in mosquito populations before the onset of a malaria control programme shows that continuous entomological surveillance including resistance monitoring will be of critical importance to ensure the chosen insecticide remains effective.

Background

Malaria is a major endemic disease in Rio Muni, the mainland part of Equatorial Guinea situated at 1.512°N 10.267° on the west coast of Central Africa. Estimates from a Plasmodium falciparum prevalence survey conducted in 2007 among children between two and 15 years of age showed site-specific parasitaemias to vary from 54% to 89% with an average of 72% (unpublished data I. Kleinschmidt and L. Benavente). Following the success of the Bioko Island Malaria Control Project (BIMCP) [1, 2] malaria control has been extended to Rio Muni under the Equatorial Guinea Malaria Control Initiative (EGMCI) by a staged roll-out of indoor residual house spraying (IRS) in Litoral and Kie-Ntem provinces and long-lasting insecticide-treated net (LLITN) distribution in the other two provinces (Cento Sur and Wele Nzas). Extensive information and education campaigns are being conducted and all areas will benefit from the introduction of free artemisinin-based combination therapy starting in July 2008. This initiative, to substantially reduce malaria on the mainland using IRS and LLITNs is being funded by the Global Fund to fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM) and Marathon Oil Company and is run in partnership with the government of Equatorial Guinea, Medical Care Development International (MCDI), One World Development Group International (OWDGI), Medical Research Council of South Africa (MRC), Harvard and Yale Universities and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

The tropical all year round humid climate and the many rivers and streams, both fast and slow flowing, provide ideal breeding conditions for different malaria vectors. Earlier studies have shown Anopheles gambiae sensu lato (s.l.) and Anopheles funestus to be the major vectors of malaria on the mainland of Equatorial Guinea [35]. This paper reports on the composition, density, infectivity, knockdown resistance (kdr) and insensitive acetylcholinesterase (iAChE) status of malaria vector species exiting houses through window traps before the start of the intervention.

Materials and methods

Entomological monitoring

In November 2006, window traps were installed at six houses at each of 30 sentinel sites selected in each of the four provinces (Figure 1); eleven sites in the coastal province, Litoral, which includes Bata, the principle city on the mainland, five sites in Centro Sur which comprises the centre of the mainland, six sites in Kie Ntem in the north-east and eight sites in Welas Nzas in the south-east. The extensive distribution of the sentinel sites throughout the country facilitated localized monitoring of malaria vectors. These data are useful for evaluating the effectiveness of IRS and LLITNs and for long term planning regarding choice of appropriate insecticide.
Figure 1

Map of the sentinel sites in the four provinces of Rio Muni, Equatorial Guinea.

Mosquito collections from window traps were described previously by Sharp et al [2]. Briefly, the contents of window traps were emptied daily by the home owner into pre-labelled specimen jars containing isopropanol. Night control sheets specifying the nights worked were documented and both jars and sheets were collected and replaced at four week intervals. Mosquitoes were collected during an eight month period, from December 2006 to July 2007, before the start of the first spray round to establish a baseline for comparison between pre- and post- intervention periods.

Identification of vector species, molecular forms, kdr and AChE mutations

Mosquitoes were separated into Culicinae and Anophelinae and counted. Anophelines were morphologically identified into An. gambiae s.l., An. funestus, Anopheles moucheti and Anopheles nili s.l., using the keys described by Gillies and De Meillon [6], Gillies and Coetzee [7] and Hervy et al [8] and, subsequently, stored in isopropanol.

DNA was extracted from the head and thorax [9] of a sub-sample of mosquitoes to determine family member species using Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). The protocols of Scott et al [10], Koekemoer et al [11], Kengne et al [12, 13] were used to identify family members of An. gambiae s.l., An. funestus, An. nili s.l. and An. moucheti respectively and the molecular forms of An.gambiae sensu stricto (s.s.) were determined according to the method described by Fanello et al [14]. The presence of the west-African Leu-Phe and east-African Leu-Ser kdr mutations was determined in 505 An. gambiae s.s individuals using the TaqMan PCR protocol described by Bass et al [15]. A new TaqMan assay devised by Bass et al [16] was used to determine Plasmodium falciparum sporozoite rates. Insensitive AChE was determined using the PCR method described by Weil et al [17].

Transmission risk

The number of infective mosquitoes per trap per 100 nights for each species complex was calculated as a measure of transmission risk.

