Abstract
Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus) is an invasive mosquito species and notable vector of several pathogens in the USA. Their cryptic and anthropophilic nature puts this species in close association with humans, where they can also be a nuisance. Mosquito control programs are the front line of defense for protecting the community from nuisance-biting and disease. However, the occurrence and prevalence of insecticide resistance in mosquitoes is a well-documented phenomenon that directly impacts the efficacy of insecticide applications. In Florida specifically, widespread resistance in Ae. aegypti has created a need for operational strategies that combat and, ideally, reverse resistance. Laboratory studies and the association between fitness costs and insecticide resistance indicate that this reversion is possible under the right conditions. For a 2.5-year period, the impact of varying operational treatment regimens on insecticide resistance in Ae. aegypti is evaluated using kdr genotyping and the CDC bottle bioassay. In an organophosphate treatment area, a decrease in frequency of a double homozygous resistant genotype was observed. CDC bottle bioassays did not reveal any clear trends in the data to indicate a reversion to insecticide susceptibility. However, the changes in genotype could indicate the first step back to insecticide susceptibility. This study provides preliminary data that has implications for resistance management in mosquito control operations.
Article Highlights
-
Presented study represents the first field study to evaluate how changing insecticide pressures on resistant mosquitoes affects insecticide resistance.
-
A decrease in the double homozygous resistance genotype was observed in Ae. aegypti from the organophosphate treatment area after a change in use patterns.
-
Identifiable trends in phenotypic resistance as a result of the treatment regimens were not observed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
The yellow fever mosquito, Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus) (Diptera: Culicidae) has played a major role as both a nuisance and vector species in the United States (US) for centuries. While the first description of Ae. aegypti in the continental US was published in 1828 [1], it has likely been present since the seventeenth century as evidenced by intermittent outbreaks of yellow fever and dengue throughout the eastern US [2]. While yellow fever transmission has ceased in the US, local transmission of dengue [3,4,5], chikungunya [6], and Zika virus [7, 8] have occurred in recent decades. In addition to the significant public health threat Ae. aegypti poses, they are also a noteworthy nuisance species as well. Aedes aegypti larvae inhabit artificial and natural containers around human habitation, and the adults are crepuscular feeders [9, 10] with a preference for human bloodmeals [11, 12]. These characteristics also enhance their importance in pathogen transmission because they are competent arboviral vectors with close associations to humans. Another container mosquito, Aedes albopictus (Skuse), is also widely distributed in Florida [13] and will often oviposit in the same containers as Ae. aegypti. Both mosquito species are considered domestic and are part of operational nuisance mosquito control in Florida counties [14].
Using insecticides to control adult populations of mosquitoes, also known as adulticiding, is a critical tool for public health vector control. Adulticiding is considered essential during mosquito-borne disease outbreaks to interrupt transmission by killing infected adult mosquitoes [8, 15,16,17]. However, the efficacy of these missions is largely dependent on the insecticide susceptibility status of the target population.
Mosquito insecticide resistance can be classified by several mechanisms including behavioral, penetration, metabolic, and target-site resistance [18,19,20]. Behavioral resistance is characterized by avoidance of a toxin [19] while penetration resistance is characterized by reduced penetration of an insecticide, often due to thickening or altered composition of the insect cuticle [20]. More well characterized for Ae. aegypti are target-site and metabolic resistance mechanisms. Target-site resistance results from a confirmational change in the insecticide target-site, often as a result of a mutation [18]. Knockdown resistance (kdr) is a type of target-site resistance associated with the sodium channel and has been documented in Ae. aegypti in Florida [21] and elsewhere [22,23,24]. Metabolic resistance is the result of upregulation of metabolic genes that detoxify xenobiotics, such as insecticides, and this has been implicated as a significant mechanism in several Ae. aegypti populations from Florida [25].
Adulticides primarily used for public health vector control in the US belong to the pyrethroid and organophosphate chemical classes. Resistance to both insecticide groups has been detected in the US in several mosquito species [26,27,28,29], including Ae. aegypti [21, 30, 31]. In Ae. aegypti, pyrethroid resistance is more prevalent than organophosphate resistance, and is ubiquitous across the tested populations from Florida [21, 31]. This trend is, in part, driven by the heavy use of pyrethroids in vector control since the 1960s [14, 32] and prior to that, the use of DDT as cross resistance has been documented between pyrethroids and DDT [33, 34].
With only two chemical classes available for adulticiding, failure of one chemical class to elicit mortality in mosquitoes makes rotation near impossible. To regain the ability to use pyrethroids effectively against Ae. aegypti, alternative control strategies must be implemented. Resistance to insecticides has often been associated with fitness costs [35, 36]. Therefore, removal of insecticide pressure, particularly from pyrethroids, may influence the resistance status of the mosquito population. This has been investigated previously in laboratory studies at both the phenotypic and genotypic level [36,37,38]. Both Chang et al. [37] and Brito et al. [36] observed a return to near-susceptible levels within 15 generations after relaxation or removal of insecticide exposure. Similarly, Grossman et al. [38] reported that a highly resistant field-derived strain of Ae. aegypti displayed a significant reversion towards susceptibility after 10 generations. These laboratory studies confirm that there is potential for susceptibility to be regained in pyrethroid-resistant Ae. aegypti populations.
While these results are promising, field (operational) attempts to return resistant populations to a susceptible state will be influenced by ecological factors as well as other sources of insecticides. For example, use of household insecticides can increase pyrethroid resistance levels in Ae. aegypti [39]. A survey conducted in Mexico found that aerosolized sprays were almost exclusively pyrethroid-based products and applied by most homeowners one to three times a day [39]. When exposed to these products, the frequency of kdr mutations increased in these populations. Therefore, it is plausible that even in the absence of an ultra-low-volume treatment with a pyrethroid, there will likely still exist selection pressure for pyrethroid resistance from other sources.
