Open Access

Molecular evidence for historical presence of knock-down resistance in Anopheles albimanus, a key malaria vector in Latin America

  • Juan C Lol1,
  • María E Castellanos1,
  • Kelly A Liebman2,
  • Audrey Lenhart2,
  • Pamela M Pennington1 and
  • Norma R Padilla1Email author
Parasites & Vectors20136:268

https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-6-268

Received: 18 July 2013

Accepted: 12 September 2013

Published: 18 September 2013

Abstract

Background

Anopheles albimanus is a key malaria vector in the northern neotropics. Current vector control measures in the region are based on mass distributions of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) and focal indoor residual spraying (IRS) with pyrethroids. Resistance to pyrethroid insecticides can be mediated by increased esterase and/or multi-function oxidase activity and/or mutations in the voltage-gated sodium channel gene. The aim of this work was to characterize the homologous kdr region of the voltage-gated sodium channel gene in An. albimanus and to conduct a preliminary retrospective analysis of field samples collected in the 1990’s, coinciding with a time of intense pyrethroid application related to agricultural and public health insect control in the region.

Methods

Degenerate primers were designed to amplify the homologous kdr region in a pyrethroid-susceptible laboratory strain (Sanarate) of An. albimanus. Subsequently, a more specific primer pair was used to amplify and sequence the region that contains the 1014 codon associated with pyrethroid resistance in other Anopheles spp. (L1014F, L1014S or L1014C).

Results

Direct sequencing of the PCR products confirmed the presence of the susceptible kdr allele in the Sanarate strain (L1014) and the presence of homozygous-resistant kdr alleles in field-collected individuals from Mexico (L1014F), Nicaragua (L1014C) and Costa Rica (L1014C).

Conclusions

For the first time, the kdr region in An. albimanus is described. Furthermore, molecular evidence suggests the presence of kdr-type resistance in field-collected An. albimanus in Mesoamerica in the 1990s. Further research is needed to conclusively determine an association between the genotypes and resistant phenotypes, and to what extent they may compromise current vector control efforts.

Keywords

Anopheles albimanus Pyrethroid resistance Voltage-gated sodium channel gene kdr mutations

Background

Anopheles albimanus is one of the key malaria vectors of Latin America and is widely distributed throughout the region [1, 2]. In recent years, insecticide resistance has emerged in malaria vectors worldwide as a result of increased intensity of insecticide use, principally via the widespread use of indoor residual spraying (IRS) and long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) in malaria endemic areas [35]. Malaria control in the region currently relies heavily on the use of LLINs, which are treated with pyrethroid insecticides [6]. The widespread use of insecticide treated nets (ITNs) [711], LLINs [1214] and both the historical and ongoing use of DDT and pyrethroid insecticides for IRS [13, 1517] elicit selection pressures on local vector populations. As such, the routine surveillance of insecticide resistance must be implemented in the context of vector control programs to verify that control tools are maintaining their efficacy. The timely detection of insecticide resistance and the characterization of the mechanisms underlying insecticide resistance in a vector population can provide valuable data regarding which insecticides should be used to maintain maximum vector control impact.

Resistance to pyrethroid insecticides in malaria vectors can be primarily mediated by either metabolic mechanisms or target site insensitivity, such as mutations on the voltage-gated sodium channel (VGSC) gene [3, 18]. Despite reports of pyrethroid resistance throughout the region, none of these mechanisms have been well-described at the molecular level for malaria vectors in Latin America [19]. Previous studies using biochemical assays and bioassays with synergists on pyrethroid resistant An. albimanus from Guatemala and Mexico suggest that an increase in the activity levels of esterases and multi-function oxidases are at least partially responsible for the resistance detected in these populations [2024]. Elevated oxidase activity has been associated with cross-resistance to pyrethroids and DDT in An. albimanus[23]. One previous study carried out on An. albimanus from Mexico suggested that a target-site mechanism may be involved in cross-resistance between pyrethroids and DDT [25]. Knock-down resistance (kdr) is a target-site mechanism reported in other anopheline species that results in cross-resistance to both pyrethroids and DDT [26, 27]. In anophelines, kdr is linked to single nucleotide polymorphisms on transmembrane segment 6 of domain II of the VGSC gene. The mutations previously reported for anophelines occur on codon 1014, resulting in an amino acid change of leucine to phenylalanine, serine or cysteine [2834]. To date, similar mutations have not been described in An. albimanus.

