Search

Background: Insecticide resistance poses a major threat to current vector control campaigns. Insecticides with novel modes of action are therefore in high demand. Pyriproxyfen (PPF), a conventional mosquito pupacide, has a unique mode of action that also sterilises adult mosquitoes (unable to produce viable offspring) upon direct contact. However, the timing of PPF exposure in relation to when mosquitoes take a blood meal has an important impact on that sterilisation. This study investigated the relationship between different blood feeding and PPF exposure timings to determine the potential of PPF sterilisation in controlling Anopheles arabiensis., Methods: Four treatment regimens were investigated: blood fed three days before PPF exposure (A), blood fed one day before PPF exposure (B), blood fed one day after PPF exposure (C) and blood fed three days after PPF exposure (D) for their impact on egg laying (fecundity) and the production of viable offspring (fertility), while the impact of PPF exposure on mosquito survival was investigated in the absence of a blood meal. All regimens and the survival study exposed mosquitoes to PPF via the bottle assay at 3 mg AI/m(2) for 30 minutes., Results: Female mosquitoes that blood-fed one day prior to PPF exposure (regimen B), produced no viable offspring during that gonotrophic cycle (100% reduction in fertility). All other treatments had no significant effect. The observed reductions in fecundity and fertility were caused by the retention of eggs (97% of eggs retained, i.e. produced in the ovaries but not laid, in regimen B, p = 0.0004). Some of these retained eggs were deformed in shape. PPF exposure on mosquito survival in the absence of a blood meal was found to have no effect., Conclusions: The results presented here suggest that sterilising adult malaria vectors using PPF could form part of a malaria control strategy, taking advantage of the lack of reported resistance to PPF in mosquitoes and its unique mode of action. We propose that targeting resting mosquitoes, which are highly susceptible to PPF at low doses, is the optimal direction for developing this control tool.

Background: Malaria control methods targeting indoor-biting mosquitoes have limited impact on vectors that feed and rest outdoors. Exploiting mosquito olfactory behaviour to reduce blood-feeding outdoors might be a sustainable approach to complement existing control strategies. Methodologies that can objectively quantify responses to odour under realistic field conditions and allow high-throughput screening of many compounds are required for development of effective odour-based control strategies., Methods: The olfactory responses of laboratory-reared Anopheles gambiae in a semi-field tunnel and A. arabiensis females in an outdoor field setting to three stimuli, namely whole human odour, a synthetic blend of carboxylic acids plus carbon dioxide and CO(2) alone at four distances up to 100 metres were measured in two experiments using three-chambered taxis boxes that allow mosquito responses to natural or experimentally-introduced odour cues to be quantified., Results: Taxis box assays could detect both activation of flight and directional mosquito movement. Significantly more (6-18%) A. arabiensis mosquitoes were attracted to natural human odour in the field up to 30 metres compared to controls, and blended synthetic human odours attracted 20% more A. gambiae in the semi-field tunnel up to 70 metres. Whereas CO(2) elicited no response in A. arabiensis in the open field, it was attractive to A. gambiae up to 50 metres (65% attraction compared to 36% in controls)., Conclusions: We have developed a simple reproducible system to allow for the comparison of compounds that are active over medium- to long-ranges in semi-field or full-field environments. Knowing the natural range of attraction of anopheline mosquitoes to potential blood sources has substantial implications for the design of malaria control strategies, and adds to the understanding of olfactory behaviour in mosquitoes. This experimental strategy could also be extended from malaria vectors to other motile arthropods of medical, veterinary and agricultural significance.

Background: Long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS) are commonly used together in the same households to improve malaria control despite inconsistent evidence on whether such combinations actually offer better protection than nets alone or IRS alone., Methods: Comparative tests were conducted using experimental huts fitted with LLINs, untreated nets, IRS plus untreated nets, or combinations of LLINs and IRS, in an area where Anopheles arabiensis is the predominant malaria vector species. Three LLIN types, Olyset®, PermaNet 2.0® and Icon Life® nets and three IRS treatments, pirimiphos-methyl, DDT, and lambda cyhalothrin, were used singly or in combinations. We compared, number of mosquitoes entering huts, proportion and number killed, proportions prevented from blood-feeding, time when mosquitoes exited the huts, and proportions caught exiting. The tests were done for four months in dry season and another six months in wet season, each time using new intact nets., Results: All the net types, used with or without IRS, prevented >99% of indoor mosquito bites. Adding PermaNet 2.0® and Icon Life®, but not Olyset® nets into huts with any IRS increased mortality of malaria vectors relative to IRS alone. However, of all IRS treatments, only pirimiphos-methyl significantly increased vector mortality relative to LLINs alone, though this increase was modest. Overall, median mortality of An. arabiensis caught in huts with any of the treatments did not exceed 29%. No treatment reduced entry of the vectors into huts, except for marginal reductions due to PermaNet 2.0® nets and DDT. More than 95% of all mosquitoes were caught in exit traps rather than inside huts., Conclusions: Where the main malaria vector is An. arabiensis, adding IRS into houses with intact pyrethroid LLINs does not enhance house-hold level protection except where the IRS employs non-pyrethroid insecticides such as pirimiphos-methyl, which can confer modest enhancements. In contrast, adding intact bednets onto IRS enhances protection by preventing mosquito blood-feeding (even if the nets are non-insecticidal) and by slightly increasing mosquito mortality (in case of LLINs). The primary mode of action of intact LLINs against An. arabiensis is clearly bite prevention rather than insecticidal activity. Therefore, where resources are limited, priority should be to ensure that everyone at risk consistently uses LLINs and that the nets are regularly replaced before being excessively torn. Measures that maximize bite prevention (e.g. proper net sizes to effectively cover sleeping spaces, stronger net fibres that resist tears and burns and net use practices that preserve net longevity), should be emphasized.