To date, no field studies have been conducted on the reversion of resistant Ae. aegypti back to an insecticide susceptible state under different treatment regimens. Here, we characterized the genotypic and phenotypic responses of 3 Ae. aegypti populations exposed to different operational vector control regimens from 2016 to 2019. The results from this study provide a promising foundation for future research and for the prospects of pyrethroid use for the control of Ae. aegypti.
In the next section, the materials and methods are described (Sect. 2). In Sect. 3, the results of the study are presented with associated figures. The discussion (Sect. 4) places the findings in context of other studies and the conclusions (Sect. 5) summarize the main findings and reiterate the importance of this research.
2 Materials and methods
2.1 Field sites and sampling
Four field locations were identified in Pasco County, Florida to represent four different operational treatment regimens. Treatment sites fell into one of the following treatment regimens: (1) adulticide with pyrethroid only (PYR site), (2) adulticide with organophosphate only (OP site), (3) larvicide only (LARV site), or (4) no treatment (NT site) (Table 1, Fig. 1). A 500–800 m buffer was created around each centroid to create the treatment area. Pasco County Mosquito Control District (PCMCD) uses spray zones to delineate the boundaries of treatment missions. In a routine operational framework, treatment within these zones would have been dictated by mosquito species abundance (through surveillance), resident complaints, disease transmission risk, and weather events. Based on this information, mosquito control would choose the appropriate application method, product, and treatment zones. Prior to this study, the selected treatment areas would have been part of this routine operational framework. At the time this study was conducted, there had not been any local transmission of viruses transmitted by container mosquitoes (i.e. Zika, dengue, or chikungunya viruses). Each treatment area for this study was composed, in part, by 3 spray zones. Any larvicide or adulticide mission conducted in any of the 3 zones was recorded and considered as a treatment to the above listed treatment areas, even though only part of the treatment area may have been treated. Treatment regimens were implemented beginning on January 1, 2017 and remained in place until July 31, 2019. Ovicups were deployed in September 2016 in each site to collect container mosquito eggs. The resulting populations were used for baseline insecticide susceptibility assays. Egg collections were made up of at least a single collection during each mosquito season between April and September. Treatment regimens were adhered to by PCMCD as closely as possible. However, nuisance levels and public health concerns resulted in treatment outside these criteria and those instances were recorded. The final egg collections were conducted on July 31, 2019.
Egg collections were made using several ovicups throughout each of the treatment areas. Ovicups were constructed using a 16 oz plastic cup and attaching seed germination paper to the inside of the cup using binder clips [40]. During the mosquito season, ovicups were deployed throughout the treatment areas and filled with water to encourage oviposition by container mosquitoes. The germination paper in the ovicups was collected and replaced every 5–7 days for a period of 5 weeks and ovicups were refilled with water as needed. Eggs collected throughout each 5-week period were considered to be representative of the corresponding treatment area at that time point. Pooling of eggs collected from multiple collection dates has been utilized in resistance studies previously [21] and studies conducted in the Florida Keys and Brazil suggest collections made over a 5-week period should be genetically similar [41, 42].
2.2 Laboratory handling and rearing
Rearing protocols described in [40] were followed when handling field collected samples. Briefly, the number of eggs on the field collected papers were assessed for viability and quantified to determine the number of viable eggs on each paper. Eggs from field collected papers (F0) were then hatched in rearing trays containing 2 L of water at a density of ~ 250 viable eggs per tray. Larval diet consisting of equal parts by weight of lactalbumin and brewer’s yeast was added to the trays at the hatching stage (~ 0.2 g). During the larval rearing process, additional larval diet was added to trays ad libitum. Upon pupation, mosquitoes were transferred to a ‘mosquito breeder’ (Bioquip, Rancho Dominguez, CA, U.S.A) and were sight identified once the adult emerged. Aedes albopictus were also found at these sites but were not used in this study. Aedes aegypti adults (both male and female) were placed in a cage (30.5 × 30.5 × 30.5 cm) (Bioquip) and provided a 10% sucrose solution.
A bloodmeal from a live chicken was offered to 3–5-day old mosquitoes for a period of 45 min (IACUC Protocol # 201,807,682) to amplify mosquito populations. Eggs were collected 2–3 days following the bloodmeal by placing moist germination paper inside the rearing cage. When necessary, the process of hatching, rearing, and amplifying populations was also conducted with F1 populations to obtain a greater number of individuals for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) bottle bioassay [43]. However, populations beyond second generation were not utilized for any genotypic or phenotypic resistance assays.
2.3 kdr genotyping assay
A melt curve analysis was utilized to assess genotype frequency in field populations of Ae. aegypti. Mutation of the 1016 allele from valine to isoleucine (V1016I) and of the 1534 allele from phenylalanine to cysteine (F1534C) were targeted [44, 45]. Melt curve analysis was conducted using methods previously described by [21]. A pyrethroid-resistant Puerto Rico population of Ae. aegypti [46] was used as a positive control and a pyrethroid-susceptible Orlando population of Ae. aegypti [47] was used as a negative control. An artificial heterozygote control was created by adding a single individual from both the Orlando and Puerto Rico populations to a single well.