The present study describes for the first time the homologous kdr region of the VGSC gene in An. albimanus where mutations in other anopheline species have been detected that are associated with kdr-type resistance. Further, we report molecular evidence of kdr resistant-type alleles in field mosquitoes collected in Mexico, Nicaragua and Costa Rica in the 1990s.

Methods

Primer design

DNA and cDNA sequences of the VGSC gene of different Anopheles spp. were retrieved from GenBank (Table 1). Conserved regions were identified from a multiple alignment (MEGA 5.0 [35]) and degenerate primers were designed based on conserved codons using An. punctipennis as a basis [GenBank: AY283039-AY283041]. The strategy used to design the primers to amplify the VGSC gene in An. albimanus is presented in Figure 1A.
Figure 1

Strategy to amplify segment 6 of domain II of the VGSC gene in Anopheles albimanus . (A) Diagrammatic representation of the design of degenerate and specific primers for An. albimanus [GenBank: KF137581] based on An. gambiae [GenBank: Y13592] and An. punctipennis [GenBank: AY283041]. The identical positions are indicated by an asterisk and mutation site is enclosed by a box. Intron position is indicated by a black line below the sequence. AAKDRF (5′-AGATGGAAYTTYACNGAYTTC-′3); AAKDRF2 (5′-CATTCATTTATGATTGTGTTTCGTG-′3); AAKDRR (5′-GCAANGCTAAGAANAGRTTNAG-′3). (B) PCR products using degenerate and specific primers. The PCR products were separated on a 2% agarose gel containing ethidium bromide. Lane 1: 50 bp DNA ladder (Novagen); Lane 2: degenerate PCR products (using AAKDRF and AAKDRR primers); Lane 3: negative control of degenerate PCR (H2O); Lane 4: specific PCR product (using AAKDRF2 and AAKDRR primers); Lane 5: negative control of specific PCR (H2O).

Table 1

DNA sequences of the VGSC gene from different Anopheles spp. used in the primer design

Specie (subgenus)

Sequence identification

Anopheles aconitus (Cellia)

GenBank: EU155388

An. annularis (Cellia)

GenBank: DQ026443

An. arabiensis (Cellia)

GenBank: DQ263749

An. culicifacies (Cellia)

GenBank: GQ279245

GenBank: GQ279246

GenBank: GQ279247

An. dirus (Cellia)

GenBank: DQ026439

GenBank: DQ026440

GenBank: DQ026441

GenBank: DQ026442

An. epiroticus (Cellia)

GenBank: EU155384

An. funestus (Cellia)

GenBank: DQ399296

GenBank: DQ399298

An. gambiae (Cellia)

GenBank: Y13592

GenBank: DQ263748

An. harrisoni (Cellia)

GenBank: EU155387

An. jeyporiensis (Cellia)

GenBank: EU155389

An. kochi (Cellia)

GenBank: DQ026446

An. maculatus (Cellia)

GenBank: DQ026445

An. minimus (Cellia)

GenBank: GU064930

GenBank: EU155386

An. paraliae (Anopheles)

GenBank: GQ225104

An. peditaeniatus (Anopheles)

GenBank: GQ225106

An. punctipennis (Anopheles)

GenBank: AY283041

GenBank: AY283039

GenBank: AY283040

An. sinensis (Anopheles)

GenBank: JN002364

GenBank: GQ225102

An. stephensi (Cellia)

GenBank: JF304953

An. subpictus (Cellia)

GenBank: EU155385

GenBank: DQ333331

An. tessellatus (Cellia)

GenBank: DQ075250

An. vagus (Cellia)

GenBank: GQ225100

Mosquito population

The An. albimanus Sanarate laboratory strain, maintained in the insectary of Center for Health Studies (CHS) of Universidad del Valle de Guatemala (Guatemala, Guatemala) was used to validate the designed primers. The Sanarate strain is susceptible to DDT, deltamethrin, permethrin, bendiocarb and malathion (unpublished observations) according to bottle bioassay susceptibility tests [36]. Genomic DNA from individual mosquitoes was isolated following the method described by Collins et al. [37].

