Skip to main content
PMC home page
Malaria Journal logoLink to Malaria Journal
. 2006 Feb 10;5:12. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-5-12

Personal protection of long lasting insecticide-treated nets in areas of Anopheles gambiae s.s. resistance to pyrethroids

Roch K Dabiré 1,2,✉, Abdoulaye Diabaté 1,2, Thierry Baldet 3, Léa Paré-Toé 2, Robert T Guiguemdé 2, Jean-Bosco Ouédraogo 1,2, Ole Skovmand 4
PMCID: PMC1402300  PMID: 16472385

Abstract

Background

The development of mosquito nets pre-treated with insecticide, Long Lasting Impregnated Nets (LLINs) that last the life span of the net, is a solution to the difficulty of the re-impregnation of conventional nets. Even if they showed a good efficacy in control conditions, their efficacy in the field, particularly in areas with resistance of Anopheles gambiae to pyrethroids, is not well documented. This study compares wide (Olyset®) and small (Permanet®) mesh LLINs in field conditions, using entomological parameters.

Methods

The two LLINs were tested in a rice-growing area of south-western Burkina Faso (West Africa) with year around high density of the main malaria vector An. gambiae s.s. In the study village (VK6), there is a mixed population of two molecular forms of An. gambiae, the S-form which dominates during the rainy season and the M-form which dominates the rest of the year. The two LLINs Olyset® and Permanet® were distributed in the village and 20 matched houses were selected for comparison with four houses without treated nets.

Results

Mosquito entrance rate was ten fold higher in control houses than in houses with LLINs and there was no difference between the two net types. Among mosquitoes found in the houses, 36 % were dead in LLIN houses compared to 0% in control houses. Blood feeding rate was 80 % in control houses compared to 43 % in LLIN houses. The type of net did not significantly impact any of these parameters. No mosquitoes were found inside Permanet®, whereas dead or dying mosquitoes were collected inside the Olyset®. More than 60% of mosquitoes found on top or inside the nets had had blood meals from cattle, as shown by ELISA analysis.

Conclusion

The percentage of blood-fed mosquitoes in a bed net study does not necessarily determine net success. The efficacy of the two types of LLINs was comparable, during a period when the S-form of An. gambiae was carrying the kdr gene. Significantly higher numbers of mosquitoes were collected in control houses compared to intervention houses, indicating that the LLINs provided an additional deterrent effect, which enhanced their expected prevention capacity.

Background

The use of insecticide-treated bed nets (ITNs) for individual as for collective protection against malaria has been shown to reduce morbidity of childhood malaria (below five years of age) by 50% and global child mortality by 20%–30% [1-3]. ITNs are now considered to represent efficient tools for malaria vector control, when used on a large scale [4,5]. One of the key issues for their use on a large scale is the impregnation and the re-impregnation that needs technical skills and materials, which may not always be available [6]. Preliminary surveys have shown that less than 5% of nets available in Africa were properly treated or re-treated. The use of mosquito nets pre-treated with insecticide, Long Lasting Impregnated Nets (LLINs), that last the life span of the net, is a solution to this problem [7]. Two LLINs are now available and have been preliminarly recommended by WHO for malaria prevention: the Olyset® [8] net, made of polyethylene netting material (mesh 20 holes/cm2) with permethrin (2% of concentration) incorporated into the polymer before monofilament yarn extrusion, and the Permanet® [9] net, made of polyester netting material (mesh 25 holes/cm2) with deltamethrin incorporated (55 mg ai/m2) in a resin coating of the fibers.

