Open Access

Effects of larvicidal and larval nutritional stresses on Anopheles gambiae development, survival and competence for Plasmodium falciparum

  • Amélie Vantaux1, 2Email author,
  • Issiaka Ouattarra2,
  • Thierry Lefèvre1, 2 and
  • Kounbobr Roch Dabiré2, 3
Parasites & Vectors20169:226

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-016-1514-5

Received: 14 December 2015

Accepted: 15 April 2016

Published: 23 April 2016

Abstract

Background

Many studies have shown that the environment in which larvae develop can influence adult characteristics with consequences for the transmission of pathogens. We investigated how two environmental stresses (larviciding and nutritional stress) interact to affect Anopheles gambiae (previously An. gambiae S molecular form) life history traits and its susceptibility for field isolates of its natural malaria agent Plasmodium falciparum.

Methods

Larvae were reared in the presence or not of a sub-lethal concentration of larvicide and under a high and low food regimen. Development time, individual size, adult survival and competence for P. falciparum were assessed.

Results

Individuals under low food regimen took more time to develop, had a lower development success and were smaller while there was no main effect of larvicide exposure on these traits. However, larvicide exposure impacted individual size in interaction with nutritional stress. Female survival was affected by the interaction between gametocytemia, parasite exposure and larval diet, as well as the interaction between gametocytemia, parasite exposure and larvicidal stress, and the interaction between gametocytemia, larvicidal exposure and larval diet. Among the 951 females dissected 7 days post-infection, 559 (58.78 %) harboured parasites. Parasite prevalence was significantly affected by the interaction between larvicidal stress and larval diet. Indeed, females under low food regimen had a higher prevalence than females under high food regimen and this difference was greater under larvicidal stress. The two stresses did not impact parasite intensity.

Conclusions

We found that larval nutritional and larvicidal stresses affect mosquito life history traits in complex ways, which could greatly affect P. falciparum transmission. Further studies combining field-based trials on larvicide use and mosquito experimental infections would give a more accurate understanding of the effects of this vector control tool on malaria transmission.

Keywords

Bti LarvicideLarval dietStressMosquito competenceMalaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum

Background

Mosquitoes are vectors of several deadly human diseases such as malaria, yellow fever, dengue fever and filariasis, resulting in worldwide morbidity and mortality. Close to half of the world population is at risk of contracting malaria, mainly in populations of sub-Saharan Africa, where children under 5 years of age and pregnant women are the most severely affected [1]. Despite all control efforts, around 600,000 people still die of malaria each year [1]. While current anti-malarial strategies have been successful in numerous countries, continuous emergence of mosquito insecticide resistance and parasite drug resistance, combined with the lack of an effective malaria vaccine, impede malaria control in areas of high transmission.

Current malaria vector control mostly relies on two main components: long-lasting insecticide treated bed nets and indoor residual spraying. However, they target only the adult stage, and individuals exhibiting endophilous and endophagous behaviours. In addition, the emergence and spread of insecticide resistance [25], as well as behavioral changes [68] threaten current malaria vector control programs. Thus, larval source management has received a renewed interest: targeting the immature stages could help reducing overall adult mosquito density [9, 10]. Larviciding, the use of substances to kill or inhibit the development of mosquito larvae, is one such source of larval management method. Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) is a naturally occurring bacterium producing crystal toxin toxic to mosquito larvae and has been commercialised under various formulations [11]. Bti has shown promising results against many mosquito vectors [1218]. While this kind of bio-pesticide is unlikely to pose any hazard to humans, its efficacy depends on regular application due to a short residual activity. Bti efficacy may also be difficult to maintain because Bti is sensitive to environmental characteristics such as vegetation and sun exposure, and breeding sites where applications are desired but may be difficult to identify [10].

Nutritional organic matter is also highly variable in larval habitats and can influence adult mosquito life history traits [19]. Food availability is particularly relevant in host-pathogen interactions as it affects both partners. First, it is an important determinant of host fitness, affecting key parameters of pathogen transmission such as host density and longevity [20, 21]. Secondly, nutritional stress can affect pathogen development in two opposing ways. On the one hand, food deprivation can hinder pathogen development through limited resource availability [22, 23]. On the other hand, food deprivation can enhance pathogen infection through the limited resources available for host immune responses [24, 25].

In malaria vectors, An. gambiae larvae provided with a small quantity of food had a lower melanisation capacity at the adult stage [24], potentially increasing their competence for pathogens. In contrast, other studies have shown that females that developed from nutritionally stressed An. gambiae and An. stephensi larvae had a decreased competence for Plasmodium yoelii nigeriensis and P. yoelii yoelii, respectively [26, 27].

In mosquito-borne diseases, epidemiological models generally assume that individual mosquitoes are equally likely to get and transmit the pathogen. However, many studies have shown that the environment in which larvae develop strongly determines adult characteristics influencing both vectorial capacity (i.e. the potential intensity of transmission by mosquitoes) [2830] and vector competence (i.e. their ability to develop and transmit pathogens) [31, 32]. Therefore, environmental factors, such as sub-lethal doses of larvicides which harm but do not kill individuals, could greatly influence adult vectorial capacity and competence [33, 34].

To our knowledge, no study has yet explored the effects of both larvicidal and larval nutritional stresses on epidemiologically-relevant traits. In this study, we investigate how these two environmental stressors interact to affect An. gambiae (previously An. gambiae S molecular form; see [35]) life history traits including development time, body size, survival and competence for field isolates of its natural malaria agent P. falciparum.