Amplification, cloning and sequencing of the VGSC gene

The amplification of segment 6 of domain II of the VGSC gene with degenerate primers was carried out in a 50 μl reaction mixture containing 1X Colorless GoTaq® Flexi Buffer, 1.5 mM MgCl2, 0.2 mM dNTPs, 2.5 μM of each degenerate primer (AAKDRF and AAKDRR), 1 unit of GoTaq® HotStart Polymerase (Promega, Fitchburg, Wisconsin) and 10 to 30 ng of genomic DNA. The degenerate PCR conditions were 95°C for 3 min, followed by 35 cycles of 95°C for 45 sec, 40.5°C for 45 sec and 72°C for 1 min with a final extension step at 72°C for 5 min in a Px2 Thermal Cycler (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, Massachusetts).

Non-specific amplification was obtained in An. albimanus from the Sanarate strain using the degenerate primers (Figure 1B). Four different-sized PCR products were isolated for specific amplification using the band-stab PCR technique [38]. These purified PCR products were directly sequenced by Macrogen Inc. (Korea) using AAKDRF and AAKDRR as sequencing primers. BLAST analysis showed that a fragment of approximately 250 bp corresponded to the VGSC gene in An. albimanus. To confirm these findings and to obtain a high-quality DNA sequence of this fragment, PCR products were cloned using a TA Cloning® Kit (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, California) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The plasmids of the positive clones that contained the fragment of VGSC gene were isolated with the PureLink™ HQ Mini Plasmid Purification Kit (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, California) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Plasmids were sequenced with M13 universal primers using 3500XL Genetic Analyzer (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, California) with BigDye® Terminator v1.1.

PCR assay to detect kdr-type resistance

A second, non-degenerate forward primer (AAKDRF2) was designed based on the sequence of the VGSC gene of An. albimanus (GenBank: KF137581) obtained with the degenerate primers (Figure 1A). The amplification with the specific forward (AAKDRF2) and AAKDRR primer was performed using the same reaction specifications as in the degenerate PCR, except that 0.5 μM of each primer were used. The PCR conditions consisted of an initial denaturation at 95°C for 3 min, followed by 40 cycles at 95°C for 45 sec, 51.5°C for 45 sec and 72°C for 1 min, with a final extension step at 72°C for 5 min in an iCycler (BioRad, Hercules, California). The PCR assay with AAKDRF2 and AAKDRR primers amplified a single band of 225 bp in An. albimanus from the Sanarate strain (Figure 1B), which corresponds to the VGSC gene of An. albimanus. These primers were used to amplify the VGSC gene in DNA samples of An. albimanus from Guatemala (collected in 1995), Mexico (collected in 1991), Nicaragua (collected in 1995), Costa Rica (collected in 1995), Ecuador (collected in 1991) and Colombia (collected in 1992) previously used in population genetic studies [39, 40]. The PCR products were sequenced by Macrogen Inc. (Korea) using AAKDRF2 and AAKDRR primers.

Results and discussion

Sequence analysis showed that segment 6 of domain II of the VGSC gene (excluding the intron sequence) of An. albimanus has a sequence identity of 92% with An. gambiae and 83% with An. punctipennis at the nucleotide level. Variations in the nucleotide sequence of An. albimanus did not produce changes in the amino acid sequence (100% identity with An. gambiae and An. punctipennis, Figure 2). The position of intron II was established through comparison with the VGSC cDNA sequence from An. gambiae [GenBank: Y13592]. The size of intron II in An. albimanus (71 bp) was greater than in An. gambiae (57 bp) and An. punctipennis (68 bp). Variation in the size of intron II has been detected in An. vestitipennis and An. pseudopunctipennis (unpublished observations), and may potentially be used for taxonomic identification of malaria vectors from Latin America, as proposed for other anopheline species [41].
Figure 2

Amino acid sequence comparison of kdr region of Anopheles albimanus with other anopheline species. The sequence of the segment 6 of domain II of the VGSC gene of An. albimanus was compared to An. gambiae [GenBank: CAA73920] and An. punctipennis [GenBank: AAP60053]. Identical positions are indicated by an asterisk and mutation site (codon 1014) is enclosed by a red box. The amino acid at the mutation site corresponds to the pyrethroid and DDT susceptible (wild-type) genotypes.

