Dataset Information

Wild populations of malaria vectors can mate both inside and outside human dwellings.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Wild populations of Anopheles mosquitoes are generally thought to mate outdoors in swarms, although once colonized, they also mate readily inside laboratory cages. This study investigated whether the malaria vectors Anopheles funestus and Anopheles arabiensis can also naturally mate inside human dwellings.

Method

Mosquitoes were sampled from three volunteer-occupied experimental huts in a rural Tanzanian village at 6:00 p.m. each evening, after which the huts were completely sealed and sampling was repeated at 11:00 p.m and 6 a.m. the next morning to compare the proportions of inseminated females. Similarly timed collections were done inside local unsealed village houses. Lastly, wild-caught larvae and pupae were introduced inside or outside experimental huts constructed inside two semi-field screened chambers. The huts were then sealed and fitted with exit traps, allowing mosquito egress but not entry. Mating was assessed in subsequent days by sampling and dissecting emergent adults caught indoors, outdoors and in exit traps.

Results

Proportions of inseminated females inside the experimental huts in the village increased from approximately 60% at 6 p.m. to approximately 90% the following morning despite no new mosquitoes entering the huts after 6 p.m. Insemination in the local homes increased from approximately 78% to approximately 93% over the same time points. In the semi-field observations of wild-caught captive mosquitoes, the proportions of inseminated An. funestus were 20.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: ± 2.8) outdoors, 25.2% (95% CI: ± 3.4) indoors and 16.8% (± 8.3) in exit traps, while the proportions of inseminated An. arabiensis were 42.3% (95% CI: ± 5.5) outdoors, 47.4% (95% CI: ± 4.7) indoors and 37.1% (CI: ± 6.8) in exit traps.

Conclusion

Wild populations of An. funestus and An. arabiensis in these study villages can mate both inside and outside human dwellings. Most of the mating clearly happens before the mosquitoes enter houses, but additional mating happens indoors. The ecological significance of such indoor mating remains to be determined. The observed insemination inside the experimental huts fitted with exit traps and in the unsealed village houses suggests that the indoor mating happens voluntarily even under unrestricted egress. These findings may inspire improved vector control, such as by targeting males indoors, and potentially inform alternative methods for colonizing strongly eurygamic Anopheles species (e.g. An. funestus) inside laboratories or semi-field chambers.