Sequence analysis of kdr

The results of kdr genotyping using the TaqMan assay were verified by sequencing the relevant region of the sodium channel gene in 50 of the 505 samples analysed. This was carried out using two primers (MosF1, 5'-GATAATGTGGATAGATTCCCCG-3 and MosR1, 5'-CGTTGGTGCAGACAAGGATG-3') flanking the mutation site. PCR reactions (25 μl) contained 1 μl of genomic DNA, 12.5 μl of 2× PCR master mix (Promega) and 100 ng of each primer. PCR products were ethanol precipitated and direct sequenced using an internal primer (MosSeq1 5'-CCATGATCTGCCAAGATGGA-3') and the ABI BigDye Terminator Cycle Sequencing kit followed by analysis on a 310 Automated DNA Sequencer (PE Applied Biosystems).

Statistical analysis

The genotypic frequencies at the kdr locus were compared to Hardy-Weinberg expectations using the exact test procedures implemented in GenePOP (ver.3.4) software [18].

Results

Mosquito collections and molecular identification

A total of 6,162 Anopheles mosquitoes were collected of which 4,808 (78%) were morphologically identified as An. gambiae s.l., 120 (2%) An. funestus, 1,069 (17%) An. moucheti and 165 (3%) An. nili s.l. (Table 1). The four identified family groups were found sympatrically in all four provinces. Large variations in mosquito numbers and mosquito species composition existed between sentinel sites and also between different months.
Table 1

Total number of anophelines caught per province December 2006–July 2007

Province

An. gambiae s.l.

An. funestus

An. moucheti

An. nili s.l.

Centro Sur

225

3

382

26

Litoral

3262

76

36

113

Wele Nzas

580

29

153

23

Kie-Ntem

741

12

498

3

Total

4808

120

1069

165

Anopheles gambiae s.s. and Anopheles melas were the only two members of the An. gambiae complex to be identified (n = 930). An. gambiae s.s was identified from 29 of the 30 sentinel sites and accounted for 776 of the An. gambiae s.l. identifications. An. melas was predominantly identified from the two coastal port cities of Cogo and Mbini where they made up 88% (n = 112) and 79% (n = 67) respectively of the total An. gambiae s.l. identified at these two sites. Two specimens were also collected from Yengue, a town in the north-west of Rio Muni, bordering on Cameroon. The S-molecular form of An. gambiae s.s. was found in all four provinces and the M-form, only in Litoral, where it accounted for 44% of identifications (n = 350). The two forms were found sympatrically and no hybrids were identified.

Anopheles moucheti was the second most abundant vector accounting for 17% of the total and was identified from 22 sites. It was the only member of the An. moucheti group to be identified. An. funestus was collected from fourteen sentinel sites and was the only member of the An. funestus group to be identified and accounted for 2% of the total number of Anopheline mosquitoes caught.

Anopheles nili s.l. accounted for 3% of the total Anopheles population and was found at seven sentinel sites: Ayamiken, Ayene, Machinda, Ngong, Niefang, Nkue and Yengue. Of the 151 An. nili s.l. tested, 98 and 53 were identified as Anopheles ovengensis and Anopheles carnevalei respectively. Anopheles carnevalei was only identified from Yengue where it accounted for 50% of the total An. nili s.l. identified.

Plasmodium falciparum sporozoite and transmission rates

Sporozoite rates were 4.1% (n = 49) for An. funestus, 4.1% (n = 74) for An. ovengensis, 3.3% (n = 603) for An. gambiae s.s. and 1.6% (n = 126) for An. moucheti. The sporozoite rate for An. melas was 4.4% (n = 137). Anopheles carnevalei was not shown to be involved in transmission although numbers tested were low (n = 52). The estimated number of An. gambiae s.l., An. moucheti, An. nili s.l. and An. funestus per window trap per 100 nights was 15.5, 3.4, 0.5 and 0.4 respectively. Using the species complex sporozoite prevalence (3.5%, 1.6% 2.6% and 4.1% respectively) the number of infective mosquitoes per trap per 100 nights for each species was 0.5, 0.06, 0.01 and 0.02 respectively.