Sequence results from the Sanarate strain of An. albimanus showed that the individuals contained the susceptible/wild type kdr allele, TTG (L1014), previously reported in An. sacharovi, An. sinensis and other anopheline species from the Mekong region [34, 42, 43]. In the field-collected mosquitoes from Latin America, polymorphisms at codon 1014 were detected in several of the samples (Figure 3A). The field samples from Guatemala, Ecuador and Colombia also contained the susceptible TTG (L1014) allele. A non-synonymous homozygous mutation, TGT (cysteine, L1014C), was detected in field samples from Mexico and Nicaragua. This mutation has previously been associated with permethrin, deltamethrin and beta-cypermethrin resistance in An. sinensis[34, 44, 45]. A field sample from Costa Rica contained a homozygous TTC polymorphism (phenylalanine, L1014F), previously reported in populations of An. gambiae resistant to permethrin and DDT, An. sinensis resistant to deltamethrin and An. peditaeniatus resistant to DDT, permethrin, alpha-cypermethrin, lambda-cyhalothrin and etofenprox [28, 43, 45]. With the exception of certain individuals from Nicaragua and Guatemala, all kdr alleles were found to be homozygous (Figure 3B). The heterozygote alleles from Nicaragua were TKY and from Guatemala were TKK. Interestingly, the kdr allele reported in An. gambiae from East Africa (L1014S) [29] was not detected.
Figure 3

Kdr alleles detected on the segment 6 of domain II of the VGSC gene of Anopheles albimanus. (A) DNA alignment of the VGSC gene of An. albimanus from different regions of Latin America. The identical positions are indicated by an asterisk and polymorphic site (codon 1014) is enclosed by a red box. (B) Electropherograms for kdr alleles detected on the VGSC gene of An. albimanus.

An. albimanus populations are panmictic over at least 600 km in Central America, West of Panama [46]. In this region, insecticide resistance in An. albimanus has been reported and the main source of its selection has been the extensive use of pesticides in large scale agricultural activities [4750]. During the nineties, populations in the area in continued exposure to agricultural insecticides plus pressures from the use of insecticides for vector control could have maintained a constant selection pressure on Mesoamerican An. albimanus populations, possibly explaining the finding of three homozygous kdr variants in Mexico, Nicaragua and Costa Rica with mutations that have been associated with pyrethroid and DDT resistance in other anopheline species. Even though to date the role of kdr has not been directly implicated in the insecticide resistance documented in the region, it is highly likely that kdr is an important resistance mechanism in Latin American malaria vectors.

Conclusions

Our findings describe for the first time the kdr region in An. albimanus, including the presence of polymorphisms associated with insecticide resistance in other anopheline species. We have documented the presence of homozygous kdr alleles associated with resistance in other anopheline species in An. albimanus individuals collected across Mesoamerica at a time of intense agricultural and public health insecticide use. This suggests that pyrethroid and DDT resistance in the region could have been mediated in the past by a kdr mechanism. Future work will endeavor to link resistant phenotypes with the kdr polymorphisms described here, as well as lead to the development of allele-specific diagnostic assays for An. albimanus and other malaria vectors across the region.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Partial funding for this work was provided by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) under Amazon Malaria Initiative, Cooperative Agreement Guatemala Public Health/No. 1U51GH000011 and the Center for Health Studies, Universidad del Valle de Guatemala. Ana María de Mérida and Álvaro Molina for providing historic mosquito samples. We also thank Ellen Dotson from CDC (MR4) for providing the kdr positive controls and primers, and William Brogdon for his helpful comments.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Centro de Estudios en Salud, Universidad del Valle de Guatemala (CES-UVG)
(2)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Center for Global Health, Division of Parasitic Disease and Malaria, Entomology Branch