Resistance to the insecticides used for impregnation may be a limiting factor to impregnated nets in vector control. Pyrethroid resistance of the most important African malaria vector Anopheles gambiae s.s. is already widespread in several West African countries [10,11]. A common resistance is caused by the kdr mutation that occasionally is found at very high frequency (>90%) [12,13]. Fortunately, the predominant kdr mechanism apparently does not prevent the efficacy of pyrethroid-treated bed nets [14,15]. Contrary to West Africa, malaria vector control failure due to metabolic-based resistance on pyrethroid efficacy was reported in South Africa. This resistance is closely associated with the presence of a high level of oxidase activity and sometimes conferring cross-resistance to the carbamate insecticide in the local vector Anopheles funestus, as recently mentioned in Kwazulu Natal and Mozambique (16-17). This oxydase-based resistance has been also observed in An. gambiae populations from Cameroon [18,19] and Kenya [20]. Bed nets without insecticide can never provide complete protection against blood-questing mosquitoes. However, when treated with pyrethroids, they reduce the number of mosquitoes entering houses and further reduce the blood-feeding rates of those entering. Torn impregnated nets have been shown still to reduce host/vector contact, and it has been argued that the most important effect of ITN is the mass effect on mosquitoes, whether it is before or after biting [3,21]. However, some authors considered that to be most effective, impregnated nets should have no holes, no entry flaps and should be tucked in under a mattress, which will not allow mosquitoes access inside the bed net [22]. It is likely that most people primarily acquire and use bed nets for their individual protection against mosquitoes biting [23,24].

It has been shown that mosquitoes with kdr resistance are less susceptible to the excito-repellent effect of pyrethroids [25] and it may, therefore, be possible that such mosquitoes will enter the wider meshed Olyset® net and bite even when this net is still intact. Therefore, in contrast to most published studies, this study compares intact LLINs with wide (Olyset®) and small (Permanet®) mesh on the entomological parameters in an area with kdr-An. gambiae populations.

Materials and methods

Study area

The survey was conducted in "Vallée du Kou", a rice growing area of southern Burkina Faso, West Africa. It is located at 30 km in the North of Bobo-Dioulasso between 4° 24' 42" longitude west and 11° 23' 14" latitude north and is composed of 7 villages with a total of 4,470 habitants (Figure 1). Irrigation exists in this area since 1972, and is now sub-permanent with two crops grown per year: from February to June during the dry season and from July to November during the rainy season. An unprotected human sleeping in the central rice-field area (VK5) is exposed to more than 60,000 mosquito bites/year [30]. An. gambiae and An. funestus are the two major vectors present. Anopheles arabiensis is rare and found in sympatry with An. gambiae in the surrounding savannah. The two molecular forms M and S of An. gambiae were observed in the periphery of the rice field during the rainy season. Huge amount of insecticides, mainly pyrethroids, are used to protect cotton from pest attacks in the neighbouring savannah. Previous studies conducted in this area found resistant An. gambiae populations to permethrin and deltamethrin in the periphery of the rice fields, but susceptible in the centre. This resistance is due to the kdr mutation, which occurs in the An. gambiae S-form population (95%), particularly at the end of the rainy season [11]. The kdr mutation was also observed in the M form in a very low proportion (4%) [13]. For these reasons and especially because of the high vector density throughout the year, the village of VK6 was selected to study the personal protection by Permanet® and Olyset® nets.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Location of the study site.

Entomological survey

Mosquitoes collection

In total, 20 households matched in size and near the periphery of the rice field were equipped with Permanet® and Olyset® nets. Matched houses with either a Permanet® or an Olyset® net were not more than 50 metres apart. Mosquitoes were collected four days/month from September to November 2003. Volunteer, informed-sleepers caught blood-seeking mosquitoes in the nets from 8:00 pm to 12:00 pm and again in the early morning at 6:00 am. Residual resting indoor fauna was collected in the houses early in the morning by manual aspirators. All nets were inspected to ensure that they had no holes, no entry flaps and were tucked in under the beds. All mosquitoes found in the nets, on the nets or indoor resting or dead on the floor were collected, counted and morphologically identified. Mosquitoes were classified according to physiological status (unfed, fed and gravid). Mosquitoes collection in the morning at 6:00 am was performed in four houses without any insecticide-treated objects or nets as control. In these control houses, from 6:00 pm to 12:00 pm, blood- seeking females were caught as above and volunteers slept after 12:00 pm under their own untreated nets usually used for personal protection.