Genotyping was performed on mosquitoes from each treatment area. These mosquitoes were obtained directly from the rearing cage and were never used in bottle bioassays. Field samples and controls were homogenized in a 96-deep well plate that contained 200 μl of nuclease free water and a glass grinding bead. Homogenization was done for 60 s at 30 wave cycles per second. The master mix was prepared using SYBR Select Master Mix, nuclease free water, and either 1016 or 1534 primers. A mixture of 2 μl of homogenized sample and 8 μl of master mix were subjected to the following cycling conditions: 3 min at 95 °C and 40 cycles at 95 °C for 3 s and 60 °C for 15 s. Fluorescence data was collected continuously from 60 °C to 95 °C.
Melting temperature peaks (Tm) were used to determine genotype. The Tm indicates the presence of the certain alleles for the 1016 and 1534 single nucleotide polymorphisms and the Tm previously described by Estep et al. [21] was used. For the 1016 mutation, amplicon coding for valine has a Tm of 86 ± 0.3 °C and amplicon coding for the resistant isoleucine mutation has a Tm of 77.3 ± 0.3 °C. For the 1534 mutation, phenylalanine has an amplicon Tm of 79.8 ± 0.3 °C and the resistant cysteine mutation has an amplicon Tm of 84.7 ± 0.3 °C. Samples with a single Tm were classified as homozygous for the associated amplicon coding while samples with multiple Tm peaks were classified as heterozygotes.
2.4 Phenotypic resistance assay
The CDC bottle bioassay [43, 48] was used to assess the phenotypic resistance of field populations of Ae. aegypti. Technical grade active ingredients (AI) (ChemService, West Chester, PA) were diluted using acetone to create a stock solution. Up to 6 pyrethroid and 3 organophosphate AIs were used in the CDC bottle bioassay. The pyrethroid active ingredients tested were cypermethrin, deltamethrin, etofenprox, lambda-cyhalothrin, permethrin, and sumithrin. The organophosphate active ingredients tested were chlorpyrifos, malathion, and naled. For each assay, four 250-ml glass bottles (DWK Life Sciences, Millville, NJ) were treated with a diagnostic dose (Table 2) of stock solution. The interior of each bottle was coated by tilting the bottle to either side and rotating until all interior surfaces of the bottle had been coated. Treated bottles were then uncapped and rolled on a table for 2–3 min or until all acetone had evaporated. One control bottle was used for each assay and was treated similarly to test bottles but was treated with acetone only.
Diagnostic times were calibrated by conducting the CDC bottle bioassay with the ORL 1952 insecticide susceptible population of Ae. aegypti [47] (Table 2). The diagnostic time was the time point at which 100% mortality was achieved in the susceptible population. Fifteen to 25 unfed 3- to 5- day old mosquitoes were introduced to the four treated bottles and the control bottle. Mortality was recorded at 0, 5, 10, 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, 90, 105, and 120-min. Mosquitoes were counted as dead if they could no longer stand or fly. CDC definitions were used to categorize field populations as susceptible (> 97% mortality at diagnostic time), developing resistance (90–96% mortality), or resistant (< 90% mortality) [43]. At the conclusion of the 2-h bottle bioassay, mosquitoes were transferred to clean holding cages to allow for a 24-h mortality reading, described previously [40]. Holding cages were covered with a fine mesh and mosquitoes were provided a 10% sucrose-soaked cotton ball until the 24-h mortality reading.
2.5 Data analysis
Genotype frequency over time was analyzed using a Chi-square analysis for the OP and LARV site separately using R statistical software [49]. Genotype frequency from the NT was not analyzed because data was only available from 2017. Confidence intervals (95%) were constructed for the response of Ae. aegypti to organophosphate and pyrethroid active ingredients.
3 Results
3.1 Operational mosquito control treatments
At the PYR site, several unplanned, but necessary adulticide missions with organophosphate-based products took place within the first 12 months of the study. Therefore, results from this site were discarded, and no future egg collections were made in that treatment area.
The OP site received 56 ground adulticide treatments of Fyfanon® (malathion) and one aerial adulticide treatment with Dibrom® (naled) during the study period. A total of four aerial larvicide applications were conducted within the OP site, but these were confined to lakes in the treatment area and likely did not have an impact on container mosquito populations. Two of these aerial missions used Metalarv® (s-methoprene) and two used Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti). Two residual applications were made using Envion (synergized permethrin) to two different individual private residences during the study period due to the lack of residual treatments available for this application in other chemical classes.
The LARV site received 26 aerial larvicide applications that treated approximately 5–25% of the treatment area on each application. Products used were Metalarv® (s-methoprene) or Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) and also included one release of Gambusia affinis, a larvivorous fish, into a neglected/ non-chlorinated pool; 6 truck-based ground applications of Altosid® or MetaLarv® (s-methoprene); 7 ground applications of BVA oil (larvicide oil); and 42 ground applications of Abate® (temephos). A deviation occurred in this treatment area during the study period when a residual application of Envion (synergized permethrin) to a single property was conducted due to the lack of alternative residual treatment options.
The NT site received 26 aerial and 31 ground larvicide applications, but similar to the OP site, these treatments were targeted to lakes within the treatment area and likely had little effect on container mosquitoes. A single ground adulticide mission was conducted in the treatment area using Kontrol 30–30 (synergized permethrin) during the study period.
3.2 kdr genotyping assay
There were 9 possible genotype combinations for V1016I and F1534C: IICC, (homozygous resistant for both 1016 and 1534), IIFC, IIFF, VICC, VIFC, VIFF, VVCC, VVFC, and VVFF (homozygous susceptible for both 1016 and 1534). A total of 330 mosquitoes were used in the kdr assay and during the study period, genotypes observed in our samples included: IICC, VICC, VIFC, VVCC, and VVFC (Fig. 2) and the frequency at which each genotype was detected within the OP site and LARV site changed over time. In the NT site, Ae. aegypti were only obtained in 2017 for genotypic testing due to low numbers of eggs collected in ovicups. Genotype analysis on mosquitoes from the 2017 NT site collection (N = 38) revealed a majority (94.7%) had the IICC (homozygous resistant) genotype and 5.3% had the VICC genotype.