Methods

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was obtained from the Centre Muraz Institutional Ethics Committee under agreement no. A003-2012/CE-CM. The protocol conforms to the Helsinki Declaration on ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects (version 2002) and informed written consent was obtained from all volunteers.

Mosquitoes

Three to 5-day-old laboratory-reared females of An. gambiae were obtained from an outbred colony established in 2008. This colony is repeatedly replenished with F1 from wild-caught female mosquitoes collected in Kou Valley (11°23'14"N, 4°24'42"W), 30 km from Bobo Dioulasso, south-western Burkina Faso (West Africa). Females are identified by species-diagnostic PCR [36]. Mosquitoes were maintained under standard insectary conditions (27 ± 2 °C, 70 ± 5 % relative humidity, 12:12 Light: Dark photoperiod).

Larval nutritional stress

Two experimental groups were set up: larvae reared under plentiful food condition and larvae reared under scarce food conditions based on the amounts of Tetramin® baby fish food provided daily (Table 1). The scarce food condition was intended to induce nutritional stress, while the plentiful food condition was intended to provide sufficient resources for a good larval development [24, 26, 37, 38]. We placed 300 first instar larvae in plastic trays (30 × 20.5 × 6.5 cm) containing 1 l of spring water. Food was distributed daily at the same hour. The larvae were counted every 2 days to adjust food quantities. The water was replaced every 2 days until the third larval stage. Pupae were transferred to plastic cups for emergence in a 30 × 30 × 30 cm cage and the adults were provided with a 5 % glucose solution on cotton wool pads. A total of 131 trays (45 high food and 86 low food) were used over four replicates. The scarce food condition was applied to more trays than the plentiful food condition to compensate for the higher mortality expected in nutritionally stressed larvae and still obtain enough mosquitoes for measurements of adult life history traits.
Table 1

Larval food quantity (mg/larva/day)

Larval stage

High food

Low food

1

0.075

0.025

2

0.1

0.05

3

0.2

0.75

4

0.3

0.1

Larvicidal stress

First, we assessed the 50 (LC50) and the 90 (LC90) percent lethal concentrations of the granular formulation of Bti (VectoBac®; WG 3 000 UIT/mg; Lot number 60215-29-01; ValentBioScience Corporation, Illinois, USA) on An. gambiae larvae under the standard insectary conditions indicated above for eight concentrations: 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7 and 0.8 mg/l. For each concentration 25 third stage larvae were placed in 150 ml of water. Larvae were not fed during the experiments, and all tests were run at standard insectary conditions. Larval mortality was recorded in both treated and control (without Vectobac®) trays after 24 h. Four replicates of each concentration and for each food treatment were run along with the control using distilled water. Secondly, we intended to expose larvae to sub-optimal Vectobac® concentration. Based on our results from LC50 and LC90 tests (see above), we chose to use the 0.1 mg/l concentration for both food regimens. This treatment was applied to 26 of the trays receiving plentiful food and to 51 of the trays receiving scarce food quantities. Overall, four experimental groups were obtained: (i) larvae reared with plentiful food and exposed to 0.1 mg/l of Vectobac® at the third instar; (ii) larvae reared with plentiful food only; (iii) larvae reared with scarce food and exposed to 0.1 mg/l of Vectobac® at the third instar, and (iv) larvae reared with scarce food only.

Mosquito infection

Experimental infections were carried out as described in [3941]. We used Direct Membrane Feeding Assays (DMFA) whereby gametocyte-infected blood is drawn from naturally-infected patients and from which mosquitoes feed through a membrane [42]. Gametocyte carriers were selected by examining thick blood smears from school children aged between 5 and 11 years from two villages in southwestern Burkina Faso (Dande and Soumousso, located 60 km north and 40 km southeast of Bobo-Dioulasso, respectively). To ensure that they would feed, the mosquitoes were only provided water for 24 h prior to being given access to a blood meal. As a negative control (non-infected mosquitoes), females were fed on the same blood in which the gametocytes were heat-inactivated. This heat-inactivation inhibits infection and does not affect the nutritive quality of the blood [43]. Heat-inactivation was achieved by placing the blood in a thermo-mixer and heated at 43 °C for 15 min and 900 rpm while the remaining blood was maintained at 37 °C. Three hundred μl of blood were distributed in membrane feeders maintained at 37 °C by water jackets. Four to 6 day-old female mosquitoes were allowed to feed for up to 2 h through a Parafilm® membrane. Fed females were sorted out and placed in new cages (30 × 30 × 30 cm). They had constant access to cotton wool pads imbibed with a 5 % glucose solution except for the subset of females used for the survival assays which did not receive glucose solution. Upon experimental infection, eight groups of mosquitoes were obtained: (i) those exposed to larvicidal, nutritional and infection stress; (ii) those exposed to larvicidal and nutritional stress; (iii) those exposed to larvicidal and infection stress; (iv) those exposed to nutritional and infection stress; (v) those exposed to larvicidal stress only; (vi) those exposed to nutritional stress only; (vii) those exposed to infection stress only; and (viii) unexposed control mosquitoes. Four replicates were performed with a total of six distinct gametocyte carriers (Table 2).
Table 2

Infection rates and intensity in females

Replicate

Gametocyte carrier

Gametocyte density (μl)