Kdr allele frequencies in M and S molecular forms of An. gambiae s.s

393 S and 113 M molecular forms of An. gambiae s.s. were analysed for the presence of kdr-w and kdr-e alleles using a recently described TaqMan assay (Table 2). The results using the new assay were compared with sequencing in a subset of 50 of the specimens analysed and the two methods were found to be in complete agreement. Kdr-e and kdr-w resistance alleles were present in S forms with a higher frequency of the kdr-w allele (59%) than the kdr-e allele (19%). Both alleles also occurred in the M-forms but at much lower frequencies of 9.7% for kdr-w and 1.8% for kdr-e. Both the kdr-w and kdr-e alleles were present in S form samples in all four provinces with frequencies of the kdr-w allele of 51% in Litoral, 47% in Centro Sur, 64% in Wele Nzas and 73% in Kie Ntem and frequencies of the kdr-e allele of 32% in Litoral, 24% in Centro Sur, 8% in Wele Nzas and 14% in Kie Ntem. The kdr-w and kdr-e alleles were found to co-occur in a single M form specimen and in 103 S form specimens (Table 2). Sample numbers were sufficient to compare kdr gene frequencies with Hardy Weinberg expectations in populations collected from a number of sites. These included Bata City in Litoral, Bisun in Centro Sur, Mongomeyen in Wele Nzas and Ebebiyin in Kie-Ntem. Genotypic frequencies of both M and S form populations in Bata City showed significant deviations from Hardy-Weinberg expectations with a heterozygote deficit (P < 0.001). The same was true of the S form population in Bisun in this instance due to a heterozygote excess (P < 0.05). The genotypic frequencies of the S form populations at the other two localities were not significantly different from Hardy Weinberg expectations (P = 1 for the Mongomeyen population and P = 0.39 for the Ebebiyin population).

Table 2

Kdr genotype frequencies in An. gambiae s.s. in Rio Muni, 2006–2007

Province

District

Locality

n

molecular form

kdr genotypes

     

S/S

S/Rw

S/Re

Rw/Rw

Re/Re

Re/Rw

Litoral

Bata

Yengue

25

M

20

4

1

0

0

0

   

33

S

3

3

5

10

2

10

  

Ayamiken

5

S

1

3

1

0

0

0

  

Machinda

1

S

0

1

0

0

0

0

 

Bata City

Ngolo

9

M

6

0

0

1

1

1

   

29

S

1

0

0

11

6

11

  

Etofili-Lubi

1

M

1

0

0

0

0

0

   

9

S

0

0

0

6

1

2

  

Centro

2

S

0

0

0

0

0

2

  

Ukomba

60

M

51

9

0

0

0

0

   

12

S

4

1

0

1

1

5

  

Ncolombong

11

M

8

2

0

1

0

0

   

19

S

1

0

0

2

2

14

 

Cogo

Mbini

6

M

4

1

0

0

0

0

   

5

S

1

4

0

1

0

0

  

Cogo

1

M

1

0

0

0

0

0

   

1

S

0

0

0

1

0

0

Centro Sur

Niefang

Niefang

13

S

0

3

2

2

1

5

  

Bisun

48

S

3

20

5

6

2

12

 

Evinayong

Bicurga

5

S

2

2

0

1

0

0

  

Evinayong

17

S

2

3

1

7

0

4

 

Akurenam

Akurenam

5

S

1

0

0

1

0

3

Wele Nzas

Anisok

Ayene

23

S

2

11

1

4

0

5

  

Anisok

3

S

0

0

0

2

0

1

 

Mongomo

Mongomeyen

49

S

4

19

2

19

0

5

  

Mongomo

4

S

0

0

0

4

0

0

  

Asok

1

S

0

1

0

0

0

0

 

Nsork

Nsork

11

S

1

2

0

7

0

1

  

Aconibe

6

S

0

1

1

3

0

1

Kie-Ntem

Micomiseng

Nkue

17

S

2

9

2

2

0

2

 

Ebebiyin

Ngong

26

S

0

6

1

19

0

0

  

Ebebiyin

49

S

1

0

0

29

1

18

AChE resistance

All 200 mosquitoes tested for insensitive AChE were found to be susceptible.

Discussion

Anopheles gambiae s.l. was shown to be the main vector within this geographical region with the other three species playing a relatively minor role due to their low densities. A sporozoite rate of 4.4% for An. melas indicates its involvement in malaria transmission in the two sentinel sites from which it was identified.

