Skip to main content
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases logoLink to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
. 2021 Mar 25;15(3):e0009237. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009237

Comparative proteomics reveals mechanisms that underlie insecticide resistance in Culex pipiens pallens Coquillett

Chongxing Zhang 1,*, Qiqi Shi 2, Tao Li 3, Peng Cheng 1, Xiuxia Guo 1, Xiao Song 1, Maoqing Gong 1,*
Editor: Joshua B Benoit4
PMCID: PMC7993597  PMID: 33764997

Abstract

Mosquito control based on chemical insecticides is considered as an important element of the current global strategies for the control of mosquito-borne diseases. Unfortunately, the development of insecticide resistance of important vector mosquito species jeopardizes the effectiveness of insecticide-based mosquito control. In contrast to target site resistance, other mechanisms are far from being fully understood. Global protein profiles among cypermethrin-resistant, propoxur-resistant, dimethyl-dichloro-vinyl-phosphate-resistant and susceptible strain of Culex pipiens pallens were obtained and proteomic differences were evaluated by using isobaric tags for relative and absolute quantification labeling coupled with liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometric analysis. A susceptible strain of Culex pipiens pallens showed elevated resistance levels after 25 generations of insecticide selection, through iTRAQ data analysis detected 2,502 proteins, of which 1,513 were differentially expressed in insecticide-selected strains compared to the susceptible strain. Finally, midgut differential protein expression profiles were analyzed, and 62 proteins were selected for verification of differential expression using iTRAQ and parallel reaction monitoring strategy, respectively. iTRAQ profiles of adaptation selection to three insecticide strains combined with midgut profiles revealed that multiple insecticide resistance mechanisms operate simultaneously in resistant insects of Culex pipiens pallens. Significant molecular resources were developed for Culex pipiens pallens, potential candidates were involved in metabolic resistance and reducing penetration or sequestering insecticide. Future research that is targeted towards RNA interference of the identified metabolic targets, such as cuticular proteins, cytochrome P450s, glutathione S-transferases and ribosomal proteins proteins and biological pathways (drug metabolism—cytochrome P450, metabolism of xenobiotics by cytochrome P450, oxidative phosphorylation, ribosome) could lay the foundation for a better understanding of the genetic basis of insecticide resistance in Culex pipiens pallens.

Author summary

Global protein profiles were compared among a susceptible strain of Cx. pipiens pallens and strains that were cypermethrin-resistant, propoxur-resistant, and dimethyl-dichloro-vinyl-phosphate-resistant after 25 generations of selection by distinct chemical insecticide families, multiple mechanisms were found to operate simultaneously in resistant mosquitoes of Cx. pipiens pallens, including mechanisms to lower penetration of or sequester the insecticide or to increase biodegradation of the insecticide via subtle alterations in either the cuticular protein levels or the activities of detoxification enzymes (P450s and glutathione S-transferases).

Introduction

Mosquitoes and mosquito-borne diseases continue to pose a huge public health burden worldwide; malaria, lymphatic filariasis, dengue, chikungunya, and West Nile virus cause significant medical and economic impacts that disproportionately affect developing countries[13].

Since the 1950s, chemical insecticides have been used on a massive scale to control mosquito populations. However, long-term intensive and widespread overuse or misuse use of insecticides has applied intense selection pressure that has led to the development and subsequent intensification of various genetically modulated resistance mechanisms in mosquitoes[46] and has resulted in a rise in mosquito-borne diseases and outbreaks of mosquito-related diseases in recent years[7,8]. Today, with the widespread development of resistance in mosquitoes to the most commonly used insecticides, insecticide resistance is regarded as the most serious threat to the control of mosquitoes and mosquito-borne diseases[9]. Vector control of mosquitoes remains crucial to reduce disease transmission, and has long been a critical part of the global strategy to manage mosquito-associated diseases; the application of chemical insecticides is the most important component in mosquitoes control[10], and thus characterizing the molecular mechanisms underlying resistance is a key step for improving resistance management strategies.