Bti

Larval diet

Infection rate ± 95 % CI

Infection intensity mean ± se

1

A

168

no

H

0.87 ± 0.17

26.7 ± 6.3

L

0.7 ± 0.2

12.9 ± 2.7

yes

H

0.48 ± 0.2

17.7 ± 7.9

L

0.6 ± 0.25

14.3 ± 3.6

2

B

96

no

H

0.61 ± 0.12

5.3 ± 0.9

L

0.62 ± 0.17

5.2 ± 1.4

yes

H

0.75 ± 0.11

5.9 ± 0.7

L

0.56 ± 0.23

5.8 ± 1.5

3

C

952

no

H

0.49 ± 0.11

38.7 ± 7.2

L

0.63 ± 0.17

19.3 ± 4

yes

H

0.54 ± 0.15

60.3 ± 9.3

L

0.71 ± 0.1

35.6 ± 4.9

4

D

240

no

H

0.78 ± 0.13

33.1 ± 6.7

L

0.82 ± 0.1

43.7 ± 5

yes

H

0.65 ± 0.15

36.1 ± 8.4

L

0.95 ± 0.06

54.2 ± 6.9

E

80

no

H

0.1 ± 0.09

1.25 ± 0.2

L

0.2 ± 0.12

2.12 ± 1.6

yes

H

0.22 ± 0.13

1.3 ± 0.2

L

0.17 ± 0.12

1.3 ± 0.3

F

168

no

H

0.62 ± 0.15

21.1 ± 3.8

L

0.52 ± 0.15

7.6 ± 1.6

yes

H

0.71 ± 0.14

10.8 ± 1.9

L

0.8 ± 0.12

10 ± 1.2

Abbreviations: L, low food mosquitoes; H, high food mosquitoes; Bti, B. thuringiensis var. israelensis larvicide; CI, Confidence Interval; se, standard error

Measurements of mosquito life history traits

Development time was calculated as the duration from egg to emergence and was measured for a total of 17,747 individuals reared on four different replicates. Wing length was used as a surrogate of body size and was measured from the alula to the wing tip, excluding the scales [44]. One wing per individual was dissected for females 7 days post-blood meal and for males 3 days post-emergence. The wings were photographed using a dissecting microscope and measured with ImageJ software (Wayne Rasband, rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/). Wing length was compared on a subset of 1,755 individuals distributed over four replicates. Survival was assessed for an average of 15 females per experimental condition placed in 20 × 20 × 20 cm cages after they were fed blood. No glucose was provided but they had access to water ad libitum. Twice daily, we recorded the number of dead individuals. Survival data were obtained from a total of 648 individuals fed on the blood of three different gametocyte carriers from two replicates. Competence. Parasite prevalence (i.e. proportion of infected females) and intensity (i.e. number of P. falciparum oocysts in the midgut of infected females) were determined after dissection 7 days post-blood meal. The midguts were dissected in a 1 % Mercurochrome® stain and the presence and number of oocysts were determined under a light microscope. Four replicates with six different gametocyte carriers were conducted in which 951 individuals were used to determine oocyst prevalence. The oocyst intensity analysis was carried out on the 559 infected individuals. During dissection we discovered that some of our mosquitoes were infected with microsporidian parasites. Because microsporidians can affect Plasmodium development within mosquitoes [45], we accounted for this factor for mosquito competence analysis. The presence of microsporidia was observed across all treatment groups.

Statistical analyses

Lethal concentrations: LC50 and LC90 of Vectobac were estimated using logistic regression in “investr” package [46] in R software environment. LC50 represents the probability of 50 % of the larvae dying and LC90 the probability of 90 % of the larvae dying. LC50 and LC90 were compared using the LC ratio tests wherein no differences are detected if the ratio contains 1 [47]. Ratios were estimated with the “Comped” function in “drc” package” [48]. Development time was analysed using Cox’s proportional hazard mixed effect models with sex, larval diet, larvicidal treatment and their interactions coded as fixed factors, and replicate as a random factor. Cox proportional hazard models were carried out with the “Coxme” function in the “Coxme” package [49]. Wing length was compared after log-transformation using a Linear Mixed Model with a Gaussian distribution (after confirming data normality). Larval diet, larvicidal treatment, sex and their interactions coded as fixed factors and replicate as a random factor. Survival: data were analysed using Cox’s proportional hazard mixed effects models with parasite exposure, larval diet, larvicidal treatment, gametocytemia and their interactions coded as fixed factors. Gametocyte carrier was nested in replicate and they were coded as random factors. Cox proportional hazard mixed effect models were carried out with the “coxme” function in the “coxme” package [49]. Competence: parasite prevalence and intensity were analysed using GLMMs with a binomial and a negative binomial error structure, respectively. In these GLMMs, larval diet, larvicidal treatment, gametocytemia, wing size, the presence of microsporidia and their interactions, were coded as fixed factors. Gametocyte carrier was nested in replicate and they were coded as random factors. Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMMs) with a binomial error and a logit link function were carried out with the “glmer” and the GLMMs with a negative binomial error structure were carried out with the “glmer.nb” function in “lme4” package [50]. For model selection, we used the stepwise removal of terms, followed by likelihood ratio tests (LRT). Term removals that significantly reduced explanatory power (P < 0.05) were retained in the minimal adequate model [51]. All analyses were performed in R v. 3.1.3 [52]. Results are presented as mean ± standard error (se) and proportion ± confidence interval (CI).

Results

Lethal concentrations

The LC50 and LC90 were 0.23 mg/l (95 % confidence interval (CI) = 0.2–0.26) and 0.52 mg/l (95 % CI = 0.48–0.56), respectively, for larvae exposed to high food quantities (hereafter, simply ‘high food’). The LC50 and LC90 were 0.14 mg/l (95 % CI: 0.10–0.16) and 0.36 mg/l (95 % CI = 0.33–0.40), respectively, for exposed to low food quantities (hereafter, simply ‘low food’) and were significantly different from the values of the high food larvae (LC50 ratio = 0.59 and LC90 ratio = 0.7, respectively).