Previous studies in Equatorial Guinea have shown An. gambiae s.l. and An. funestus to be the main vectors of malaria [35]. Elsewhere in West and Central Africa An. gambiae s.l., An. funestus, An. moucheti and An. nili s.l. have been shown to be effective vectors with EIR rates ranging from 1–1000 infective bites per year recorded [19]. In this study, all four identified groups from Rio Muni have been shown to be involved in transmission of malaria with An. gambiae s.s. being the major vector. Although An. funestus was found to have the highest sporozoite rate, the number caught was very low hence it was not shown to be a major vector.

Anopheles nili has recently been described as a complex consisting of four member species based on morphological criteria: An. nili, Anopheles somalicus, An. carnevalei and An. ovengensis [12].Anopheles carnevalei is relatively rare in occurrence and has so far only been reported from the equatorial forests of Ivory Coast and Cameroon [20] and from a village in Equatorial Guinea, Yengue [21, 22]. Anopheles ovengensis has been reported from southern Cameroon [23]. The results of this study further provide proof of the distribution of An. ovengensis to extend throughout the northern part of Equatorial Guinea as was suggested by Awono-Ambene [23] and confirms the presence of An. carnevalei in Yengue, a village in the north-west of the mainland where it was sympatric with An. ovengensis. These collections were all made from window traps thus indicating some degree of endophilic behaviour although previous studies suggest predominately exophilic habits [23].

Resistance of mosquitoes to insecticides usually arises through one of two mechanisms, or a combination of the two; metabolic resistance due to increased production of detoxifying enzymes and target site resistance due to mutations in the sodium channel, acetylcholinesterase or GABA receptor [24]. Kdr is a target site resistance of the sodium channel and is one of the mechanisms conferring resistance to pyrethroid and DDT insecticides. Two mutations have been described, a leucine-phenylalanine substitution originally found in west-African An. gambiae s.l. [25] and a leucine-serine substitution found in east-African An. gambiae s.l. [26]. However, recent studies in Cameroon and Gabon have shown that these mutations are not unique to these geographical regions and that there is considerable overlap with both being present in the same populations [27, 28]. Both the resistance alleles were identified in the populations examined in this study. The kdr-w and kdr-e alleles were present at low frequencies in M forms (9.7% and 1.8%) and in much higher frequencies in S forms with the frequency of the kdr-w allele 59% and the frequency of the kdr-e allele 19%. The observed gene frequencies are in close concordance with those reported recently in the neighbouring country of Cameroon where kdr-w and kdr-e alleles were present in M form populations at frequencies of 6.3% for kdr-w and 1.1% for kdr-e and in S form populations at frequencies of 52.7 and 13.9% [29]. This correlation in observed gene frequencies could indicate that the kdr alleles have migrated from Cameroon to Equatorial Guinea or vice versa. It would be interesting in future to sequence the sodium channel gene regions flanking the kdr locus, in particular intron I upstream of the mutation site, as this will provide evidence as to whether the kdr mutations have arisen once and spread between the two countries or represent independent mutation events. It may also reveal the extent of migration between populations in Equatorial Guinea and Cameroon. Interestingly the gene frequencies we observed on the mainland differ significantly from those seen on the island part of Equatorial Guinea, Bioko, where prior to the onset of the spray programme, 50% of the M-forms carried the kdr-w allele in either the homozygous or heterozygous form while it was completely absent in the S-form [30, 2]. However, previous studies have suggested that An. gambiae populations on Bioko are to a large extent isolated from mainland populations [29].

As reported previously in the neighbouring countries of Cameroon and Gabon [28, 29] we observed a large number of Re/Rw genotypes in the localities sampled in this study (26% of S form mosquitoes carried this genotype). Indeed this was the predominant genotype seen in S form mosquitoes after the Rw/Rw genotype (34%). A recent study has shown that this genotype confers a significant degree of resistance to DDT, although the level of resistance is not significantly greater than that conferred by Rw/Rw [29]. Significantly we also recorded this genotype in a single M form specimen. This result was confirmed by sequencing and to our knowledge represents the first report of this genotype in M form mosquitoes. Further screening for kdr in M form populations in Equatorial Guinea will reveal the extent of this genotype in the M form but this initial study indicates it may be currently found at an extremely low frequency.