Previous studies on insecticide resistance makes it possible to classify insect adaptations, abiotic factors, such as mosquito larvae feeding on plant debris that accumulated insecticide residues, or grow in water bodies enriched with plant compounds generate tolerance to insecticides or promote detoxification pathways of these insecticides against mosquitoes[11], biotic vary from symbionts (microbes living in the mosquitoes) to entomopathogen opportunistic organisms[12] are able to affect detoxification systems[13] or leading to the appearance of insecticide resistance[12]. The molecular mechanisms of insecticide resistance have been performed at the transcriptional level through cDNA microarray[14,15], RNA-seq[1619] and proteomic[2025] analyses, leading to exciting progress with regard to the transcriptional basis of insecticide resistance, the physiological and biochemical mechanisms of insects develop resistance to insecticides through four trajectories: target-site resistance (mutation of the protein targeted by the insecticide, that is knockdown resistance, kdr), metabolic resistance (increase rate of detoxification of insecticides), penetration resistance (thicker cuticle for decreased entry of insecticides), and sequestration of the insecticide[26,27]. A common phenomenon of insecticide resistance is that multiple mechanisms operate simultaneously in resistant insects such as the house fly[2830], cockroach[31], mosquito[3235], cotton bollworm[36], and bed bug[37].

To date, there are two main types of molecular mechanisms of mosquito vectors can develop resistance to insecticides included target-site insensitivity and metabolic resistance [27,38]. Dramatic progress has been made in identifying target-site insensitivity in mosquitoes, including Anopheles gambiae [3941], An. arabiensis[42], Aedes albopictus [43], and Cx. pipiens [41,44]. The metabolic detoxification is an acquired resistance mechanism, which is regulated by the activity of certain oxidized enzymes, has been reported worldwide, cytochrome P450 monooxygenases (P450s or CYPs), glutathione S-transferases (GSTs) and carboxy/choline esterases (CCEs) are known for their roles in insecticide metabolism in insects[45,46]. Cytochrome P450s[38,47,48], GSTs[49], and UDP glucosyl-transferases (UGTs)[50] overproduction have been frequently associated with resistance to chemical insecticides in mosquitoes[26,27]. Other less common mechanisms that develop resistance in insects are the resistance per behavior and the resistance per decreased penetration through the cuticle or cross resistance[51]. Typically, a combination of diverse mechanisms provides significantly higher levels of resistance than one individual mechanism[52]. Due to the large number of mosquito genes encoding detoxification enzymes[5355], pinpointing those responsible for resistance remains challenging[26].

Proteins, as the primary functional molecules, are the executors that function in many different physiological processes, proteomic analysis is an effective, powerful method for gaining insight into the mechanisms of insecticide resistance at the molecular level[2025], currently, large-scale expression profiling and screening for resistance-related proteins in mosquitoes are limited and include two-dimensional gel electrophoresis (2-DE) proteomics[56,57], but few attempts have been made to apply proteomic analysis technique to study the insecticide resistance of mosquitoes iTRAQ[20]. Today, with the advent of highly advanced proteomic platforms based on isobaric tags for relative and absolute quantification[58], such knowledge gaps can be overcome by high-throughput sequencing approaches thatcan generate concomitant protein expression and ultimately provide direct insight into the activity of relevant proteins.

In the present study, iTRAQ labeling coupled with liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometric (LC-MS/MS) analysis was used to determine changes in protein levels associated with adaptation to three insecticides (the pyrethroid cypermethrin, propoxur, and dimethyl-dichloro-vinyl-phosphate) from distinct chemical families in the mosquito Cx. pipiens pallens. The results are discussed with regard to known and new putative adaptive mechanisms conferring insecticide resistance in mosquitoes, which improves our understanding of the mechanisms developed by mosquitoes to resist insecticides.

Methods

Ethics statement

All animal experiments were carried out in accordance with the Animal Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China and with the approval of the Ethical Committee of Shandong First Medical University & Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences (Jinan, Shandong).