Development success and time

Overall, 3,650 out of the 5,700 larvae (64.03 ± 0.1 %) reared with plentiful of food only survived to the adult stage and 4,931 out of the 7,800 larvae (63.2 ± 0.01 %) reared with 0.1 mg/l of Vectobac® and plentiful of food survived to the adult stage. However, 3,720 out of the 10,500 larvae (35.4 ± 0.009 %) reared with scarce food only survived to the adult stage and 5,446 out of the 15,300 larvae (35.6 ± 0.008 %) reared with 0.1 mg/l of Vectobac® and scarce food survived to the adult stage. The high food larvae developed significantly faster than did their low food counterparts (11.82 ± 0.02 vs 14.42 ± 0.03 days, respectively; χ 2  = 6505, df = 1, P < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in development time between larvae exposed or not to larvicidal stress (13.1 ± 0.03 vs 13.2 ± 0.02 days, respectively; χ 2  = 2.2, df = 1, P = 0.14). There was no significant interaction between larval diet and larvicidal stress (χ 2  = 2.8, df = 1, P = 0.09). See Additional file 1 for sex-specific results. The three-way interaction did not significantly impact development time (χ 2  = 0.14, df = 1, P = 0.7).

Wing size

The mosquitoes exposed to the low food treatment as larvae were significantly smaller than were their high food counterparts (3.6 ± 0.007 vs 4.1 ± 0.008 mm; χ 2  = 2286, df = 1, P < 0.0001). There was a significant interaction between larvicidal stress and nutritional stress (χ 2  = 6.6, df = 1, P = 0.01): high food larvae exposed to larvicidal stress were bigger than the unexposed ones, while the reverse was true for low food larvae (Fig. 1). The larvicidal treatment did not significantly affect wing size (χ 2  = 0.03, df = 1, P = 0.9). See Additional file 1 for sex-specific results. The three-way interaction did not significantly impact wing size (χ 2  = 0.03, df = 1, P = 0.87).
Fig. 1

Effects of larvicidal and larval nutritional stresses on Anopheles gambiae wing sizes (mean ± standard error). Abbreviations: NL, no larvicidal stress; L, larvicidal stress

Survival

Mosquito survival was significantly affected by larval diet (Z = 3.4, P = 0.0007, Fig. 2). In particular, low food females had a significantly better survival rate than high food ones (5.3 ± 0.1 vs 5.2 ± 0.1 days, see Additional file 2: Figure S3). Mosquito survival was significantly affected by gametocytemia (Z = 2.28, P = 0.02, Fig. 2). In particular, they had a better survival at low gametocytemias (gametocytemia 96: 5.21 ± 0.2 days; gametocytemia 168: 5.52 ± 0.1 days) than at high gametocytemia (gametocytemia 240: 5.04 ± 0.1 days). Larvicidal stress did not significantly affect mosquito survival (5.04 ± 0.1 vs 5.5 ± 0.1 days for larvicidal stressed and unstressed females, respectively; Z = 1.64, P = 0.1). Parasite exposure did not significantly affect mosquito survival (5.31 ± 0.1 vs 5.19 ± 0.1 days for exposed and unexposed females, respectively; Z = 1.66, P = 0.1). There was a significant interaction between larvicidal exposure and larval diet (Z = 3.42, P = 0.0006): when unexposed to larvicidal stress low food females had a higher survival rate than high food females (5.74 ± 0.2 vs 5.17 ± 0.15 days, respectively) whereas under larvicidal stress low food females had a lower survival rate than high food females (4.82 ± 0.2 vs 5.26 ± 0.2 days, respectively). There was a significant interaction between gametocytemia and larval diet (Z = 3.62, P = 0.0003, Fig. 2). In particular, for gametocytemia 96, survival rate was higher for low-food than for high food females (6.29 ± 0.4 vs 4.3 ± 0.1 days, respectively) whereas for gametocytemia 168 and 240, survival rates were higher for high food than for low food females (5.76 ± 0.2 vs 5.3 ± 0.2 days and 5.38 ± 0.2 vs 4.69 ± 0.2 days for gametocytemia 168 and 240, respectively). There was a significant interaction between larval diet and parasite exposure (Z = 3.31, P = 0.0009, Fig. 2). Indeed, high food females had a greater survival than low food females when unexposed to the parasite (5.35 ± 0.2 vs 5.02 ± 0.2 days for high and low food) whereas they had a lower survival when exposed to the parasite (5.09 ± 0.2 days vs 5.54 ± 0.2 days for high and low food, respectively). There was a significant interaction between gametocytemia and parasite exposure (Z = 2.1, P = 0.04): unexposed females had a lower survival rate at gametocytemia 96 than females exposed to the parasite (3.99 ± 0.2 days vs 5.78 ± 0.3 days, respectively), while they had a better survival at gametocytemia 168 (5.86 ± 0.2 vs 5.15 ± 0.2 days, respectively) or similar at gametocytemia 240 (5.05 ± 0.2 vs 5.03 ± 0.2 days, respectively). There was a significant three-way interaction between gametocytemia, parasite exposure and larval diet (Z = 2.66, P = 0.008, Fig. 2): low food females had a higher survival than high food females at gametocytemia 96 with a greater difference when exposed to the parasite, whereas high food females had a better survival rate than low food females at both gametocytemias 168 and 240 with a greater difference when exposed to the parasite for gametocytemia 240 only. There was a significant three-way interaction between gametocytemia, parasite exposure and larvicidal stress (Z = 2.14, P = 0.03, Fig. 3): females exposed to larvicidal stress had a lower survival than unstressed females both when exposed or not to the parasite at gametocytemia 96. The trend was similar although with a smaller difference at gametocytemia 168. However, females exposed to larvicidal stress had a lower survival than unstressed females when unexposed to the parasite, while females exposed to larvicidal stress had a greater survival than unstressed females when exposed to the parasite There was a significant three-way interaction between gametocytemia, larvicidal exposure and larval diet (Z = 2.36, P = 0.02, Fig. 4): survival was lower in larvicidal stressed females both in high food and low food females for the gametocytemia 96. For gametocytemias 168 and 240 survival was higher in females exposed to larvicidal stress compared to unstressed ones in high food females whereas the opposite was observed in low food females. The interaction between larvicidal exposure and gametocytemia (Z = 1.45, P = 0.15), the three-way interaction between larval diet, parasite exposure and larvicidal stress (χ 2 1 = 0.8, df = 1, P = 0.37), and the 4-way interaction (χ 2  = 2.8, df = 1, P = 0.12) did not significantly impact mosquito survival rates.
Fig. 2