Bloodmeal identification

The origin of bloodmeals from fed females captured above and inside the nets were identified as human or bovine using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), as described by Beier et al. [26]. In total, 45 fed-mosquitoes, respectively 24 and 21 from Olyset® and Permanet®, representing exclusively malaria vectors were analysed by ELISA.

Species and molecular forms of An. gambiae identification and kdr mutation distribution

A sample of 44 An. gambiae collected above and inside the nets (half from both Olyset® and Permanet®) was selected for PCR test. Genomic DNA was extracted from single mosquitoes and PCR amplified to identify the species within An. gambiae complex [27], to determine the molecular form (M or S) within the species An. gambiae [28], and, finally, to detect the kdr mutation [29].

Statistical analyses

Four parameters were compared between the two LLINs: (i) the percentage of house entering (compared to entrance in control houses), (ii) the number of mosquitoes collected above and inside the nets, (iii) the fed rate and (iv) the mortality rate. For each entomological parameter, comparison between treatment was made by performing a two way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a chi square test at 95 % confidence interval.

Results

Mosquito house entering rate and mosquito house location

Global house entering rate

In total 10,621 mosquitoes were collected during the study (Table 1) and consisted mainly of Anopheles and Culex with unfed, fed, gravid, half gravid, alive or dead mosquitoes from both control and LLINs-equipped houses. 9,078 mosquitoes were caught in control houses by morning capture, while only 1,543 mosquitoes were collected in either Olyset® or Permanet® LLINs-equipped houses during night and in morning capture. The total number of mosquitoes collected from the different LLINs did not differ significantly (P>0.05). The deterrency rate of the two LLINs was similar, averaging respectively 92% and 91% in Olyset® and Permanet® equipped houses. The global deterrent effect, calculated as the difference of entering rates between control and total of LLINs-equipped houses, was estimated to 83% (Table 1). Globally, Anopheles were significantly more numerous than Culex quinquefasciatus irrespective of the LLINs (P = 0.01). Whatever the LLINs, An. gambiae was the most frequent mosquito, reaching 82%, followed by C. quinquefasciatus with 12% and An. funestus with 6.2%.

Table 1.

Global house entering rate by mosquitoes (percentages are noted in italic) [In each line or row, values sharing a superscript letter are significantly different at 95 % confidence interval]

Mosquito species Control LLINs houses Type of LLINs
Olyset® Permanet®
An. gambiae 8,350 1,263 633 630
92* 81.9* 85.8 78.3
An. funestus 110 95 32 63
1.2 6.2* 4.3 7.8
C. quinquefasciatus 618 185 73 112
6.8* 12* 9.9 13.9
Entry rate 85.5* 14.5* 6.9 7.6
% Deterrency 83 - -
Open in a new tab

* Significantly different P<0.05

Mosquito house location

Mosquitoes were collected dead or alive, above or inside the nets (both Permanet® and Olyset®) and indoor elsewhere in the house (Table 2). The number of indoor resting mosquitoes did not differ significantly with the two types of LLINs (491 for Permanet®,506 for Olyset®) and this was significantly higher than the number of mosquitoes collected from the nets (above and inside) whatever the LLINs (P < 0.05). The proportion of mosquitoes found above the nets and inside the nets was similar for the two types of nets (P > 0.05) with respectively 33.5% and 37.1% for Olyset® and Permanet® equipped houses. The number of mosquitoes collected above the nets was two fold higher on Permanet® than on Olyset®. While dead mosquitoes from Permanet® were exclusively collected above the net, half of them from Olyset® were collected inside the net.

Table 2.

Comparison of the proportion of mosquitoes according to their collection place in the LLINs equipped-houses (percentages are noted in italic) [In each line, values sharing a superscript letter are significantly different at 95 % confidence interval

LLINs Resting indoor Above LLIN Inside LLIN Total
Ag1 Af Cq Ag Af Cq Ag Af Cq
Olyset® 398 27 66 128 2 2 107 3 5 738
53.9* 3.7 8.9 17.3* 0.3 0.3 14.5* 0.4 0.7
Permanet® 363 41 102 267 22 10 0 0 0 805
45.1* 5.1 12.7 33.2* 2.7 1.2 - - -
Open in a new tab