Mosquito selection with insecticide and larvicidal bioassay

The laboratory Tangkou strain of Cx. pipiens pallens, originating from Tangkou Village (Jining prefecture, Shandong Province), has been kept in colonies in standard insectary conditions without exposure to any insecticides since 1960 and thus is fully susceptible to insecticides. All the susceptible mosquito populations were reared at a constant room temperature of approximately 28°C and 75% relative humidity with a photophase of 14 h and a scotophase of 10 h. Adult mosquitoes were provided with 10% sugar solution and were used as the parental strain to repeatedly selected for 25 generations to produce three independent resistant strains at the larval stage with resistance to the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin, the carbamate insecticide propoxur and the organophosphates insecticide DDV at the median lethal concentration (LC50)[20]. The detailed selection procedure was described previously[59,60]. Technical-grade formulations of cypermethrin, propoxur and DDV were employed for the larval bioassay study. Different concentrations of these insecticides were prepared using denatured alcohol as solvent (98 ml of absolute alcohol + 2 ml of methyl ethyl ketone) as described by Shetty[61]. The cypermethrin-, propoxur- and DDV-selected strains were defined as cypermethrin-resistant (Cx_cym), propoxur-resistant (Cx_pro) and DDV-resistant (Cx_ddv) strains, respectively.

For validation of different protein expression in the midgut of Cx. pipiens pallens, larvae were reared in round plastic tubs (diameter 0.6 m) filled with water with fish food twice daily. Experimental larvae were randomly collected from several tubs to compensate for size differences and feeding history which are known to be influenced by larval density. All laboratory experiments were carried out with third instar larvae laboratory-reared larvae. Fifty third instar larvae were exposed for 5 h to 0.021 mg/l of Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies israelensis (bti, mosquitoes larvae that exposed to bti refer as Cx_bti, Shandong Lukang Sheryl Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd, 3000 international toxic units [ITU/mg]), with the dosage following the standard testing procedures for microbial tests [62]. We chose a 5 h treatment time to allow larvae to ingest the bti without severely affecting their behavior and without causing evident damage to the intestinal tissue at the microscopic histological level. In the control group, larvae were exposed to water under the same conditions (refer as Cx_nbti). Larvae exposed to the insecticide were washed in water and midgut pools were dissected and transferred to 1.5-ml microcentrifuge tubes containing 1mm phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride (PMSF) and stored at −80°C before use.

Protein extraction

Each sample (the Cx_cym, Cx_pro, Cx_ddv and Cx_s strains) was extracted separately from 5 egg rafts, 5 fourth-instar larvae, 5 pupae, five 2- to 3-day-old adult males, 5 adult females (without blood feeding) and midgut pools of Cx. pipiens pallens. Briefly, each samples was completely homogenized in protein extraction buffer (8 M urea, 2 mM EDTA, 10 mM dithiothreitol (DTT) and 1% Amresco Protease Inhibitor Cocktail). Then, samples were lysed at room temperature with 3 min of sonication and centrifuged for 10 min at 13000 rpm, the supernatants were precipitated with chilled acetone for 3 h at -20°C.

Quantification of proteins

The resulting protein concentration of each sample was measured using a Bradford Protein Assay Kit. Then, a total of 100 μg protein/sample was combined from the egg, larvae, pupae, and adult male and female stages (20 μg each) and reduced with 10 mM DTT for 60 min at 37°C. This was followed by the addtion of 25 mM iodoacetamide (IAA) to each protein samples and then alkylation for 45 min in darkness at room temperature. Subsequently, 100 mM tetraethylammonium bromide (TEAB) was added to reduce the concentration of urea to < 2 M.

Trypsin digestion

Finally, samples were digested with trypsin (enzyme-to-substrate ration of 1:50) overnight at 37°C, and an additional second digestion was done for 4 h to ensure complete cleavage.

Samples desalting

After trypsin digestion, each peptides samples was desalted using a Strata X SPE column, dried, and resuspended in 25 μL 500 mM TEAB, and labeled with an 8-plex iTRAQ kit. Each dried and labeled peptide sample was reconstituted using High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) solution A (2% acetonitrile [can], pH 10) and fractionated by high-pH reverse-phase HPLC on a Waters Bridge Peptide BEH C18 (130 Å, 3.5 μm, 4.6 × 250 mm). Loaded peptides were eluted with 2% to 98% acetonitrile gradient buffer solution at pH 10 in 60 fractions at a speed of 0.5 ml/min over 88 min. A total of 20 fractions were combined and each fraction was desalted by using ZipTip C18 tips (Merck Millipore, Ziptip Pipette Tips 10μL). Sample fractions were dried on a vacuum concentrator and stored at -20°C pending MS analyses.