In 2016, the majority of Ae. aegypti individuals collected from the OP site exhibited the IICC genotype, which is homozygous resistant for both the 1016 and 1534 alleles. Of the individuals sampled from the 2016 OP site (N = 41), 85.4% were the IICC genotype and 14.6% were VICC, which is heterozygous for the 1016 allele and homozygous resistant for the 1534 allele (Fig. 2). The prevalence of genotypes changed significantly over the study period (df = 8, χ2 = 44.728, P < 0.0001). When the same site was sampled in 2017, the prevalence of the IICC genotype among sampled individuals (N = 42) had decreased to 30.9% while the prevalence of the VICC genotype increased to 45.2% classified. An additional 3 genotypes were detected at the OP site in 2017 that were not detected in 2016. The VIFC genotype (heterozygous for both alleles) made up 9.5% of sampled individuals, VVCC (homozygous susceptible for 1016 and homozygous resistant for 1534) made up 4.8%, and 9.5% were VVFC (homozygous susceptible for 1016 and heterozygous for 1534). In 2018, the VIFC and VVFC were not detected and the prevalence of the IICC genotype increased to 40.5% among the sampled individuals (N = 42). The VICC genotype decreased to 42.9% VICC while the VVCC genotype increased to 16.7% of the population.
During the study period, 3 genotypes were detected from the LARV site: IICC (homozygous resistant for both alleles), VICC (heterozygous for 1016 allele and homozygous resistant for 1534 allele), and VVCC (homozygous susceptible for 1016 allele and homozygous resistant for 1534 allele). Compared to the OP site, the sampled population from the LARV site (N = 83) had a lower percentage of individuals with the IICC genotype (38.6%) and a higher percentage with the VICC (60.2%) and VVCC (1.2%) genotype in 2016 (Fig. 2). The prevalence of genotypes changed significantly over the study period (df = 4, χ2 = 33.854, P < 0.0001). In 2017, the prevalence of the IICC genotype (38.1%) was similar to 2016), but the frequency of the VICC genotype decreased to 45.2% and the VVCC genotype increased to 16.7% (N = 42). In 2018, only two genotypes were detected. The percentage of sampled individuals (N = 42) with the IICC genotype increased to 76.2% and the VICC genotype decreased to 23.8%.
3.3 Phenotypic resistance assay
A total of 74 bottle bioassays were completed with an average of 22 mosquitoes per bottle (~ 8,100 mosquitoes used in assay). The response of Ae. aegypti to the different active ingredients listed in Table 2 were considered collectively based on chemical class. Therefore, the percent mortality at the diagnostic time, the 2-h, and the 24-h readings were an average of the response of all pyrethroid AIs or all organophosphate AIs. Collections of Ae. aegypti were made in 2019 only for the NT site, but at least one population of Ae. aegypti was collected for both the OP site and the LARV site from 2016 to 2019.
At the time of the baseline assay in 2016, the Ae. aegypti populations from both the OP site and the LARV site demonstrated susceptibility to the organophosphate active ingredients with ~ 98–100% mortality at the diagnostic time and 100% mortality at both the 2-h and 24-h mortality reading (Fig. 3). The response of Ae. aegypti populations from the OP site and the LARV site maintained similar levels of susceptibility throughout the study period to organophosphates, except for 2018. In April 2018, mortality for Ae. aegypti from the OP site at the diagnostic time decreased to 74% for organophosphates with 99 and 97% mortality at the 2 h and 24-h time points, respectively. For the 2018 collection from the LARV site, mortality at the diagnostic time was only 47.3% at the diagnostic time and increased to 91% at 2 h and 95% at 24 h. Outside of these 2018 collections at the OP and LARV site, susceptibility to organophosphates was indicated by all phenotypic mortality readings from 2016 to 2019.
Mortality in the CDC bottle bioassay to pyrethroids was highly variable throughout the study period. Similar to the organophosphate active ingredients, a decrease in mortality at the diagnostic time also occurred in 2018, but the decrease was not as pronounced as it was with the organophosphate active ingredients. However, resistance was observed in the same populations to the pyrethroid active ingredients. Aedes aegypti from the OP and LARV site collected in 2016 only achieved 36% and 28% mortality, respectively, at the diagnostic time. Mortality did increase by the 2-h reading, but decreased by the 24-h reading, indicating recovery from insecticide exposure and knockdown resistance (Fig. 4). The trend of increased mortality from the diagnostic time to the 2-h mortality reading and a decrease by the 24-h mortality reading was consistent for all collections from all sites made from 2016 to 2019. Mortality from pyrethroid AIs fluctuated at the diagnostic time for Ae. aegypti from the OP site from 44% in 2017, to 24–28% in 2018, and increased in 2019 to 58%. At the LARV site, 21% mortality was observed at the diagnostic time in 2017, 17% in 2018, followed by an increase to 72% mortality in 2019 (Fig. 4).