SUBMITTER: Nambunga IH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8499572 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAfter several years without bluetongue disease, a ruminant illness caused by Culicoides-borne bluetongue virus (BTV), two new autochthonous cases were reported in 2018 in Germany. By contrast, Schmallenberg virus (SBV), another Culicoides-borne virus pathogenic to ruminants, has continuously circulated in Germany since its first emergence in 2011. The disease outbreaks have triggered numerous studies on the biology of the Culicoides vectors, but many ecological details are still obscure.MethodsCulicoides biting midge species were collected with UV-light traps on 10 farms in Germany, with one trap inside and one trap outside barns on each of the farms. Traps were run once a week for 24 h from January to December 2019. Collected biting midges were morphologically identified, counted and statistically evaluated, with a focus on the Obsoletus Group and the Pulicaris Complex of the ceratopogonid genus Culicoides, which are believed to contain the major virus vectors. Temperature and relative humidity recorded at each trap were linked to the quantity of caught Culicoides. Correlations between relative Culicoides abundance and presence of livestock or type of husbandry were also investigated.ResultsA total of 38,886 Culicoides biting midges were trapped, with most of them belonging to the Obsoletus Group (51.0%) and the Pulicaris Complex (38.8%). The majority of captured specimens were collected in traps inside the barns. Obsoletus Group individuals were caught from late January to the last week of December while Pulicaris Complex individuals were captured from the end of March to early December. The lowest average temperatures at which members of the two groups were collected were 10.7 °C and 12.8 °C, respectively. While temperature had a statistically significant effect on the activity of both the Obsoletus Group and the Pulicaris Complex, relative humidity only significantly affected the activity of the latter. The presence of livestock significantly influenced the number of captured Obsoletus Group, but not of Pulicaris Complex specimens. Inside the barns, no statistical difference was found between numbers of caught Obsoletus Group and Pulicaris Complex specimens in livestock holdings with deep litter and manure scraper or slatted floor husbandry systems.ConclusionsThe almost year-round presence of Obsoletus Group biting midges and the demonstrated high relative abundance of other potential Culicoides vector species inside barns suggest a high risk of indoor virus transmission to ruminants should BTV or SBV circulate locally. Appropriate structural, organisational and vector control measures to reduce biting midge exposure should be implemented.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Malaria control in Africa relies extensively on indoor residual spraying (IRS) and insecticide-treated nets (ITNs). IRS typically targets mosquitoes resting on walls, and in few cases, roofs and ceilings, using contact insecticides. Unfortunately, little attention is paid to where malaria vectors actually rest indoors, and how such knowledge could be used to improve IRS. This study investigated preferred resting surfaces of two major malaria vectors, Anopheles funestus and Anopheles arabiensis, inside four common house types in rural south-eastern Tanzania. METHODS:The assessment was done inside 80 houses including: 20 with thatched roofs and mud walls, 20 with thatched roofs and un-plastered brick walls, 20 with metal roofs and un-plastered brick walls, and 20 with metal roofs and plastered brick walls, across four villages. In each house, resting mosquitoes were sampled in mornings (6 a.m.-8 a.m.), evenings (6 p.m.-8 p.m.) and at night (11 p.m.-12.00 a.m.) using Prokopack aspirators from multiple surfaces (walls, undersides of roofs, floors, furniture, utensils, clothing, curtains and bed nets). RESULTS:Overall, only 26% of An. funestus and 18% of An. arabiensis were found on walls. In grass-thatched houses, 33-55% of An. funestus and 43-50% of An. arabiensis rested under roofs, while in metal-roofed houses, only 16-20% of An. funestus and 8-30% of An. arabiensis rested under roofs. Considering all data together, approximately 40% of mosquitoes rested on surfaces not typically targeted by IRS, i.e. floors, furniture, utensils, clothing and bed nets. These proportions were particularly high in metal-roofed houses (47-53% of An. funestus; 60-66% of An. arabiensis). CONCLUSION:While IRS typically uses contact insecticides to target adult mosquitoes on walls, and occasionally roofs and ceilings, significant proportions of vectors rest on surfaces not usually sprayed. This gap exceeds one-third of malaria mosquitoes in grass-thatched houses, and can reach two-thirds in metal-roofed houses. Where field operations exclude roofs during IRS, the gaps can be much greater. In conclusion, there is need for locally-obtained data on mosquito resting behaviours and how these influence the overall impact and costs of IRS. This study also emphasizes the need for alternative approaches, e.g. house screening, which broadly tackle mosquitoes beyond areas reachable by IRS and ITNs.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Eave ribbons treated with spatial repellents effectively prevent human exposure to outdoor-biting and indoor-biting malaria mosquitoes, and could constitute a scalable and low-cost supplement to current interventions, such as insecticide-treated nets (ITNs). This study measured protection afforded by transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons to users (personal and communal protection) and non-users (only communal protection), and whether introducing mosquito traps as additional intervention influenced these benefits. METHODS:Five experimental huts were constructed inside a 110 m long, screened tunnel, in which 1000 Anopheles arabiensis were released nightly. Eave ribbons treated with 0.25 g/m2 transfluthrin were fitted to 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 huts, achieving 0, 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100% coverage, respectively. Volunteers sat near each hut and collected mosquitoes attempting to bite them from 6 to 10 p.m. (outdoor-biting), then went indoors to sleep under untreated bed nets, beside which CDC-light traps collected mosquitoes from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. (indoor-biting). Caged mosquitoes kept inside the huts were monitored for 24 h-mortality. Separately, eave ribbons, UV-LED mosquito traps (Mosclean) or both the ribbons and traps were fitted, each time leaving the central hut unfitted to represent non-user households and assess communal protection. Biting risk was measured concurrently in all huts, before and after introducing interventions. RESULTS:Transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons provided 83% and 62% protection indoors and outdoors respectively to users, plus 57% and 48% protection indoors and outdoors to the non-user. Protection for users remained constant, but protection for non-users increased with eave ribbons coverage, peaking once 80% of huts were fitted. Mortality of mosquitoes caged inside huts with eave ribbons was 100%. The UV-LED traps increased indoor exposure to users and non-users, but marginally reduced outdoor-biting. Combining the traps and eave ribbons did not improve user protection relative to eave ribbons alone. CONCLUSION:Transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons protect both users and non-users against malaria mosquitoes indoors and outdoors. The mosquito-killing property of transfluthrin can magnify the communal benefits by limiting unwanted diversion to non-users, but should be validated in field trials against pyrethroid-resistant vectors. Benefits of the UV-LED traps as an intervention alone or alongside eave ribbons were however undetectable in this study. These findings extend the evidence that transfluthrin-treated eave ribbons could complement ITNs.