Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24472598›Full record

ArticleParasites & vectors2014

Anopheles sinensis mosquito insecticide resistance: comparison of three mosquito sample collection and preparation methods and mosquito age in resistance measurements.

Tielong Xu, Daibin Zhong, Linhua Tang, Xuelian Chang, Fengyang Fu, Guiyun Yan, Bin Zheng

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Parasites & vectors, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Tielong Xu
Daibin Zhong
Linhua Tang
Xuelian Chang
Fengyang Fu
Guiyun Yan
Bin ZhengNational Institute of Parasitic Diseases, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and WHO Collaborating Center for Malaria, Schistosomiasis and Filariasis, Ministry of Public Health, Shanghai, China. cdcipdzhengbin@126.com.
National Institute for Parasitic Diseases · CNUniversity of California, Irvine · USBengbu Medical College · CNChongqing Normal University · CN

Funding

Southeast Asia Malaria Research CenterU19AI089672 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA · PI CUI, LIWANG · 2010 to 2023
$28.9M
Vector-borne Disease Research Training Program in ChinaD43TW009527 · FIC · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI YAN, GUIYUN · 2013 to 2016
$600k
Insecticide Resistance in Anopheles minimus MosquitoesR03TW008237 · FIC · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI YAN, GUIYUN · 2010 to 2012
$183k
FIC NIH HHS D43TW009527FIC NIH HHS R03 TW008237FIC NIH HHS R03TW008237NIAID NIH HHS U19 AI089672NIAID NIH HHS U19AI089672
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInsecticide resistance monitoring in malaria mosquitoes is essential for guiding the rational use of insecticides in vector control programs. Resistance bioassay is the first step for insecticide monitoring and it lays an important foundation for molecular examination of resistance mechanisms. In the literature, various mosquito sample collection and preparation methods have been used, but how mosquito sample collection and preparation methods affect insecticide susceptibility bioassay results is largely unknown. The objectives of this study were to determine whether mosquito sample collection and preparation methods affected bioassay results, which may cause incorrect classification of mosquito resistance status.

methodsThe study was conducted in Anopheles sinensis mosquitoes in two study sites in central China. Three mosquito sample collection and preparation methods were compared for insecticide susceptibility, kdr frequencies and metabolic enzyme activities: 1) adult mosquitoes collected from the field; 2) F1 adults from field collected, blood-fed mosquitoes; and 3) adult mosquitoes reared from field collected larvae.

resultsMosquito sample collection and preparation methods significantly affected mortality rates in the standard WHO tube resistance bioassay. Mortality rate of field-collected female adults was 10-15% higher than in mosquitoes reared from field-collected larvae and F1 adults from field collected blood-fed females. This pattern was consistent in mosquitoes from the two study sites. High kdr mutation frequency (85-95%) with L1014F allele as the predominant mutation was found in our study populations. Field-collected female adults consistently exhibited the highest monooxygenase and GST activities. The higher mortality rate observed in the field-collected female mosquitoes may have been caused by a mixture of mosquitoes of different ages, as older mosquitoes were more susceptible to deltamethrin than younger mosquitoes.

conclusionsFemale adults reared from field-collected larvae in resistance bioassays are recommended to minimize the effect of confounding factors such as mosquito age and blood feeding status so that more reliable and reproducible mortality may be obtained.

Indexed as

Insecticide ResistanceAllelesAnimalsAnophelesChinaFeeding BehaviorFemaleGene FrequencyGenes, InsectGeographyMutationPopulation Dynamics

Identifiers

PMID24472598
PMCPMC3917893
OpenAlexW2106234245

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.