4 Discussion
A significant amount of research has been conducted on insecticide resistance in mosquito populations throughout the world [18]. This research has indicated (1) that mosquito resistance to the major chemical classes used for vector control is widespread [50, 51], (2) resistance can directly impact the efficacy of operational vector control treatments, and (3) strategies are needed to combat resistance to maintain the use of a limited adulticide chemical toolbox. While the research on insecticide resistance and the mechanisms that confer resistance are prevalent in the literature, studies on the effectiveness of various control strategies on reversing resistance in mosquito populations is not as common. A small number of studies have assessed reversion to insecticide susceptibility in previously resistant populations [36, 37, 52,53,54]. Of these, none have evaluated reversion to susceptibility in a field scenario. Here, we provide data on the genotypic and phenotypic response of Ae. aegypti populations to different mosquito control regimens. Our results provide a field-based foundation that supports what has been found in laboratory studies: the level of resistance in field mosquito populations can be reduced when pressure from one insecticide class is removed.
Under pyrethroid selection pressure, knockdown resistance develops rapidly in field populations of Ae. aegypti [55]. Increases in kdr alleles are negatively associated with the number of detoxifying enzymes present in the mosquito [45]. Kdr alleles play a role in pyrethroid and DDT resistance, while the metabolic detoxification mechanism can affect all major classes of chemicals used in vector control [56]. Therefore, the co-existence of metabolic and target-site resistance mechanisms in Ae. aegypti provides a ‘broad-spectrum’ resistance protection against the major insecticide classes used for mosquito control. However, these resistance mechanisms do not always contribute equally. For example, in a study with Ae. aegypti where the kdr alleles were fixed, relaxation of pyrethroid pressure decreased oxidase activity, but not kdr frequency [57]. Another study suggests that selection pressure on metabolic genes may be weaker in Ae. aegypti populations that have kdr alleles [58]. It is possible that Ae. aegypti populations under selection pressure from pyrethroids become more resistant to those pyrethroids, specifically through target-site mutations, and the expressed metabolic detoxification mechanisms decrease. However, insecticide resistance is a complex system fueled by multiple mechanisms and what occurs in one mosquito population is not necessarily true for all mosquito populations. The response of the Pasco County, FL Ae. aegypti populations to organophosphates (Fig. 3) indicates that populations were classified as susceptible for most of the study period, which suggests these populations did not have elevated levels of detoxification enzymes. In Florida, pyrethroid resistance in Ae. aegypti is widespread [31] and the role of kdr alleles has been well characterized [21]. Finally, the ace-1 target-site mutation has not been implicated as a major resistance mechanism in Florida populations of Ae. aegypti [21]. Based on this information a rotational strategy between multiple chemical classes for combatting resistance is necessary.
Additionally, populations from the OP site had a dramatic drop in the IICC genotype (homozygous resistant for both alleles) from 2016 to 2017 (Fig. 2). This shift was not observed at the LARV site, but Ae. aegypti from that site exhibited a lower frequency of the IICC genotype at the beginning of the trial. Nevertheless, the decrease in the IICC genotype could be due to pressure from an organophosphate. In the black fly, Simulium damnosum (Theobald), the effective use of temephos was regained in a previously resistant population as the result of a rotational larviciding strategy [59]. While this reversion occurred in a different vector, it is promising that it resulted in the preservation of chemical tools used for controlling a significant vector. It is important to note that the dramatic decrease in the IICC genotype did not directly correlate to increased susceptibility in the CDC bottle bioassay in that same year. This highlights the complexity of insecticide resistance and that a genotypic change does not necessarily equal a phenotypic response.
In laboratory studies conducted with Ae. aegypti, reversion to susceptibility is also observed, but this is as a result of an insecticide-free environment [37, 52, 55] versus the rotational pressure that we applied in this study. While laboratory studies that remove exposure to study reversion to susceptibility are useful, they oversimplify the environmental conditions in which exposure occurs. The household use of insecticides [39] as well as inputs from agriculture, lawn care, or aquatic weed management may all influence resistance in field populations of mosquitoes. Therefore, evaluating reversion to susceptibility in a field-setting is appropriate and needed to understand how resistance can be combatted. Laboratory studies suggest that in a truly pyrethroid-free environment, reversion to insecticide susceptibility should occur due to significant fitness costs of pyrethroid-resistance, specifically associated with kdr [36]. However, studies conducted with Culex pipiens (Linnaeus) indicate that these fitness costs may decrease over time with continuous selection pressure [60, 61] and this is further complicated if the kdr alleles are fixed in the population. In a field scenario, this is particularly problematic as decreased pressure from pyrethroids may not have as dramatic of an impact on resistant populations as the fitness costs are decreased.
Within our study period, clear trends in phenotypic reversion to insecticide susceptibility were not observed. However, in the OP site, a shift in genotype frequencies towards more susceptible genotypes correlatively suggest that the rotational pressure of using an organophosphate may eventually have a phenotypic impact on susceptibility. However, due to the dynamics of insecticide resistance, especially in a field setting it is difficult to assess the absolute impact of these genotypes on resistance. Notably, throughout the study period, organophosphates performed well against field populations, making them a useful rotational tool in this particular county against resistant Ae. aegypti.
Mosquito control programs may detect resistance to adulticides, but operational recommendations do not go beyond generic integrated pest management or insecticide rotation strategies. Due to the lack of field-based research on the topic, the implemented rotational strategies are inevitably different from program to program. The limited data available from our study demonstrate that a decrease in resistant genotype can occur when pyrethroid use is ceased and coupled with rotation with another chemical class. This decrease in resistant genotypes is the precursor to improved insecticide susceptibility, but that was not observed in this study, potentially due to the impact of other resistance mechanisms or failure to reach a critical threshold of susceptible genotypes in the population. The magnitude of the impact of rotation was difficult to assess because the PYR site (control) had to be discarded. However, the inability of pyrethroids to control Ae. aegypti in that treatment area that then necessitated the use of organophosphates is a further testament to the ineffectiveness of pyrethroids for the control of Ae. aegypti in this area and the dire need for chemical rotation. This study is the only one to assess field rotational strategies on resistance in mosquitoes and more are needed to draw operationally relevant conclusions for vector control programs.