References

  1. Zimmerman RH: Ecology of malaria vectors in the Americas and future direction. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 1992, 87: 371-383.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Sinka ME, Rubio-Palis Y, Manguin S, Patil AP, Temperley WH, Gething PW, Van Boeckel T, Kabaria CW, Harbach RE, Hay SI: The dominant Anopheles vectors of human malaria in the Americas: occurrence data, distribution maps and bionomic precis. Parasit Vectors. 2010, 3: 72-10.1186/1756-3305-3-72.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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: 91-98. 10.1016/j.pt.2010.08.004.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Czeher C, Labbo R, Arzika I, Duchemin JB: Evidence of increasing Leu-Phe knockdown resistance mutation in Anopheles gambiae from Niger following a nationwide long-lasting insecticide-treated nets implementation. Malar J. 2008, 7: 189-10.1186/1475-2875-7-189.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Balkew M, Ibrahim M, Koekemoer LL, Brooke BD, Engers H, Aseffa A, Gebre-Michael T, Elhassen I: Insecticide resistance in Anopheles arabiensis (Diptera: Culicidae) from villages in central, northern and south west Ethiopia and detection of kdr mutation. Parasit Vectors. 2010, 3: 40-10.1186/1756-3305-3-40.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. WHO: World malaria report: 2010. 2010, Geneva: World Health OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  7. Kroeger A, Gonzalez M, Ordonez-Gonzalez J: Insecticide-treated materials for malaria control in Latin America: to use or not to use?. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1999, 93: 565-570. 10.1016/S0035-9203(99)90048-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Kroeger A, Mancheno M, Alarcon J, Pesse K: Insecticide-impregnated bed nets for malaria control: varying experiences from Ecuador, Colombia, and Peru concerning acceptability and effectiveness. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1995, 53: 313-323.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Fanello C, Kolaczinski JH, Conway DJ, Carnevale P, Curtis CF: The kdr pyrethroid resistance gene in Anopheles gambiae: tests of non-pyrethroid insecticides and a new detection method for the gene. Parassitologia. 1999, 41: 323-326.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Kolaczinski JH, Fanello C, Herve JP, Conway DJ, Carnevale P, Curtis CF: Experimental and molecular genetic analysis of the impact of pyrethroid and non-pyrethroid insecticide impregnated bednets for mosquito control in an area of pyrethroid resistance. Bull Entomol Res. 2000, 90: 125-132.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Vulule JM, Beach RF, Atieli FK, Roberts JM, Mount DL, Mwangi RW: Reduced susceptibility of Anopheles gambiae to permethrin associated with the use of permethrin-impregnated bednets and curtains in Kenya. Med Vet Entomol. 1994, 8: 71-75. 10.1111/j.1365-2915.1994.tb00389.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Yewhalaw D, Bortel WV, Denis L, Coosemans M, Duchateau L, Speybroeck N: First evidence of high knockdown resistance frequency in Anopheles arabiensis (Diptera: Culicidae) from Ethiopia. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2010, 83: 122-125. 10.4269/ajtmh.2010.09-0738.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Protopopoff N, Verhaeghen K, Van Bortel W, Roelants P, Marcotty T, Baza D, D’Alessandro U, Coosemans M: A significant increase in kdr in Anopheles gambiae is associated with an intensive vector control intervention in Burundi highlands. Trop Med Int Health. 2008, 13: 1479-1487. 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2008.02164.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Ndiath MO, Sougoufara S, Gaye A, Mazenot C, Konate L, Faye O, Sokhna C, Trape JF: Resistance to DDT and pyrethroids and increased kdr mutation frequency in An. gambiae after the implementation of permethrin-treated nets in Senegal. PLoS One. 2012, 7: e31943-10.1371/journal.pone.0031943.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Himeidan YE, Chen H, Chandre F, Donnelly MJ, Yan G: Short report: permethrin and DDT resistance in the malaria vector Anopheles arabiensis from eastern Sudan. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2007, 77: 1066-1068.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Arevalo-Herrera M, Quinones ML, Guerra C, Cespedes N, Giron S, Ahumada M, Pineros JG, Padilla N, Terrientes Z, Rosas A: Malaria in selected non-Amazonian countries of Latin America. Acta Trop. 2012, 121: 303-314. 10.1016/j.actatropica.2011.06.008.