Effects of larval nutritional stress, parasite exposure and gametocytemia on survival rates

Fig. 3

Effects of larvicidal stress, parasite exposure and gametocytemia on survival rates

Fig. 4

Effects of larval nutritional stress, larvicidal stress and gametocytemia on survival rates

Competence

Among the 951 females dissected 7 days post-infection, 559 (58.78 %) harboured parasites. The gametocyte densities in the blood samples, and the infection prevalence and intensities in the mosquitoes are provided in Table 2. Parasite prevalence was significantly affected by the presence of microsporidia (χ 2  = 5.2, df = 1, P = 0.02) with females harbouring microsporidia having a significantly lower parasite prevalence than females with undetected microsporidia in their midgut (53.9 ± 0.04 vs 58.7 ± 0.04, respectively). Parasite prevalence was significantly affected by the interaction between larvicidal stress and larval diet (χ 2  = 4.3, df = 1, P = 0.04; Fig. 5), with low food females having a higher prevalence than high food females and the difference was greater under larvicidal stress. No other significant effects were observed (see Additional file 1).
Fig. 5

Effects of larval nutritional and larvicidal stresses on P. falciparum prevalence (± confidence interval)

Infected low food mosquitoes did not harbour significantly more parasites than did infected high food mosquitoes (26.13 ± 1.94 vs 22.75 ± 1.92 oocysts; χ 2  = 2.05, df = 1, P = 0.15). Likewise, the intensity of larvicidal-stressed mosquitoes was similar to that of unstressed mosquitoes (25.93 ± 2.03 vs 22.76 ± 1.8 oocysts; χ 2  = 0.1, df = 1, P = 0.75). The presence of microsporidia negatively affected oocyst intensity (22.86 ± 2.22 in microsporidia-positive individuals vs 31.51 ± 2.07 oocysts in microsporidia-free individuals; χ 2  = 631.2, df = 1, P < 0.0001). There was a negative relationship between individual size and parasite intensity (χ 2  = 494.78, df = 1, P < 0.0001). No other significant effects were observed (see Additional file 1).

Discussion

Environmental stressors are of great importance in vector-borne diseases as any alterations in adults traits could have crucial implications for transmission through changes in epidemiologically relevant traits such as longevity or vector competence [20, 21, 24, 26, 27, 34, 5355]. In addition, multiple stressors can act synergistically, such as lower LC50 and LC90 in low food larvae compared to high food larvae suggesting that well-fed larvae were better able to cope with the larvicide.

Larval development was particularly affected by nutritional stress. Indeed, low food individuals took more time to develop, had a lower development success and were smaller. In addition, males took longer to develop than females but this difference was smaller in low food larvae compared to high food larvae. Interestingly, larvicidal stress decreased the difference in development time between males and females compared to unstressed larvae, suggesting that this stress tend to smooth out the development time differences between sexes. However, the larvicidal stress did not have as much impact as nutritional stress on larval development. From an ecological point of view, the increased developmental time in low food larvae may reduce the number of mosquito generations yearly and likely increase exposure to other stressors or risks such as competition, predation or drought which would also affect mosquito life history traits.

Overall, low food adults were smaller than high food adults. However, opposite effects were observed when these two groups were exposed to larvicidal stress. Indeed, in high food larvae, larvicidal stress increased adult size. On the other hand, in low food larvae, adult size was lower in larvae exposed to larvicide compared to unexposed individuals. One explanation could be that despite the fact that larvicidal stress did not affect development time, it selected individuals better able to cope with toxin damage induced by Bti. In high food larvae only bigger and likely more robust individuals survived, while in low food larvae, which were probably overall less fit, larvae feeding less and therefore less exposed to Bti toxins survived better, ending up with slightly smaller individuals overall. Small females often need two or three blood meals to be able to sustain the first gonotrophic cycle, as the first blood meal is used to replenish reserves [29, 56]. Therefore, females exposed to both stressors might be more inclined to have several blood meals thus increasing their chances of being infected and transmitting malaria [29, 56].

In mosquito-malaria parasite systems, host longevity is a particularly important epidemiological factor as it enters into estimates of vectorial capacity in a non-linear way. Indeed, Plasmodium parasites have a long development time in their vector before being transmissible [57], and only a few mosquitoes survive long enough to transmit them [58]. Consequently, any reduction in vector survival may impede transmission and conversely any increase in survival may considerably favour pathogen transmission [59]. Exposure to stresses was expected to reduce host survival. However, larvicidal stress had no effect on its own, and adult survival was higher in low food females compared to their high food counterparts. This unexpected result could be explained by an hormetic stress: exposure to mild stress induces protective mechanisms resulting in biologically beneficial effects [60]. However, more investigations are needed to explain this point.