In the Bata City area of Litoral both M and S populations showed significant deviations from Hardy-Weinberg expectations (P < 0.001) and this was due to a heterozygote deficit. As kdr is a recessive trait [25, 26] and only homozygous genotypes express the resistance phenotype, studies need to be implemented to determine the origin of the insecticide selection pressure as is observed from the high frequency of homozygous resistant individuals in Bata City before IRS. Clearly the presence of both kdr-e and kdr-w alleles at high frequencies in these populations may have implications for the effectiveness of the current vector control programme which is based on pyrethroid insecticides.

AChE is the target site of organophosphates and carbamate insecticides and insensitive AChE in mosquitoes coincides with high insecticide resistance to these insecticide classes. No insensitive AChE was detected in this baseline study indicating continued efficacy of these insecticide classes. Coleman et al [31] reviewed published insecticide resistance data in Africa and found eight sites with reported carbamate resistance and 13 sights with organophosphate resistance. They attributed this to the limited application of carbamates and organophophates in large-scale vector control and the lack of resistance monitoring.

This study provides contemporary information on the distribution of malaria species and their role in malaria transmission in Rio Muni, Equatorial Guinea. It also provides useful information on measures of insecticide resistance for the vector control programme. Pyrethroids have been selected as the insecticide of choice for the first spray round due to its low toxicity in humans, its longer residual effect and for cost efficacy and procurement implications. WHO susceptibility tests in 2000 showed resistance to DDT but susceptibility to both deltamethrin and permethrin [5, 32]. In bioassays conducted in 2007 with alphacypermethrin (Fendona), there was 95.5% mortality in the exposed group by the end of the observation period (24 hrs) (personnel communication M. Torrez 2007). In West Africa, large scale agricultural pyrethroid use has resulted in very high insecticide resistance [3]. However in Equatorial Guinea pyrethroids have not been widely used as an agricultural insecticide. Therefore this studies findings of kdr mutations at such high frequency in mosquito populations in Equatorial Guinea (particularly in S form populations) is unexpected. Nevertheless, the presence of kdr alleles at the observed frequencies could impact on the choice of insecticide for future spray rounds and will require ongoing monitoring and evaluation to ensure the chosen insecticide remains effective, a process the EGMCI has put in place. Carbamates remain a viable alternative in the absence of insensitive AChE and have been successfully used in a number of spray programmes including on the island of Bioko and in Mozambique [2, 33]. Further biochemical testing is planned to determine whether or not other resistant mechanisms are present in the mosquito populations and to assess if these develop as a result of selection pressure exerted by the IRS and ITN vector control operations.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Drs Adel Chaouch, Brian Linder and Susan Rynard from Marathon Oil Company for their encouragement and constructive participation in the EGMCI; Dr Gloria Nseng, Director of the National Malaria Control Programme in Equatorial Guinea for her oversight and direction of the malaria control efforts in the country and Mr Simon Abaga, Ministry of Health and Social Welfare Entomologist, for his support of field-based activities; Jaime Kuklinski, Ruben Biebeda and Blas Abeso from One World Development Group International (OWDGI) for the collection of mosquitoes and management of vector monitoring component of the fieldwork in the EGMCI; Natashia Morris for the preparation of the map; Dr Mike Coleman for his interest and support in this project and Inbarani Naidoo for critically reading the manuscript.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Malaria Research Lead Programme, Medical Research Council
(2)
Department of Biological Chemistry, Rothamsted Research
(3)
Equatorial Guinea Malaria Control Initiative
(4)
C/O.U.A., Zona Sanitaria s/n
(5)
Medical Care Development International
(6)
One World Development Group International, Punta Europa, Carretera Aeropuerto
(7)
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