High-resolution LC-MS/MS analysis

LC-MS/MS experiments were performed on a NanoLC 1000 LC-MS/MS liquid chromatography system (Thermo) equipped with a Proxeon EASY-nLC 1000 coupled to an LTQ-Orbitrap Elite. Briefly, peptides were acidified in 0.1% formic acid and trapped in a 3 μm 100 Å Acclaim 100C18 capillary liquid chromatographic column (Thermo) 75 μm×2 cm in 100% solvent A (0.1 M acetic acid in water) at a flow rate of 5 μL/min. Then, analytical separation was performed on 2 μm 100 Å Acclaim C18 capillary liquid chromatographic column (Thermo) 50μm × 15 cm using a linear gradient of solvent B (98% ACN with 0.1% formic acid). The gradient ran at a flow rate of 250 nl/min as follows: 0–60 min from 10% to 35% solvent B, 35% to 50% in 10 min and then ramping to 100% solvent B. Mass spectrometry was operated in a data-dependent mode, automatically switching between MS and MS/MS (at mass range of m/z 350 to 1800 and resolution of 60,000) using repetitive full MS spectra scans followed by collision-induced dissociation (CID, at 38 normalized collision energy). The 20 most intense precursors were selected for subsequent decision tree-based ion trap CID fragmentation in the MS survey scan, and the following settings were used: collision energy 38% above threshold, ion count 300 with 30.0 s dynamic exclusion, full width at half maximum (FHMW) 400 m/z using an AGC setting of 1e6 ions, and fixed first mass was set as 100 m/z.

Mass spectrometry data analysis

The mass spectrometry MS/MS raw data were searched against all Culex quinquefasciatus protein in the Culex Taxonomy database (S1 Data), downloaded from the UniProt Database using SEQUEST software integrated in Proteome Discoverer (version 1.3, Thermo Scientific) with the following parameters: mass tolerance set to 20 ppm, product ion tolerance set to 0.02 Da, and only trypsin sequences allowed. Oxidation and protein N-terminal acetylation were accepted as variable modifications and carbamidomethylation was accepted as a static modification. A maximum of two miscleavages was permitted, and peptide- and protein-level false discovery rates (FDRs) were filtered to 1%.

Functional classification of proteins

Functional annotation and classification of all identified proteins were determined using the Blast2GO program against the nonredundant NCBI protein database. The gene function databases compiled for the Gene Ontology (GO), the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathways, and Cluster of Orthologous Groups (COG) were used to infer the putative functions of the identified proteins. Detailed information can be found on at http://www.geneontology.org. Significant GO terms (p < 0.05) were mapped with the REVIGO online tool (http://revigo.irb.hr), which removes redundant GO terms and visualizes the semantic similarity of remaining terms[63]. KEGG pathway analysis is part of the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes database, which is a reference database for pathway mapping. For KEGG pathway analyses, the main biochemical metabolism and signal transduction pathways of the identified proteins were extracted using the Search pathway tool on the KEGG Mapper platform (http://www.genome.jp/kegg/mapper.html) [6466]. COG is the database for orthologous protein classification. Identified proteins were compared with the COG protein database to predict the functions of proteins and conduct statistical analyses.

Functional enrichment, protein expression pattern and function clustering

GO, KEGG pathway and domain enrichment statistics were calculated using Fisher’s exact test: correction for multiple hypothesis testing was carried out with standard false discovery rate control methods and the pathways with a corrected p value < 0.05 were considered significant pathways.

Expression-based and functional enrichment-based clustering for different protein groups was used to explore the potential relationships between different protein groups with special protein functions. A heatmap was generated by the software Heml 1.0.3[67]. The expression pattern of the protein was completed by using the timeclust function in the R package ‘TCseq’.First, we collated all of the protein groups obtained after functional enrichment analysis along with their p values. Second, we sorted those categories enriched in at least one of the protein groups with a p value <0.05. This filtered p value matrix was transformed by the function x = −log10 (p value). Third, z-transformation was applied to x values for each functional category, and Z-scores were clustered by one-way hierarchical clustering (Euclidean distance, average linkage clustering). Finally, cluster membership was visualized by a heat map using the “pheatmap” function from the R package. Prediction of protein-protein interactions (PPIs) was done using the STRING database (version 10.0) and visualized using Cytoscape software (version 3.4.0)[68,69]. We selected the combined score > 0.400 between nodes for PPI with Cytoscape (version 3.0), part of which is shown in the paper but only containing thefor important proteins.