Survival was affected by the interactions between nutritional and larvicidal stresses as well as parasite exposure and gametocytemia in various ways. Indeed, low food females had a higher survival than high food females at gametocytemia 96 with a greater difference when exposed to the parasite, whereas high food females had a better survival rate than low food females at both gametocytemias 168 and 240. Females exposed to larvicidal stress had a lower survival than unstressed females both when exposed or not to the parasite at gametocytemia 96. The trend was similar although with a smaller difference at gametocytemia 168. However, females exposed to larvicidal stress had a lower survival than unstressed females when unexposed to the parasite, while females exposed to larvicidal stress had a greater survival than unstressed females when exposed to the parasite. Survival was lower in larvicidal stressed females both in high food and low food females for the gametocytemia 96. For gametocytemia 168 and 240 survival was higher in females exposed to larvicidal stress compared to unstressed ones in high food females whereas the opposite was observed in low food females. These various differing trends and the strong variation in relation to gametocytemia might be due to the parasite’s genetic factors (e.g. infection intensity, multiplicity of infection) or to blood quality (e.g. composition, quantity). This study reinforces the point that evaluating survival rates is by no means simple and can depend on many factors.

Parasite prevalence was significantly affected by larval nutritional stress in interaction with larvicidal stress (Fig. 5). Indeed, low food females were significantly more infected than high food females, with even higher parasite prevalence and greater differences in larvicidal-stressed females compared to unstressed females. Thus females exposed to both larvicidal and nutritional stressors had the highest parasite prevalence which might be due to the host limited resources available for mounting an immune response [24, 25]. From a vector control perspective it implies that the application of sub-lethal dose of larvicide such as post-treatment or by difficulties to reach or evaluate fully larval breeding sites might result in a rebound in malaria transmission in low food settings. Indeed, the double stress would increase the number of infected females and the likelihood of malaria transmission.

Interestingly, parasite intensity was not impacted by larval nutritional and larvicidal stresses. Thus, these environmental stressors seem to impact host qualitative resistance, as measured by their ability to prevent infection, but not their quantitative resistance as measured by their ability to limit parasite development.

Parasite prevalence and intensity were decreased by the presence of microsporidia. Microsporidian parasites replicate throughout the mosquitoes life and negatively impact development, survival and fecundity as well as susceptibility to malaria parasites [61, 62]. This effect on malaria vector competence is likely due to priming of the mosquito’s immune system [61, 62].

We observed a negative relationship between parasite intensity and individual size which suggests that large females sustained a lower parasite load than small females. This is in contradiction to previous work [63]. One explanation could be that large females were better able to limit parasite development due to more energetic or immune resources available [24, 25].

Conclusions

In conclusion, we found that larval nutritional and larvicidal stresses affect mosquito life history traits in complex ways, which could greatly affect malaria parasite transmission. Indeed, stresses negatively impacted development time or adult size or survival, while they increased mosquito competence for Plasmodium falciparum. Further studies combining field-based trials on larvicide use and mosquito experimental infections would give a more accurate understanding of the effects of this vector control tool on malaria transmission. Finally, differences in larval habitat quality could have crucial implications for the dynamics of malaria transmission. Only by considering the environmental conditions occurring in natural systems with the interplay of several stressors will we be able to fully comprehend natural mosquito-malaria parasite interactions and their impacts on malaria epidemiology.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the ANR grant 11-PDOC-006-01 to Thierry Lefèvre. We would like to thank all of the children and their parents who participated in this study, as well as the local authorities for their support. We are very grateful to the IRSS staff in Burkina Faso for technical assistance.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
MIVEGEC (Maladies Infectieuses et Vecteurs: Ecologie, Génétique, Evolution et Contrôle), UMR IRD 224-CNRS 5290-Université de Montpellier
(2)
Institut de Recherche en Sciences de la Santé (IRSS)
(3)
Centre Muraz