*significantly different P<0.05 1Ag : Anopheles gambiae, Af : An. funestus., Cq : Culex quinquefasciatus

Mortality rate

The global mortality rate was similar in the two LLINs houses averaging 36% (Table 4). Compared to the control houses, a high percentage of mortality was recorded in houses equipped with LLINs (36.4% vs 0%). The proportion of dead mosquitoes collected above the net was significantly higher (37.1%, n = 299) on Permanet® than that on Olyset® net (17.9%, n = 132). 15.6% of dead mosquitoes were recorded inside Olyset® net while no mosquito was found inside Permanet®. No live mosquitoes were caught above or inside the nets, but a total of 17 dying mosquitoes were collected above the two LLINs. The number of dying mosquitoes was similar in the two types of nets and was trivial compared to the total of dead mosquitoes. All mosquitoes in touch with LLINs (above or inside) were dead. Few dead mosquitoes were collected indoor the LLINs houses (n = 13 vs 3 respectively for Olyset® and Permanet® equipped houses). Molecular form identification performed on 44 An. gambiae collected above and inside the nets showed that 88.5% of An. gambiae tested were of molecular M form and this proportion did not differ significantly between the two LLINs. The kdr gene was detected only in the all S form tested in PCR (n = 5). No An. arabiensis was found in the PCR-analysed mosquitoes.

Table 4.

Comparison of the rate of fed and unfed dead females following their collection place in LLINs equipped houses (percentages are noted in italic)

Mosquito status Mosquito collection place Olyset® house Permanet® house Control house
Ag Af Cq Ag Af Cq Ag Af Cq
Unfed Above LLIN 100 1 1 221 17 9 - - -
Inside LLIN 84 3 3 - - - - - -
Resting Indoor 85 8 24 74 12 38 ND ND ND
309 371 726
Fed Above LLIN 21 1 0 38 4 1 - - -
Inside LLIN 19 0 2 - - - - -
Resting indoor 232 16 21 171 26 25 6294 ND ND
312 265 7242
42.3 32.9 79.8*
Gravid Above LLIN 7 0 1 8 1 0 - - -
Inside LLIN 4 0 21 - - - - - -
Resting indoor 81 3 21 118 3 39 ND ND ND
117 168 1110
Open in a new tab

* significantly different P<0.05 Ag = Anopheles gambiae; Af = Anopheles funestus; Cq = Culex quinquefasciatus ND : undetermined

Mosquito blood-fed status

Less than 40% of mosquitoes collected in the LLINs equipped-houses were engorged while 79.8% were recorded in control houses (Table 5), showing a reduction of the rate of fed females averaging 42%. However, the rate of fed mosquitoes was slightly superior in Olyset® -equipped houses, but it did not differ significantly between the two nets (P > 0.05). Within the females collected above or inside the nets (n = 247 vs 299, respectively for Olyset® and Permanet®), about 7% were fed mosquitoes regardless of the type of net (Table 5).

Table 5.

Bloodmeal origin of fed Anopheles gambiae females from LLINs equipped houses analysed by ELISA (percentages are noted in italic)

Source of Bloodmeal Olyset® Permanet®
Inside Above Total Inside Above Total
Human 3 2 5 0 8 8
- - 20.8* - - 38.1*
Bovine 12 7 19 0 13 13
- - 79.2 - - 61.9
Open in a new tab

*significantly different, P < 0.05

Blood meals origin

Overall, 45 specimens of engorged An. gambiae collected in and above the nets were analysed to determine the source of the bloodmeal. Most of the engorged females were fed on cattle, respectively 62% and 79% for Permanet® and Olyset® (Table 6). The rate of mosquitoes fed on humans did not differ significantly (P>0,05) irrespective of the LLIN, reaching respectively 21% and 30% for Olyset® and Permanet®. The rate of mosquitoes fed on cattle was high in the LLINs equipped-houses.