References

  1. Kleinschmidt I, Sharp BL, Benavente L, Schwabe C, Torrez M, Kuklinski J, Morris N, Raman J, Carter J: Reduction in infection with Plasmodium falciparum one year after the introduction of malaria control interventions on Bioko Island, Equatorial Guinea. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2006, 74: 972-978.Google Scholar
  2. Sharp BL, Ridl FC, Govender D, Kuklinski J, Kleinschmidt I: Malaria vector control by indoor residual insecticide spraying on the tropical island of Bioko, Equatorial Guinea. Malar J. 2007, 6: 52-10.1186/1475-2875-6-52.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Molina R, Benito A, Roche J, Blanca F, Amele C, Sanchez A, Alvar J: Baseline entomological data for a pilot malaria control programme in Equatorial Guinea. J Med Entomol. 1993, 3: 622-624.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Roche J, Ayecaba S, Amela C, Alvar J, Benito A: Epidemiological characteristics of malaria in Equatorial Guinea. Res Rev Parasitol. 1996, 56: 99-104.Google Scholar
  5. Molina R, Benito A, Blanca F, Roche J, Otunga B, Alvar J: The Anopheles of Equatorial Guinea. Ethology and susceptibility studies. Res Rev Parasitol. 1996, 56 (2–3): 105-110.Google Scholar
  6. Gillies MT, De Meillon BL: The Anophelinae of Africa south of the Sahara. 1968, Publication of the South African Institute for Medical Research, Johannesburg, 54.Google Scholar
  7. Gillies MT, Coetzee M: A Supplement to the Anophelinae of Africa South of the Sahara (Afrotropical Region). 1987, Publication of the South African Institute for Medical Research, Johannesburg, 55.Google Scholar
  8. Hervy JP, Le Goff G, Geoffroy JP, Herve L, Manga L, Brunhes J: The Anopheline mosquitoes of the Afrotropical region. An identification and training software. ORSTROM edition. Serie Didactiques. Paris, France (in French, English and Portuguese). 1998Google Scholar
  9. Collins FH, Mendez MZ, Rasmussen MO, Mehaffey PC, Bensansky NJ, Finnerty V: A ribosomal RNA gene probe differentiates member species of the Anopheles gambiae complex. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1987, 37: 37-41.Google Scholar
  10. Scott JA, Brogdon WG, Collins FH: Identification of single specimens of the Anopheles gambiae group by polymerase chain reaction. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1993, 49: 520-529.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Koekemoer LL, Kamau L, Hunt RH, Coetzee M: A cocktail polymerase chain reaction assay to identify members of the Anopheles funestus (Diptera: Culicidae) group. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2002, 6: 804-811.Google Scholar
  12. Kengne P, Awono-Ambene P, Antonio-Nkondjio C, Simard F, Fontenille D: Molecular identification of the Anopheles nili group of African malaria vectors. Med Vet Entomol. 2003, 17: 67-74. 10.1046/j.1365-2915.2003.00411.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kengne P, Awono-Ambene P, Awono-Ambene HP, Simard F, Awolola TS, Fontenille D: Molecular differentiation of three closely related members of the mosquito species complex, Anopheles moucheti, by ribosomal DNA polymorphism. Med Vet Entomol. 2007, 21: 177-082. 10.1111/j.1365-2915.2007.00681.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Fanello C, Santolamazza F, della Torre A: Simultaneous identification of species and molecular forms of the Anopheles gambiae complex by PCR-RFLP. Med Vet Entomol. 2002, 16: 461-464. 10.1046/j.1365-2915.2002.00393.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Bass C, Nikou D, Donnelly MJ, Williamson MS, Ranson H, Ball A, Vontas J, Field LM: Detection of knockdown resistance (kdr) mutations in Anopheles gambiae: a comparison of two new high-throughput assays with existing methods. Malar J. 2007, 6: 111-10.1186/1475-2875-6-111.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Bass C, Nikou D, Blagborough AM, Williamson MS, Vontas J, Sinden RE, Field LM: PCR-based detection of Plasmodium in Anopheles mosquitoes: a comparison of a new high-throughput assay with existing methods. Malar J. 2008, 7: 177-10.1186/1475-2875-7-177.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Weil M, Malcolm C, Chandres F, Mogensen K, Berthomieu A, Marquine M, Raymond M: The unique mutation in ace-1 giving high insecticide resistance is easily detectable in mosquito vectors. Insect Mol Biol. 2004, 13 (1): 1-7. 10.1111/j.1365-2583.2004.00452.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Raymond M, Rousset F: GENEPOP (version 1.2): Population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J Heredity. 1995, 86: 248-249.Google Scholar