5 Conclusions
Insecticide resistance in mosquitoes presents a significant challenge for vector control programs. While resistance monitoring is becoming more prevalent, operational strategies for combatting resistance in the field are not clearly defined. As with most field studies, a limitation of this study was the inability to control all sources of insecticide use such as agricultural, pest control, and homeowner use of insecticides. Additionally, as this study was conducted in collaboration with an operational vector control program, their mission to protect public health took priority over study parameters and restrictions. Despite this, valuable data was gathered from the test sites that remained active throughout the study duration.
This study represents the first field study to determine how altering insecticide pressures in resistant mosquito populations affects insecticide resistance. Although a phenotypic change in resistant populations was not observed, the decrease in frequency of the double homozygous resistance genotype could indicate the early steps of a reversion to insecticide susceptibility from a resistant state. Further research could expand on this study to identify phenotypic changes and their intensity or investigate other resistance mechanisms (i.e. metabolic mechanisms). Because Ae. aegypti is a nuisance and vector species, it is imperative that strategies that combat and potentially reverse resistance be investigated and implemented.
References
Christophers SR. Aedes aegypti (L.) the yellow fever mosquito: it’s life history, bionomics, and structure. Cambridge at the University Press; 1960. Available: http://www.dpi.inpe.br/geocxnets/wiki/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=wiki:christophers_1960.pdf
Eisen L, Moore CG (2013) Aedes (Stegomyia) aegypti in the continental United States: a vector at the cool margin of its geographic range. J Med Entomol 50:467–478
Radke EG, Gregory CJ, Kintziger KW, Sauber-Schatz EK, Hunsperger EA, Gallagher GR et al (2012) Dengue outbreak in Key West, Florida, USA, 2009. Emerg Infect Dis 18:135–137. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1801.110130
Rey JR (2014) Dengue in Florida (USA). Insects 5:991–1000. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects5040991
Arévalo MT, Kirchenbaum GA, Lanteri MC, Stramer SL, Ramgopal M, Ross TM (2015) Dengue outbreak in Martin County, Florida in 2013. J Hum Virol Retrovirol 2:0072. https://doi.org/10.15406/jhvrv.2015.2.00072
Kendrick K, Stanek D, Blackmore C. Notes from the field: Transmission of chikungunya virus in the continental United States — Florida, 2014. 2014 [cited 6 Aug 2018]. Available: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6348a4.htm
Likos A, Griffin I, Bingham A, Stanek D, Fischer M, White S et al (2016) Local mosquito-borne transmission of Zika virus — Miami-Dade and Broward counties, Florida, June–August 2016. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 65:1032–1038. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6538e1
McAllister JC, Porcelli M, Medina JM, Delorey MJ, Connelly CR, Godsey MS et al (2020) Mosquito control activities during local transmission of Zika Virus, Miami-Dade County, Florida, USA, 2016 - volume 26, number 5—May 2020 - emerging infectious diseases journal - CDC. Emer Infect Dis 25:872–880. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2605.191606
Chadee DD, Martínez R (2000) Landing periodicity of Aedes aegypti with implications for dengue transmission in Trinidad. West INDIES J Vector Ecol 25:158–163
Smith M, Dixon D, Bibbs C, Autry D, Xue R-D (2018) Diel patterns of Aedes aegypti Diptera Culicidae after resurgence in St Augustine Florida as collected by a mechanical rotator trap. J Vector Ecol. 43: 201–204. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jvec.12302
Harrington LC, Edman JD, Scott TW (2001) Why do female Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) feed preferentially and frequently on human blood? J Med Entomol 38:411–422. https://doi.org/10.1603/0022-2585-38.3.411
McBride CS, Baier F, Omondi AB, Spitzer SA, Lutomiah J, Sang R et al (2014) Evolution of mosquito preference for humans linked to an odorant receptor. Nature 515:222–227. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13964
Parker C, Ramirez D, Connelly CR (2019) State-wide survey of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) in Florida. J Vector Ecol 44:210–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvec.12351
Lloyd A, Connelly CR, Carlson D. Florida Coordinating Council on Mosquito Control. Florida mosquito control: The state of the mission as defined by mosquito controllers, regulators, and environmental managers. University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory; 2018. Available: http://www.floridamosquito.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7-15-2018-white-paper.pdf
Lofgren CS, Ford HR, Tonn RJ, Jatanasen S (1970) The effectiveness of ultra-low-volume applications of malathion at a rate of 6 US fluid ounces per acre in controlling Aedes aegypti in a large-scale test at Nakhon Sawan. Thailand Bull World Health Organ 42:15–25
Macedo P, Schleier J, Reed M, Kelley K, Goodman G, Brown D et al (2010) Evaluation of efficacy and human health risk of aerial ultra-low volume applications of pyrethrins and piperonyl butoxide for adult mosquito management in response to West Nile virus activity in Sacramento County. California J Am Mosq Control Assoc 26:57–66. https://doi.org/10.2987/09-5961.1
Farajollahi A, Healy SP, Unlu I, Gaugler R, Fonseca DM (2012) Effectiveness of ultra-low volume nighttime applications of an adulticide against diurnal Aedes albopictus, a critical vector of dengue and chikungunya viruses. PLoS ONE 7:e49181. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0049181
Liu N (2015) Insecticide resistance in mosquitoes: Impact, mechanisms, and research directions. Annu Rev Entomol 60:537–559. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-010814-020828