Parallel reaction monitoring analysis

A label-free, targeted parallel reaction monitoring (PRM) method[70] was adopted to verify the reliability of our label-based proteomics. A total of 62 differentially expressed proteins, including one internal standard housekeeping protein, were chosen. For the Cx_cym, Cx_pro, Cx_ddv and Cx_s strains, equal amounts of protein samples were analyzed for semiquantitative measurements, and each strain underwent three replications. Peak areas were extracted from PRM mass spectrum data using Skyline software[71].

Results

Insecticide resistance levels

After 25 generations of larval selection with the insecticides cypermethrin, propoxur and DDV, bioassays revealed a constitutively increased resistance of each selected strain to its respective insecticide compared to the susceptible parental strain (S1 Table). The resistance levels of the Cx_pro and Cx_ddv strains were moderate but significant (11.34-fold and 8.17-fold respectively). Although significant, the resistance level of the Cx_cym strain to cypermethrin susceptible was considerably higher (243.00-fold).

Protein identification and differentially expressed proteins (DEP) screening

A total of 2,502 protein were identified in two replicates of the LC-MS/MS experiments with a high confidence of peptide selection (FDR = 0.01). Among them, 1,513 proteins achieved quantitative significances, all the proteins were completely annotated with the accession number for each identified protein arranged by the Gene Ontology, KEGG pathway, Domain, and Cluster of Orthologous Groups (COG) function catalogues and Subcellular Location analyses (S2 Table). Our analysis revealed significant changes in proteins in these Cx_cym, Cx_pro, Cx_ddv, and Cx_s strains (S3 Table), there were 164 proteins with significant differential expression (fold change > 1.2 and p value < 0.05) between the Cx_cym and Cx_s control groups, including 54 upregulated and 110 downregulated proteins. A total of 156 proteins changed dynamically between the Cx_pro and Cx_s control groups, including 59 upregulated and 97 downregulated proteins, whereas 81 proteins changed between the Cx_ddv and Cx_s control groups, with 31 up- and 50 downregulated proteins. The repeatability analysis showed a considerably high correlation between both biological replicates, demonstrating the reliability of our experimental protocol (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Repeatability analysis between two replicates of LC-MS/MS experiments of Cx. pipiens pallens in response to three insecticides.

Fig 1

The figure shows correlation between two replicates of LC-MS/MS samples, number in the square frame means that repeatability of differentially expressed proteins between the samples, the closer correlation value to 1 between the LC-MS/MS samples, the same samples tend to be, dark blue in the figure.The smaller the value, the more statistical significance it is.

Bioinformatics analyses of the altered proteins

To better understand the characteristics of the proteins altered in response to insecticide selection, GO ontology analysis was performed to identify the upregulated and downregulated proteins among the Cx_cym, Cx_pro, Cx_ddv, and Cx_s strains of Cx. pipiens pallens (Figs 2 and 3). As shown, the most enriched GO terms regarding the molecular functions of the upregulated proteins were structural constituent of cuticle, structural molecule activity, lipid transporter activity, chitin binding, transferase activity, transferring acyl groups and odorant binding, which had higher fold enrichment (log2) and Fisher’s exact test p-values (-log10). Among the downregulated proteins, structural constituent of cuticle was the most enriched GO term.

Fig 2. Significantly upregulated GO molecular function cluster in Cx. pipiens pallens in response to three insecticides.

Fig 2

Upregulated proteins in the molecular function category according to the Fisher’s extract test, chitin binding was upregulated by comparing Cx_pro vs.Cx_s; structural constituent of cuticle and structural molecule activity were upregulated by comparing Cx_ddv vs.Cx_s; structural constituent of cuticle, lipid transporter activity and structural molecule activity were upregulated by comparing Cx_ddv vs. Cx_pro; lipid transporter activity and chitin binding were upregulated by comparing Cx_cym vs.Cx_pro. Scale bar is the value calculated by—log 10 (Fisher exact p value), distinguished by color. The larger the value, the more red it is. The smaller the value, the more blue it is, Fisher exact p value is used to measure statistical significance.