Discussion

The study was carried out in a rice field area, where high densities of mosquitoes are observed throughout the year [30]. An. gambiae and C. quinquefasciatus were resistant to pyrethroids in this area and resistance of the An. gambiae S form is pronounced at the end of the rainy season [11]. Kdr resistance was also observed in a small proportion (less than 5%) of An. gambiae M form, conferring a susceptible status to M population. But as An. gambiae S form proportion (even during its maximum peak at the end of rainy season) has never gone beyond 30 %, the global pyrethroid resistance status of this area is an intermediate resistance one [13]. This intermediate resistance status could probably explain that the two LLINs showed a global efficacy and no differential efficacy level was observed.

These results were consistent with those obtained in experimental huts from the Bouaké region in Côte d'Ivoire concerning the efficacy of LLINs in Anopheles and Culex resistant areas [15]. In contrast, in a resistance area from Danané in the north of Côte d'Ivoire, where the An. gambiae S form was observed with 80% of kdr, although the permethrin pre-impregnated Olyset nets showed a good mass effect [21], their efficacy on the reduction of entomological inoculation rate decreased significantly [31]. A similar study may be performed with deltamethrin-LLINs (Permanet®) in a high resistance area, as they would be expected to maintain a better efficacy, as already demonstrated in the semi-natural conditions of experimental huts [14]. Nevertheless, in the intermediate pyrethroids resistance area of the present study, an important mortality was observed both with Permanet® and with Olyset® nets, compare to the control. It is likely that all mosquitoes which have been in contact with the nets were killed. The few dying mosquitoes that were collected above Permanet® and inside Olyset® nets should be considered as truly dead mosquitoes as they were unable to fly away. Furthermore, fed mosquitoes were found dead or dying above Permanet® or above/inside Olyset® nets. That evokes the possibility that these mosquitoes could bite sleepers and transmit malaria in case they were infected before dying especially inside the Olyset® nets. To respond to this question, sleepers were asked to keep awake in the nets and to collect mosquitoes seeking blood meal from 8:00 pm to 12:00 pm. This showed that mosquitoes caught before midnight above or inside the nets were dead or dying and some of them felt through the aperture of the net. Fed as well as unfed mosquitoes were collected in this way. Two hypothesis could be addressed to explain the presence of fed females in LLINs: i) these mosquitoes have engorged first on cattle and, as it is known that An. gambiae bites several times in a gonotrophic cycle [32], they may seek a human host to complete their bloodmeal, even if sleepers are protected by LLINs; ii) the engorged females collected above or inside the different nets were already blood-fed on cattle and, because in this high anopheline density area An. gambiae is very endophilic as a result of the use of bed nets on a large scale, they come inside houses to rest after feeding, even in LLINs-equipped houses. While seeking a place to rest in these houses, they come in contact with the nets and die.

The bloodmeal identification indicated that the majority of fed females had engorged on cattle, confirming the high zoophilic rate (about 70 %) of An. gambiae in this particular rice-field area, where Robert et al. [33] also observed high zoophilic rate compared to that of the neighboring savannah villages. This particular zoophilic rate can be explained by i) the proximity of livestock as each household has usually a pair of cattle for rice field tillage living the same concession; ii) because of the high density of mosquitoes in this area with more than 60,000 mosquito bites/year [30], almost every household used nets (but not necessarily treated-nets) for personal protection. For these reasons, An. gambiae (and other species also) developed a zoophilic behaviour for host preference. Nevertheless, some human-bloodfed females were found above and inside LLINs. This relatively low proportion of human-bloodfed mosquitoes (30%) should have been engorged on the sleepers as shown in a study carried out in Tanzania [34].

A significantly (P < 0.02) high proportion of unfed mosquitoes was collected in houses equipped with treated nets compared to control houses. This result confirms that LLINs clearly reduced blood meal rate as had been demonstrated in previous studies on ITNs efficacy carried out in East Africa [24,34,35].

Conclusion

To conclude, both Permanet® and Olyset® showed a good efficacy against An. gambiae as no live individual was caught above and inside the nets. Moreover, significantly less mosquitoes were collected in treated houses compared to control ones, indicating that these two LLINs provided, in addition to the mosquito mortality, a deterrent effect [36] which enhances their expected prevention capacity. However, this study needs to be performed in a high resistance area, such as the Lena village where An. gambiae populations are dominated by the S form (more than 95%) with 90% of kdr gene [11]: this will permit a more precise evaluation of Permanet® efficacy in an area with pyrethroid resistance.

