4.6 Article

Insecticide Resistance Alleles Affect Vector Competence of Anopheles gambiae s.s. for Plasmodium falciparum Field Isolates

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0063849

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Community [242095, 223736]
  2. IRD

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The widespread insecticide resistance raises concerns for vector control implementation and sustainability particularly for the control of the main vector of human malaria, Anopheles gambiae sensu stricto. However, the extent to which insecticide resistance mechanisms interfere with the development of the malignant malaria parasite in its vector and their impact on overall malaria transmission remains unknown. We explore the impact of insecticide resistance on the outcome of Plasmodium falciparum infection in its natural vector using three An. gambiae strains sharing a common genetic background, one susceptible to insecticides and two resistant, one homozygous for the ace-1(R) mutation and one for the kdr mutation. Experimental infections of the three strains were conducted in parallel with field isolates of P. falciparum from Burkina Faso (West Africa) by direct membrane feeding assays. Both insecticide resistant mutations influence the outcome of malaria infection by increasing the prevalence of infection. In contrast, the kdr resistant allele is associated with reduced parasite burden in infected individuals at the oocyst stage, when compared to the susceptible strain, while the ace-1(R) resistant allele showing no such association. Thus insecticide resistance, which is particularly problematic for malaria control efforts, impacts vector competence towards P. falciparum and probably parasite transmission through increased sporozoite prevalence in kdr resistant mosquitoes. These results are of great concern for the epidemiology of malaria considering the widespread pyrethroid resistance currently observed in Sub-Saharan Africa and the efforts deployed to control the disease.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据