References

  1. World Health Organisation. World malaria report 2014.Google Scholar
  2. Alex A, Raphael NG, Martin A, Chris C, Mark R. Loss of household protection from use of insecticide-treated nets against pyrethroid-resistant mosquitoes, Benin. Emerg Infect Dis. 2012;18:1101.View ArticleGoogle 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;27:91–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Dabiré RK, Diabaté A, Namontougou M, Djogbenou L, Kengne P, Simard F, et al. Distribution of insensitive acetylcholinesterase (ace-1(R)) in Anopheles gambiae s.l. populations from Burkina Faso (West Africa). Trop Med Int Health. 2009;14:396–403.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Dabiré RK, Diabaté A, Namountougou M, Toe KH, Ouari A, Kengne P, et al. Distribution of pyrethroid and DDT resistance and the L1014F kdr mutation in Anopheles gambiae s.l. from Burkina Faso (West Africa). T Roy Soc Trop Med H. 2009;103:1113–20.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Moiroux N, Gomez MB, Pennetier C, Elanga E, Djenontin A, Chandre F, et al. Changes in Anopheles funestus biting behavior following universal coverage of long-lasting insecticidal nets in Benin. J Infect Dis. 2012;206:1622–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Ojuka P, Boum Y, Denoeud-Ndam L, Nabasumba C, Muller Y, Okia M, et al. Early biting and insecticide resistance in the malaria vector Anopheles might compromise the effectiveness of vector control intervention in Southwestern Uganda. Malar J. 2015;14:8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Sougoufara S, Diedhiou SM, Doucoure S, Diagne N, Sembene PM, Harry M, et al. Biting by Anopheles funestus in broad daylight after use of long-lasting insecticidal nets: a new challenge to malaria elimination. Malar J. 2014;13:7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Tusting LS, Thwing J, Sinclair D, Fillinger U, Gimnig J, Bonner KE et al. Mosquito larval source management for controlling malaria. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;29:1-73Google Scholar
  10. World Health Organization. Larval source management - a supplementary measure for malaria vector control. An operational manual. 2013.Google Scholar
  11. Bravo A, Likitvivatanavong S, Gill SS, Soberón M. Bacillus thuringiensis: A story of a successful bioinsecticide. Insect Biochem Molec. 2011;41:423–31.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Majambere S, Lindsay S, Green C, Kandeh B, Fillinger U. Microbial larvicides for malaria control in The Gambia. Malar J. 2007;6:76.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Tiwari S, Ghosh SK, Mittal PK, Dash AP. Effectiveness of a new granular formulation of biolarvicide Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis against larvae of malaria vectors in India. Vector-Borne Zoonot. 2011;11:69–75.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Djènontin A, Pennetier C, Zogo B, Soukou KB, Ole-Sangba M, Akogbéto M, et al. Field Efficacy of vectobac GR as a mosquito larvicide for the control of Anopheline and Culicine mosquitoes in natural habitats in Benin, West Africa. PLoS ONE. 2014;9, e87934.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Nartey R, Owusu-Dabo E, Kruppa T, Baffour-Awuah S, Annan A, Oppong S, et al. Use of Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis as a viable option in an Integrated Malaria Vector Control Programme in the Kumasi Metropolis, Ghana. Parasit Vectors. 2013;6:116.Google Scholar
  16. Araujo AP, Diniz DFA, Helvecio E, de Barros RA, de Oliveira CMF, Ayres CFJ, et al. The susceptibility of Aedes aegypti populations displaying temephos resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis: a basis for management. Parasit Vectors. 2013;6:9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Dambach P, Louis VR, Kaiser A, Ouedraogo S, Sie A, Sauerborn R, et al. Efficacy of Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis against malaria mosquitoes in northwestern Burkina Faso. Parasit Vectors. 2014;7:8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Harwood JF, Farooq M, Turnwall BT, Richardson AG. Evaluating liquid and granular Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis broadcast applications for controlling vectors of dengue and chikungunya viruses in artificial containers and tree holes. J Med Entomol. 2015;52:663–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Okech BA, Gouagna LC, Yan GY, Githure JI, Beier JC. Larval habitats of Anopheles gambiae s.s. (Diptera: Culicidae) influences vector competence to Plasmodium falciparum parasites. Malar J. 2007;6.Google Scholar
  20. Anderson RM, May RM. Infectious diseases of humans: dynamics and control. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1992.Google Scholar
  21. Beldomenico PM, Begon M. Disease spread, susceptibility and infection intensity: vicious circles? Trends Ecol Evol. 2010;25:21–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Pulkkinen K, Ebert D. Host starvation decreases parasite load and mean host size in experimental populations. Ecology. 2004;85:823–33.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnson PTJ, Chase JM, Dosch KL, Hartson RB, Gross JA, Larson DJ, et al. Aquatic eutrophication promotes pathogenic infection in amphibians. P Natl Acad Sci USA. 2007;104:15781–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Suwanchaichinda C, Paskewitz SM. Effects of larval nutrition, adult body size, and adult temperature on the ability of Anopheles gambiae (Diptera: Culicidae) to melanize Sephadex beads. J Med Entomol. 1998;35:157–61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Venesky MD, Wilcoxen TE, Rensel MA, Rollins-Smith L, Kerby JL, Parris MJ. Dietary protein restriction impairs growth, immunity, and disease resistance in southern leopard frog tadpoles. Oecologia. 2012;169:23–31.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Takken W, Smallegange R, Vigneau A, Johnston V, Brown M, Mordue-Luntz A, et al. Larval nutrition differentially affects adult fitness and Plasmodium development in the malaria vectors Anopheles gambiae and Anopheles stephensi. Parasit Vectors. 2013;6:345.Google Scholar
  27. Moller-Jacobs L, Murdock C, Thomas M. Capacity of mosquitoes to transmit malaria depends on larval environment. Parasit Vectors. 2014;7:593.Google Scholar
  28. Briegel H. Fecundity, metabolism, and body size in Anopheles (Diptera, Culicidae), vectors of malaria. J Med Entomol. 1990;27:839–50.Google Scholar