Authors' contributions

DKR participated to the study design, undertook the field study, analysed data and wrote the paper. DA participated in the study design, the data analysis and the manuscript drafting. BT participated to the data analysis and interpretation, the drafting and the revision of the paper. TPL participated to study design. GTR and OJB are administrative authorities who facilitated the implementation of the study. SO designed the study, participated to the analysis of data and the drafting of the manuscript.

Table 3.

Comparison of the global mortality rate and the mortality rates following the mosquito collection place in the two LLINs -equipped houses (percentages are noted in italic)

Mosquito status Mosquito collection place Olyset® house Permanet® house Control house
Ag Af Cq Ag Af Cq Ag Af Cq
Above LLIN 128 2 2 267 22 10 - - -
Dead Inside LLIN 107 3 5 - - - - - -
Resting indoor 10 0 3 3 0 0 - - -
260 302 0
35.3 37.5
Alive Above LLIN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Inside LLIN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Resting indoor 398 27 66 363 41 102 8,350 110 618
478 503 9,808
Open in a new tab

*significantly different, P<0.05 Ag = Anopheles gambiae; Af = Anopheles funestus; Cq = Culex quinquefasciatus

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by a grant from Vestergaard® company. Authors are grateful to volunteers and households of "Vallée du Kou" who allowed this study to take place.

Contributor Information

Roch K Dabiré, Email: dabire_roch@hotmail.com.

Abdoulaye Diabaté, Email: a_diabate@hotmail.com.

Thierry Baldet, Email: thierry.baldet@cirad.fr.

Léa Paré-Toé, Email: lea_toe@yahoo.com.

Robert T Guiguemdé, Email: rguiguemde@yahoo.fr.

Jean-Bosco Ouédraogo, Email: jb_ouedraogo@hotmail.com.

Ole Skovmand, Email: ole.skovmand@insectcontrol.net.