Chareonviriyaphap T, Bangs MJ, Suwonkerd W, Kongmee M, Corbel V, Ngoen-Klan R (2013) Review of insecticide resistance and behavioral avoidance of vectors of human diseases in Thailand. Parasit Vectors 6:280. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-6-280
Balabanidou V, Grigoraki L, Vontas J (2018) Insect cuticle: a critical determinant of insecticide resistance. Curr Opin Insect Sci 27:68–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2018.03.001
Estep AS, Sanscrainte ND, Waits CM, Bernard SJ, Lloyd AM, Lucas KJ, et al (2018) Quantification of permethrin resistance and kdr alleles in Florida strains of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus Skuse. PLOS Negl Trop Dis. 12: 0006544. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0006544
Linss JGB, Brito LP, Garcia GA, Araki AS, Bruno RV, Lima JBP et al (2014) Distribution and dissemination of the Val1016Ile and Phe1534Cys Kdr mutations in Aedes aegypti Brazilian natural populations. Parasit Vectors 7:25. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-7-25
Cosme LV, Gloria-Soria A, Caccone A, Powell JR, Martins AJ (2020) Evolution of kdr haplotypes in worldwide populations of Aedes aegypti: Independent origins of the F1534C kdr mutation. PLOS Negl Trop Dis 14:e0008219. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008219
Li C-X, Kaufman PE, Xue R-D, Zhao M-H, Wang G, Yan T et al (2015) Relationship between insecticide resistance and kdr mutations in the dengue vector Aedes aegypti in Southern China. Parasit Vectors 8:325. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-015-0933-z
Schluep SM, Buckner EA (2021) Metabolic resistance in permethrin-resistant Florida Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). Insects 12:866. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12100866
Liu H, Cupp EW, Guo A, Liu N (2004) Insecticide resistance in Alabama and Florida mosquito strains of Aedes albopictus. J Med Entomol 41:946–952
Liu H, Cupp EW, Micher KM, Guo A, Liu N (2004) Insecticide resistance and cross-resistance in Alabama and Florida strains of Culex quinquefasciatus [correction]. J Med Entomol 41:408–413
Richards SL, Balanay JAG, Fields M, Vandock K (2017) Baseline insecticide susceptibility screening against six active ingredients for Culex and Aedes (Diptera: Culicidae) mosquitoes in the United States. J Med Entomol 54:682–695. https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tjw231
Richards SL, Balanay JAG, White AV, Hope J, Vandock K, Byrd BD et al (2018) Insecticide susceptibility screening against Culex and Aedes (Diptera: Culicidae) mosquitoes from the United States. J Med Entomol 55:398–407. https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tjx198
Cornel AJ, Holeman J, Nieman CC, Lee Y, Smith C, Amorino M, et al. Surveillance, insecticide resistance and control of an invasive Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) population in California. F1000Res. 5: e194. doi:https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8107.3
Parker C, Ramirez D, Thomas C, Connelly CR (2020) Baseline susceptibility status of Florida populations of Aedes aegypti Diptera: Culicidae and Aedes albopictus. J Med Entomol 57(5): 1550–1559. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tjaa068
van den Berg Henk, Zaim Morteza, Yadav Rajpal Singh, Soares Agnes, Ameneshewa Birkinesh, Mnzava Abraham, et al. Global trends in the use of insecticides to control vector-borne diseases. Environ Health Perspect. 2012;120: 577–582. doi:https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104340
Prasittisuk C, Busvine JR (1977) DDT-resistant mosquito strains with cross-resistance to pyrethroids. Pestic Sci 8:527–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.2780080516
Brengues C, Hawkes NJ, Chandre F, McCarroll L, Duchon S, Guillet P et al (2003) Pyrethroid and DDT cross-resistance in Aedes aegypti is correlated with novel mutations in the voltage-gated sodium channel gene. Med Vet Entomol 17:87–94
Kliot A, Ghanim M (2012) Fitness costs associated with insecticide resistance. Pest Manag Sci 68:1431–1437. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.3395
Brito LP, Linss JGB, Lima-Camara TN, Belinato TA, Peixoto AA, Lima JBP et al (2013) Assessing the effects of Aedes aegypti kdr mutations on pyrethroid resistance and its fitness cost. PLoS ONE 8:e60878. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060878
Chang C, Huang X-Y, Chang P-C, Wu H-H, Dai S-M (2012) Inheritance and stability of sodium channel mutations associated with permethrin knockdown resistance in Aedes aegypti. Pestic Biochem Physiol 104:136–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pestbp.2012.06.003
Grossman MK, Uc-Puc V, Rodriguez J, Cutler DJ, Morran LT, Manrique-Saide P et al (2018) Restoration of pyrethroid susceptibility in a highly resistant Aedes aegypti population. Biol Lett 14:20180022. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2018.0022
Gray L, Florez SD, Barreiro AM, Vadillo-Sánchez J, González-Olvera G, Lenhart A et al (2018) Experimental evaluation of the impact of household aerosolized insecticides on pyrethroid resistant Aedes aegypti. Sci Rep 8:e12535. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-30968-8
Parker C (2020) Collection and rearing of container mosquitoes and a 24-hour addition to the CDC bottle bioassay. J Insect Sci 20:13. https://doi.org/10.1093/jisesa/ieaa059
Costa-Ribeiro MCVD, Lourenço-de-Oliveira R, Failloux A-B (2006) Geographic and temporal genetic patterns of Aedes aegypti populations in Rio de Janeiro. Brazil Trop Med Int Health 11:1276–1285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3156.2006.01667.x
Brown JE, Obas V, Morley V, Powell JR (2013) Phylogeography and spatio-temporal genetic variation of Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) populations in the Florida Keys. J Med Entomol 50:294–299. https://doi.org/10.1603/ME12173