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Brown AW: Insecticide resistance in mosquitoes: a pragmatic review. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 1986, 2: 123-140.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Aizoun N, Aikpon R, Padonou GG, Oussou O, Oke-Agbo F, Gnanguenon V, Osse R, Akogbeto M: Mixed-function oxidases and esterases associated with permethrin, deltamethrin and bendiocarb resistance in Anopheles gambiae s.l. in the south–north transect Benin, West Africa. Parasit Vectors. 2013, 6: 223-10.1186/1756-3305-6-223.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Penilla RP, Rodriguez AD, Hemingway J, Torres JL, Arredondo-Jimenez JI, Rodriguez MH: Resistance management strategies in malaria vector mosquito control. Baseline data for a large-scale field trial against Anopheles albimanus in Mexico. Med Vet Entomol. 1998, 12: 217-233. 10.1046/j.1365-2915.1998.00123.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Dzul FA, Patricia Penilla R, Rodriguez AD: Susceptibility and insecticide resistance mechanisms in Anopheles albimanus from the southern Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Salud Publica Mex. 2007, 49: 302-311. 10.1590/S0036-36342007000400010.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Beach RF, Cordon-Rosales C, Brogdon WG: Detoxifying esterases may limit the use of pyrethroids for malaria vector control in the Americas. Parasitol Today. 1989, 5: 326-327.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Brogdon WG, McAllister JC, Corwin AM, Cordon-Rosales C: Independent selection of multiple mechanisms for pyrethroid resistance in Guatemalan Anopheles albimanus (Diptera: Culicidae). J Econ Entomol. 1999, 92: 298-302.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Brogdon WG, McAllister JC, Corwin AM, Cordon-Rosales C: Oxidase-based DDT-pyrethroid cross-resistance in guatemalan anopheles albimanus. Pestic Biochem Physiol. 1999, 64: 101-111. 10.1006/pest.1999.2415.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Scott JA, Collins FH, Feyereisen R: Diversity of cytochrome P450 genes in the mosquito, Anopheles albimanus. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1994, 205: 1452-1459. 10.1006/bbrc.1994.2828.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Penilla RP, Rodriguez AD, Hemingway J, Trejo A, Lopez AD, Rodriguez MH: Cytochrome P450-based resistance mechanism and pyrethroid resistance in the field Anopheles albimanus resistance management trial. Pestic Biochem Physiol. 2007, 89: 111-117. 10.1016/j.pestbp.2007.03.004.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Soderlund DM, Knipple DC: The molecular biology of knockdown resistance to pyrethroid insecticides. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2003, 33: 563-577. 10.1016/S0965-1748(03)00023-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Dong K: Insect sodium channels and insecticide resistance. Invert Neurosci. 2007, 7: 17-30. 10.1007/s10158-006-0036-9.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Martinez-Torres D, Chandre F, Williamson MS, Darriet F, Berge JB, Devonshire AL, Guillet P, Pasteur N, Pauron D: Molecular characterization of pyrethroid 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
  29. 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 pyrethroids. Insect Mol Biol. 2000, 9: 491-497. 10.1046/j.1365-2583.2000.00209.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Syafruddin D, Hidayati AP, Asih PB, Hawley WA, Sukowati S, Lobo NF: Detection of 1014F kdr mutation in four major Anopheline malaria vectors in Indonesia. Malar J. 2010, 9: 315-10.1186/1475-2875-9-315.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Enayati AA, Vatandoost H, Ladonni H, Townson H, Hemingway J: Molecular evidence for a kdr-like pyrethroid resistance mechanism in the malaria vector mosquito Anopheles stephensi. Med Vet Entomol. 2003, 17: 138-144. 10.1046/j.1365-2915.2003.00418.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Singh OP, Dykes CL, Das MK, Pradhan S, Bhatt RM, Agrawal OP, Adak T: Presence of two alternative kdr-like mutations, L1014F and L1014S, and a novel mutation, V1010L, in the voltage gated Na+ channel of Anopheles culicifacies from Orissa. India. Malar J. 2010, 9: 146-10.1186/1475-2875-9-146.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Singh OP, Dykes CL, Lather M, Agrawal OP, Adak T: Knockdown resistance (kdr)-like mutations in the voltage-gated sodium channel of a malaria vector Anopheles stephensi and PCR assays for their detection. Malar J. 2011, 10: 59-10.1186/1475-2875-10-59.