  19. Fontenille D, Simard F: Unravelling complexities in human malaria transmission dynamics in Africa through comprehensive knowledge of vector populations. Comparative Immunology, Microbiology and Infectious Disease. 2004, 27: 357-375. 10.1016/j.cimid.2004.03.005.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Brunhes J, Le Goff G, Geoffroy B: Afro-Tropical anopheline mosquitoes. 111. Description of three new species: Anopheles carnevalei sp. Nov., An. hervyi sp. Nov., and An. dualaensis sp. Nov., and resurrection of An. rageaui Mattingly and Adam. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 1999, 15 (4): 552-558.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Cano J, Nzambo S, Buatiche JN, Ondo-Esono M, Micha F, Benito A: Anopheles (Cellia) carnevalei in Equatorial Guinea (West Central Africa)). J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2003, 19 (4): 435-437.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Cano J, Descalzo MA, Moreno M, Chen Z, Nzambo S, Bobuakasi L, Buatiche JN, Ondo M, Micha F, Benito A: Spatial variability in the density, distribution and vectorial capacity of anopheline species in a high transmission village (Equatorial Guinea). Malar J. 2006, 5: 21-10.1186/1475-2875-5-21.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Awono-Ambene HP, Kengne P, Simard F, Antonio-Nkondjia C, Fontenille D: Description and bionomics of Anopheles (Cellia) ovengensis (Diptera: Culicidae), a new malaria vector species of the Anopheles nili group from south Cameroon. J Med Entomol. 2004, 41 (4): 561-568.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hemingway J, Hawkes NJ, McCarroll L, Ranson H: The molecular basis of insecticide resistance in mosquitoes. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2004, 34: 653-665. 10.1016/j.ibmb.2004.03.018.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Martinez-Torres D, Chandre F, Williamson MS, Darriet F, Berge JB, Devenshire AL, Guillet P, Pasteur N, Pauron D: Molecular characterization of pyrethoid knockdown resistance (kdr) in the major malaria vector Anopheles gambiae s.s. Insect Mol Biol. 1998, 7: 179-184. 10.1046/j.1365-2583.1998.72062.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Ranson H, Jensen B, Vulule JM, Wang X, Hemingway J, Collins FH: Identification of a point mutation in the voltage-gated sodium channel gene of Kenyan Anopheles gambiae associated with resistance to DDT and pyrethoids. Insect Mol Biol. 2000, 9 (5): 491-497. 10.1046/j.1365-2583.2000.00209.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Etang J, Fonjo E, Chandre F, Morlais I, Brengues C, Nwane P, Chouaibou M, Ndjemai H, Simard F: Short report: First report of knockdown mutations in the malaria vector Anopheles gambiae from Cameroon. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2006, 74 (5): 795-797.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Pinto J, Lynd A, Elissa N, Donnelly MJ, Costa C, Gentile G, Caccone A, Do Rosario VE: Co-occurrence of East and West kdr mutations suggests high levels of resistance to pyrethroid insecticides in Anopheles gambiae from Libreville, Gabon. Med Vet Entomol. 2006, 20: 27-32. 10.1111/j.1365-2915.2006.00611.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Reimer L, Fonjo E, Patchoke S, Diallo B, lee Y, Ng A, Ndjemai HM, Atangana J, Traore SF, Lanzaro G, Cornel AJ: Relationship between kdr mutation and resistance to Pyrethoid and DDT insecticides in natural populations of An. gambiae. J Med Entomol. 2008, 45 (2): 260-266. 10.1603/0022-2585(2008)45[260:RBKMAR]2.0.CO;2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Reimer L, Tripet F, Slotman M, Spielman A, Fonjo E, Lanzaro GC: An unusual distribution of the kdr gene among populations of Anopheles gambiae on the island of Bioko, Equatorial Guinea. Insect Mol Biol. 2005, 14 (6): 683-688. 10.1111/j.1365-2583.2005.00599.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Coleman M, Sharp B, Seocharan I, Hemingway J: Developing an evidence based decision support system for rational insecticide choice in the control of African malaria vectors. J Med Entomol. 2006, 43 (4): 663-668. 10.1603/0022-2585(2006)43[663:DAEDSS]2.0.CO;2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Bagayoko M, Ameneshwa B, Faye O, Lymo E, Govere J, Gebremariam M, Manga L: The status of malaria vector resistance to insecticides used for public health in the African region. Communicable Diseases Bulletin for the African Region. 3 (1): 5-7.Google Scholar
  33. Sharp BL, Kleinschmidt I, Streat E, Maharaj R, Barnes KI, Durrheim DN, Ridl FC, Morris N, Seocharan I, Kunene S, La Grange JJP, Mthembu JD, Maartens F, Martin CL, Barreto A: Seven years of regional control collaboration-Mozambique, South Africa, and Swaziland. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2007, 76 (1): 42-47.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Ridl et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2008

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Advertisement