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CONUS manual for evaluating insecticide resistance in mosquitoes using the CDC bottle bioassay kit. 2020 [cited 10 Apr 2020]. Available: https://www.cdc.gov/zika/pdfs/CONUS-508.pdf
Yanola J, Somboon P, Walton C, Nachaiwieng W, Somwang P, Prapanthadara L (2011) High-throughput assays for detection of the F1534C mutation in the voltage-gated sodium channel gene in permethrin-resistant Aedes aegypti and the distribution of this mutation throughout Thailand. Trop Med Int Health 16:501–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3156.2011.02725.x
Saavedra-Rodriguez K, Maloof FV, Campbell CL, Garcia-Rejon J, Lenhart A, Penilla P et al (2018) Parallel evolution of vgsc mutations at domains IS6, IIS6 and IIIS6 in pyrethroid resistant Aedes aegypti from Mexico. Sci Rep 8:e6747. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-25222-0
Estep AS, Sanscrainte ND, Waits CM, Louton JE, Becnel JJ (2017) Resistance status and resistance mechanisms in a strain of Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) from Puerto Rico. J Med Entomol 54:1643–1648. https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tjx143
Pridgeon JW, Pereira RM, Becnel JJ, Allan SA, Clark GG, Linthicum KJ (2008) Susceptibility of Aedes aegypti, Culex quinquefasciatus Say, and Anopheles quadrimaculatus Say to 19 pesticides with different modes of action. J Med Entomol 45:82–87. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmedent/45.1.82
Brogdon WG, McAllister JA (1998) Simplification of adult mosquito bioassays through use of time-mortality determinations in glass bottles. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 14:159–164
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2019. Available: https://cran.r-project.org/mirrors.html
Coleman M, Hemingway J (2007) Insecticide resistance monitoring and evaluation in disease transmitting mosquitoes. J Pestic Sci 32:69–76. https://doi.org/10.1584/jpestics.R07-01
Moyes CL, Vontas J, Martins AJ, Ng LC, Koou SY, Dusfour I et al (2017) Contemporary status of insecticide resistance in the major Aedes vectors of arboviruses infecting humans. PLOS Negl Trop Dis 11:e0005625. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0005625
Abedi ZH, Brown AWA (1960) Development and reversion of DDT-resistance in Aedes aegypti. Can J Genet Cytol 2:252–261. https://doi.org/10.1139/g60-025
Curtis CF, Cook LM, Wood RJ (1978) Selection for and against insecticide resistance and possible methods of inhibiting the evolution of resistance in mosquitoes. Ecol Entomol 3:273–287. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.1978.tb00928.x
Melo-Santos M a. V, Varjal-Melo JJM, Araújo AP, Gomes TCS, Paiva MHS, Regis LN, et al. Resistance to the organophosphate temephos: mechanisms, evolution and reversion in an Aedes aegypti laboratory strain from Brazil. Acta Trop. 2010;113: 180–189. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actatropica.2009.10.015
Barbosa S, Black WC, Hastings I (2011) Challenges in estimating insecticide selection pressures from mosquito field data. PLOS Negl Trop Dis 5:e1387. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0001387
Nauen R (2007) Insecticide resistance in disease vectors of public health importance. Pest Manag Sci 63:628–633. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.1406
Son-un P, Choovattanapakorn N, Saingamsook J, Yanola J, Lumjuan N, Walton C et al (2018) Effect of relaxation of deltamethrin pressure on metabolic resistance in a pyrethroid-resistant Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) strain harboring fixed P989P and G1016G kdr Alleles. J Med Entomol 55:975–981. https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tjy037
Saavedra-Rodriguez K, Suarez AF, Salas IF, Strode C, Ranson H, Hemingway J et al (2012) Transcription of detoxification genes following permethrin selection in the mosquito Aedes aegypti. Insect Mol Biol 21:61–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2583.2011.01113.x
Yameogo. Trente ans de lutte contre l’onchocercose en Afrique de l’Ouest. Traitements larvicides et protection de l’environnement: Thirty years de onchocerciasis ... environmental protection. Yaméogo L, Levêque C, Hougard J-M, editors. IRD Éditions; 2019.
Raymond M, Berticat C, Weill M, Pasteur N, Chevillon C (2001) Insecticide resistance in the mosquito Culex pipiens: what have we learned about adaptation? Genetica 112–113:287–296
Labbé P, Berticat C, Berthomieu A, Unal S, Bernard C, Weill M et al (2007) Forty years of erratic insecticide resistance evolution in the mosquito Culex pipiens. PLOS Genet 3:e205. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.0030205
Acknowledgements
We thank Pasco County Mosquito Control District for their critical role in this project, specifically Agne Prasauskas for her assistance in study design, identification of field sites, and tracking of mosquito control treatments in the study area. The authors thank Al Estep and Neil Sanscrainte, United States Department of Agriculture, Center for Medical, Agricultural, and Veterinary Entomology, for their training in genotyping Ae. aegypti. For funding of CDC bottle bioassay research, we thank the Florida Department of Health, Contract C0064 and CODNW.
Funding
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Treatment regimens, spray zones, and all application record keeping was completed by Aaron Lloyd. Mosquito collections and CDC bottle bioassays were conducted by Casey Parker-Crockett and Daviela Ramirez. Genotyping was conducted by Casey Parker-Crockett. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Casey Parker-Crockett and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Parker-Crockett, C., Lloyd, A., Ramirez, D. et al. Impacts of differential mosquito control treatment regimens on insecticide susceptibility status of Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). SN Appl. Sci. 4, 249 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-022-05130-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-022-05130-9