References

  1. Lengeler C, Cattani J, De Savigny D. Net gain. A new method for preventing malaria deaths. IDRC Otawa/WHO, Geneva; 1996. p. 189. [Google Scholar]
  2. Binka FN, Kubaje A, Adjuik M, Williams LA, Lengeler C, Maude GH, Arma GE, Kajihra B, Adiama JH, Lengeler C, Smith PG. Impact of permethrin treated bed nets in child mortality in Kassena-Nankana district, Ghana: a randomized controlled trial. Trop Med Int Health. 1996;1:147–154. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3156.1996.tb00020.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Nevill CG, Some ES, Mung'ala VO, Mutemi W, New L, Marsh K, Lengeler C, Snow RW. Insecticide-treated bed nets reduce mortality and severe morbidity from among children on the Kenyan Coast. Trop Med Int Health. 1996;1:139–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3156.1996.tb00019.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Curtis CF. Appropriate methods of vectors control. Bocca Raton, Florida CRC Press; 1990. pp. 5–46. [Google Scholar]
  5. WHO A global strategy for malaria control, Geneva. 1990. p. 30.
  6. Lines J. Mosquito nets and insecticides for nets treatment: a discussion of existing and potential distribution systems in Africa. Trop Med Int Health. 1996;1:616–632. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-3156.1996.d01-97.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Guillet P, Alnwick D, Cham MK, Neira M, Zaim M, Heymann D, Mukelabai K. Long-lasting treated mosquito nets: a breakthrough in malaria prevention. Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79:998. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. WHO Report of the fifth whopes working group meeting (Review of VectoBaWG, Permanet® and Gokilaht-S5EC), Geneva. 2001. p. 43.
  9. WHO Report of the seventh WHOPES working group meeting (Review of VectoBaWG, Permanet® and Gokilaht-S5EC), Geneva. 2004. p. 78.
  10. Chandre F, Darriet F, Manguin S, Brengues C, Carnevale P, Guillet P. Pyrethroid cross resistance spectrum among populations of Anopheles gambiae s.s. from Côte d'Ivoire. J Am Mosq Contr Assoc. 1999;15:53–59. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Diabaté A, Baldet T, Chandre F, Akogbeto M, Guiguemdé TR, Darriet F, Brengues C, Guillet P, Hemingway J, Small G, Hougard JM. The role of agricultural insecticides in Anopheles gambiae s.l. resistance to pyrethroids in Burkina Faso, West Africa. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2002;67:617–622. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2002.67.617. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Chandre F, Manguin S, Brengues C, Dossou Yovo J, Darriet F, Diabaté A, Carnevale P, Guillet P. Current distribution of pyrethrinoid resistance gene (Kdr) in Anopheles gambiae complex from West Africa and further evidence for reproductive isolation of Mopti form. Parassitology. 1999;41:319–322. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Diabaté A, Baldet T, Chandre F, Dabiré KR, Kengne P, Guiguemdé TR, Simard F, Guillet P, Hemingway J, Hougard JM. Kdr Mutation, a Genetic marker to Assess events to Introgression Between the Molecular M and S forms of Anopheles gambiae (Dipterae: Culicidae) in the Tropical Savannah area of West Africa. Entomol Soc America. 2003;40:195–198. doi: 10.1603/0022-2585-40.2.195. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Darriet F, Guillet P, N'guessan R, Doannio JMC, Koffi A, Konan LY, Carnevale P. Impact de la résistance aux pyréthrinoïdes sur l'efficacité des moustiquaires imprégnées dans la prévention du paludisme: résultats des essais en cases expérimentales avec la deltaméthrine. Bull Soc Path Exot. 2000;93:131–134. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Darriet F, Guillet P, N'guessan R, Doannio JMC, Koffi A, Konan LY, Carnevale P. Impact de la résistance d'Anopheles gambiae ss à la perméthrine et à la deltaméthrine sur l'efficacité des moustiquaires imprégnées. Med Trop. 2000;58:349–354. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Hargreaves K, Koekemoer LL, Brooke BD, Hunt RH, Mthembe J, Coetzee M. Anopheles funestus resistant to pyrethroids insecticides in South Africa. Med Vet Entomol. 2000;2:181–189. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2915.2000.00234.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Brooke BD, Kloke G, Hunt RH, Koekemoer LL, Temu EA, Taylor ME, Small G, Hemingway J, Coetzee M. Bioassay and biochemical analyses of insecticide resistance in southern African Anopheles funestus (Diptera : Culicidae) Bull Entomol Res. 2001;91:265–272. doi: 10.1079/ber2001108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Etang J, Manga L, Chandre F, Guillet P, Fondjo E, Mimpfoundi R, Toto JC, Fontenille D. Insecticide Susceptibility status of Anopheles gambiae s.l. (Diptera : Culicidae) in Republic of Cameroon. J Med Entomol. 2003;4:492–497. doi: 10.1603/0022-2585-40.4.491. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Etang J, Chandre F, Guillet P, Manga L. Reduced bio-efficacy of permethrin EC imprenated bed nets against an Anopheles gambiae strain with oxidase-based pyrethroid tolerance. Malar J. 2005;3:46. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-3-46. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Vulule JM, Beach RF, Atieli FK, McAllister JC, Brogdon WG, Roberts JM, Mwangui RW, Hawley WA. Elevated oxidase and esterase levels associated with permethrin tolerance in Anopheles gambiae from Kenya villages using permethrin-impregnated nets. Med Vet. 1999;13:239–244. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2915.1999.00177.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Henry MC, Doanio JMC, Darriet F, Nzeyimana I, Carnevale P. Efficacité des moustiquaires pré-imprégnées de permethrine OLYSET® Nets en zone de resistance des vecteurs aux pyrethrinoides II. Evaluation parasito-clinique. Med Trop. 1999;59:355–357. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Lindsay SW, Snow RW, Bloomfield GL, Janneh MS, Wirtz RA, Greenwood BM. Impact of permethrin-treated bed nets on malaria transmission by the Anopheles gambiae complex in the Gambia. Med Vet Entomol. 1989;3:263–271. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2915.1989.tb00226.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Van Bortel W, Barutwanonyo M, Delacolette C, Coosemans M. Motivation to acquire and use impregnated mosquito in a stable malaria zone in Burundi. Trop Med Int Health. 1996;1:71–80. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-3156.1996.d01-14.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Binka FN, Adongo P. Acceptability and use for insecticide ednets in northern Ghana. Trop Med Int Health. 1997;2:499–507. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-3156.1997.d01-299.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Corbel V, Chandre F, Brengues C, Akogbeto M, Lardeux F, Hougard JM, Guillet P. Dosage-dependent effects of permethrin-treated nets on the behaviour of Anopheles gambiae and the selection of pyrethroid resistance. Malar J. 2004;3:22. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-3-22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Beier JC, Perkins PV, Wirtz RA, Koros J, Diggs D, Gargan TPII, Koech DK. Bloodmeal identification by direct enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), tested on Anopheles (Diptera : Culicidae) in Kenya. J Med Ent. 1986;25:9–16. doi: 10.1093/jmedent/25.1.9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Scott JA, Brogdon WD, Collins FH. Identification of single specimens of Anopheles gambiae complex by the polymerase chain reaction. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1993;49:520–529. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.1993.49.520. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Favia G, Lanfroncotti A, Spanos L, Sidén-Kiamos I, Louis C. Molecular characterisation of ribosomal polymorphisms discriminating among chromosomal forms of Anopheles gambiae ss. Insect Mol Biol. 2001;10:19–30. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2583.2001.00236.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Martinez-Torres D, Chandre F, Williamson MS, Darriet F, Berge JB, Devonshire AL, Guillet P, Pasteur N, Pauron D. Molecular characterization of pyrethroid knockdown resistance (kdr) in the major malaria vector Anopheles gambiae s.s. Insect Mol Biol. 1998;7:179–84. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2583.1998.72062.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Baldet T, Diabaté A, Guiguemdé TR. Etude de la transmission du paludisme en 1999 dans la zone rizicole de la Vallée du Kou (Bama) Burkina Faso. Cahiers Santé. 2003;13:55–60. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Doannio JMC, Dossou-Yovo J, Diarrasouba G, Chauvancy G, Darriet F, Chandre F, Henry MC, Nzeymana I, Guillet P, Carnevale P. Efficacité des moustiquaires pré-impregnées de perméthrine OLYSET® en zone de résistance des vecteurs aux pyrethrinoïdes I. Evaluation entomologique. Med Trop. 1999;59:349–354. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Koella JC, Sorensen FL, Anderson RA. The malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum increases the frequency of multiple feedings of its mosquito vector, Anopheles gambiae. Proc R Soc Lond Biol Sc. 1998;265:763–768. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0358. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Robert V, Gazin P, Carnevale P. Malaria transmission in three sites surrounding the area of Bobo-Dioulasso (Burkina Faso): the savanna, a rice field and the city. Bull Soc Vect Ecol. 1986;12:541–543. [Google Scholar]
  34. Lines J, Lengeler C, Cham K, de Savigny D, Chimumbwa J, Langi P, Carroll D, Mills A, Hanson K, Webster J, Lynch M, Addington W, Hill J, Rowland M, Worrall E, MacDonald M, Kilian A. Scaling-up and sustaining insecticide-treated net coverage. Lancet Infect Dis. 2003;3:465–466. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(03)00717-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Soremekun S, Maxwell C, Zuwakuu , Chen C, Michael E. Measuring the efficacy of insecticide treated bed nets: the use of DNA fingerprinting to increase the accuracy of personal protection estimates in Tanzania. Trop Med Int Health. 2004;9:664–672. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2004.01250.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Maxwell CA, Chambo W, Mwaimu M, Magogo F, Carneiro IA, Curtis CF. Variation of malaria transmission and morbidity with altitude in Tanzania and with introduction of alphacypermethrin treated nets. Malar J. 2003;2:28. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-2-28. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Malaria Journal are provided here courtesy of BMC

RESOURCES