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Kim H, Baek JH, Lee W, Lee SH: Frequency detection of pyrethroid resistance allele in Anopheles sinensis populations by real-time PCR amplification of specific allele (rtPASA). Pestic Biochem Physiol. 2007, 87: 54-61. 10.1016/j.pestbp.2006.06.009.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Tamura K, Peterson D, Peterson N, Stecher G, Nei M, Kumar S: MEGA5: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis using maximum likelihood, evolutionary distance, and maximum parsimony methods. Mol Biol Evol. 2011, 28: 2731-2739. 10.1093/molbev/msr121.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 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: 159-164.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Collins FH, Mendez MA, Rasmussen MO, Mehaffey PC, Besansky 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Bjourson AJ, Cooper JE: Band-stab PCR: a simple technique for the purification of individual PCR products. Nucleic Acids Res. 1992, 20: 4675-10.1093/nar/20.17.4675.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. De Merida AM, De Mata MP, Molina E, Porter CH, Black WC: Variation in ribosomal DNA intergenic spacers among populations of Anopheles albimanus in South and Central America. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1995, 53: 469-477.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. De Merida AM, Palmieri M, Yurrita M, Molina A, Molina E, Black WC: Mitochondrial DNA variation among Anopheles albimanus populations. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1999, 61: 230-239.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Henry-Halldin CN, Nadesakumaran K, Keven JB, Zimmerman AM, Siba P, Mueller I, Hetzel MW, Kazura JW, Thomsen E, Reimer LJ, Zimmerman PA: Multiplex assay for species identification and monitoring of insecticide resistance in Anopheles punctulatus group populations of Papua New Guinea. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2012, 86: 140-151. 10.4269/ajtmh.2012.11-0503.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Luleyap HU, Alptekin D, Kasap H, Kasap M: Detection of knockdown resistance mutations in Anopheles sacharovi (Diptera: Culicidae) and genetic distance with Anopheles gambiae (Diptera: Culicidae) using cDNA sequencing of the voltage-gated sodium channel gene. J Med Entomol. 2002, 39: 870-874. 10.1603/0022-2585-39.6.870.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Verhaeghen K, Van Bortel W, Trung HD, Sochantha T, Keokenchanh K, Coosemans M: Knockdown resistance in Anopheles vagus, An. sinensis, An. paraliae and An. peditaeniatus populations of the Mekong region. Parasit Vectors. 2010, 3: 59-10.1186/1756-3305-3-59.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Tan WL, Wang ZM, Li CX, Chu HL, Xu Y, Dong YD, Wang ZC, Chen DY, Liu H, Liu DP: First report on co-occurrence knockdown resistance mutations and susceptibility to beta-cypermethrin in Anopheles sinensis from Jiangsu Province, China. PLoS One. 2012, 7: e29242-10.1371/journal.pone.0029242.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Zhong D, Chang X, Zhou G, He Z, Fu F, Yan Z, Zhu G, Xu T, Bonizzoni M, Wang MH: Relationship between Knockdown Resistance. Metabolic Detoxification and Organismal Resistance to Pyrethroids in Anopheles sinensis. PLoS One. 2013, 8: e55475-10.1371/journal.pone.0055475.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Molina-Cruz A, de Merida AM, Mills K, Rodriguez F, Schoua C, Yurrita MM, Molina E, Palmieri M, Black WC: Gene flow among Anopheles albimanus populations in Central America, South America, and the Caribbean assessed by microsatellites and mitochondrial DNA. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2004, 71: 350-359.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. WHO: Vector resistance to pesticides. Fifteenth Report of the WHO Expert Committee on Vector Biology and Control. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 1992, 818: 1-62.Google Scholar
  48. PAHO: Results of insecticide susceptibility tests carried out in four Central American Countries between 1994–1997. Epidemiol Bull. 1997, 18: 11-14.Google Scholar
  49. Lines JD: Do agricultural insecticides select for insecticide resistance in mosquitoes? A look at the evidence. Parasitology today. 1988, 4: S17-S20. 10.1016/0169-4758(88)90083-X.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Mouchet J: Agriculture and vector resistance. Insect Science and its Application. 1988, 9: 297-302.Google Scholar

Copyright

© Lol et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013

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.