  29. Takken W, Klowden MJ, Chambers GM. Effect of body size on host seeking and blood meal utilization in Anopheles gambiae sensu stricto (Diptera: Culicidae): The disadvantage of being small. J Med Entomol. 1998;35:639–45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Araujo MS, Gil LH, de Almeida e Silva A. Larval food quantity affects development time, survival and adult biological traits that influence the vectorial capacity of Anopheles darlingi under laboratory conditions. Malar J. 2012;11:261.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Breaux JA, Schumacher MK, Juliano SA. What does not kill them makes them stronger: larval environment and infectious dose alter mosquito potential to transmit filarial worms. Proc R Soc B. 2014;281:20140459.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Lefèvre T, Vantaux A, Dabiré RK, Mouline K, Cohuet A. Non-genetic determinants of mosquito competence for malaria parasites. PLoS Pathog. 2013;9, e1003365.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Muturi EJ, Costanzo K, Kesavaraju B, Alto BW. Can pesticides and larval competition alter susceptibility of Aedes mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) to arbovirus infection? J Med Entomol. 2011;48:429–36.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Muturi EJ, Kim CH, Alto BW, Berenbaum MR, Schuler MA. Larval environmental stress alters Aedes aegypti competence for Sindbis virus. Trop Med Int Health. 2011;16:955–64.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Coetzee M, Hunt RH, Wilkerson R, Della Torre A, Coulibaly MB, Besansky NJ. Anopheles coluzzii and Anopheles amharicus, new members of the Anopheles gambiae complex. Zootaxa. 2013;3619:246–74.Google Scholar
  36. Santolamazza F, Mancini E, Simard F, Qi Y, Tu Z, della Torre A. Insertion polymorphisms of SINE200 retrotransposons within speciation islands of Anopheles gambiae molecular forms. Malar J. 2008;7:163.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Djogbenou L, Noel V, Agnew P. Costs of insensitive acetylcholinesterase insecticide resistance for the malaria vector Anopheles gambiae homozygous for the G119S mutation. Malar J. 2010;9:12.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Tchuinkam T, Mpoame M, Make-Mveinhya B, Simard F, Lele-Defo E, Zebaze-Togouet S, et al. Optimization of breeding output for larval stage of Anopheles gambiae (Diptera: Culicidae): prospects for the creation and maintenance of laboratory colony from wild isolates. B Entomol Res. 2010;101:259–69.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Vantaux A, Dabiré R, Cohuet A, Lefèvre T. A heavy legacy: offspring of malaria-infected mosquitoes show reduced disease resistance. Malar J. 2014;13:442.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Vantaux A, de Sales Hien DF, Yaméogo B, Dabiré KR, Thomas F, Cohuet A et al. Host-seeking behaviors of mosquitoes experimentally infected with sympatric field isolates of the human malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum: no evidence for host manipulation. Front Ecol Evol. 2015;3Google Scholar
  41. Roux O, Vantaux A, Roche B, Yameogo KB, Dabiré KR, Diabaté A, et al. Evidences for carry-over effect of predator exposure on pathogen transmission potential. Proc R Soc B. 2015;282:20152430.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Bousema T, Dinglasan RR, Morlais I, Gouagna LC, van Warmerdam T, Awono-Ambene PH, et al. Mosquito feeding assays to determine the infectiousness of naturally infected Plasmodium falciparum gametocyte carriers. PLoS ONE. 2012;7, e42821.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Sangare I, Michalakis Y, Yameogo B, Dabire RK, Morlais I, Cohuet A. Studying fitness cost of Plasmodium falciparum infection in malaria vectors: validation of an appropriate negative control. Malar J. 2013;12:2.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Van Handel E, Day JF. Correlation between wing length and protein content of mosquitoes. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 1989;5:180–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Bargielowski I, Koella JC. A possible mechanism for the suppression of Plasmodium berghei development in the mosquito Anopheles gambiae by the microsporidian Vavraia culicis. PLoS ONE. 2009;4:5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Greenwell BM, Schubert Kabban CM. investr: An R Package for Inverse Estimation. The R Journal. 2014;6:90–100.Google Scholar
  47. Wheeler MW, Park RM, Bailer AJ. Comparing median lethal concentration values using confidence interval overlap or ratio tests. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2006;25:1441–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Ritz C, Streibig JC. Bioassay Analysis using R. J Statist Software. 2005;12Google Scholar
  49. Therneau T. coxme: Mixed Effects Cox Models. R package version 2.2-3. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/coxme/index.html. 2012.
  50. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.9999999-0. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html. 2012.
  51. Crawley MJ. The R book. The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex PO19 8SQ, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2007.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2013.Google Scholar
  53. Grimstad PR, Haramis LD. Aedes triseriatus (Diptera: Culcidae) and La Crosse virus III. Enhanced oral transmission by nutrition-deprived mosquitoes. J Med Entomol. 1984;21:249–56.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Kay BH, Edman JD, Fanning ID, Mottram P. Larval diet and the vector competence of Culex annulirostris (Diptera, Culcidae) for Murray Valley Encephalitis virus. J Med Entomol. 1989;26:487–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Dodson BL, Kramer LD, Rasgon JL. Larval nutritional stress does not affect vector competence for West Nile Virus (WNV) in Culex tarsalis. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2011;11:1493–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  56. Briegel H, Horler E. Multiple blood meals as a reproductive strategy in Anopheles (Diptera, Culcidae). J Med Entomol. 1993;30:975–85.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. WHO manual. MR4-methods in Anopheles research Fourth edition. 2014.Google Scholar
  58. Gillies MT, Wilkes TJ. A study of the age-composition of populations of Anopheles gambiae Giles and A. funestus Giles in North-Eastern Tanzania. B Entomol Res. 1965;56:237–62.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. Smith D, Ellis McKenzie F. Statics and dynamics of malaria infection in Anopheles mosquitoes. Malar J. 2004;3:13.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  60. Gems D, Partridge L. Stress-response hormesis and aging: “That which does not kill us makes us stronger”. Cell Metab. 2008;7:200–3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Bargielowski I, Koella JC. A possible mechanism for the suppression of Plasmodium berghei development in the mosquito Anopheles gambiae by the microsporidian Vavraia culicis. PLoS ONE. 2009;4Google Scholar
  62. Lorenz LM, Koella JC. The microsporidian parasite Vavraia culicis as a potential late life-acting control agent of malaria. Evol Appl. 2012;4:783–90.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  63. Kitthawee S, Edman JD, Sattabongkot J. Evaluation of survival potential and malaria susceptibility among different size classes of laboratory-reared Anopheles dirus. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1990;43:328–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Vantaux et al. 2016

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