Fig 3. Significantly downregulated GO molecular function cluster in Cx. pipiens pallens after three insecticides selection.

Fig 3

Downregulated proteins in the molecular function category according to the Fisher’s extract test, structural constituent of cuticle and structural molecule activity were downregulated by comparing Cx_cym, Cx_pro, Cx_ddv vs.Cx_s and Cx_cym vs. Cx_ddv, respectively; odorant binding and transferase activity were downregulated by comparing Cx_ddv vs. Cx_pro; structural constituent of cuticle was downregulated by comparing Cx_cym vs. Cx_pro. Scale bar is the value calculated by—log 10 (Fisher exact p value), distinguished by color. The larger the value, the more red it is. The smaller the value, the more blue it is, Fisher exact p value is used to measure statistical significance.

In KEGG enrichment analysis (S1 Fig), metabolism of xenobiotics by cytochrome P450 (map00980) and drug metabolism—cytochrome P450 (map00982) pathways respond to insecticide selection conditions, implicating P450s as the important regulatory enzymes associated with metabolic resistance in Cx. pipiens pallens under insecticide selection. Furthermore, the differential changes in glutathione S-transferase (B0W6D0), microsomal glutathione s-transferase (B0X075) and glutathione-s-transferase theta (B0XGK3) proteins in both pathways suggest a critical regulatory role associated with P450. These findings indicate that glutathione S-transferase may play an important role in the regulation of metabolic resistance pathway in Cx. pipiens pallens. The KEGG pathways annotation of comparison shows that oxidative phosphorylation (map00190) is activated associated with electron-transport chain subunits (Ndufa2, Ndufa4, Ndufa5, Ndufa7, Ndufa8, Ndufa9, Ndufab1, COX5), and ribosome (map03010) is activated, associated with S15e, L34e, S6e, and L18Ae. Interestingly, the quantities of these subunits deviated simultaneously towards different directions; Ndufs4 and Ndufs decreased while Ndufa4 increased. Oxidation phosphorylation and membrane-localized proteins are critical nodes to prevent malfunction in glycolytic flux and intracellular signal transit (S1 Fig).

Comparing the patterns of expression of different proteins among Cx_cym, Cx_pro, Cx_ddv, and Cx_s strains of Cx. pipiens pallens, all of these proteins are significantly differentially expressed in resistant strains when compared to their expression in the susceptible strain. Almost all protein enrichment changed at the peak, and the lowest valleys were in Cx_cym,Cx_pro and Cx_ddv, indicating that most of these proteins showed an increase or decrease in expression following the insecticide selection from susceptible to resistance strains in Cx. pipiens pallens. The insecticide selection alters the normal developmental pathway into an alternative one (S2 Fig).

In Cx_cym vs. Cx_s, the upregulated proteins were TGS-like, OBG-type guanine nucleotide-binding (G) domain, GTP binding domain, MD-2-related lipid-recognition domain, beta-grasp domain, and chaperonin Cpn60/TCP-1 family, whereas the downregulated proteins were chitin-binding type R&R consensus, insect cuticle protein, actin, conserved site, actin/actin-like conserved site, actin family, vitellogenin, and open beta-sheet. In Cx_pro vs. Cx_s, upregulated proteins were FAD dependent oxidoreductase, chitin binding domain, serine proteases, trypsin family, serine active site, serine proteases, trypsin family, histidine active site, peptidase S1A, and chymotrypsin family, whereas the downregulated proteins were insect cuticle protein, chitin-binding type R&R consensus, actin, conserved site, actin/actin-like conserved site, actin family, vitellogenin, and open beta-sheet. In Cx_ddv vs. Cx_s, upregulated proteins were immunoglobulin E-set, ribosomal protein L30, ferredoxin-like fold domain, ribosomal protein L30, conserved site, chitin-binding type R&R consensus, and hemocyanin, N-terminal, whereas the downregulated proteins were insect cuticle protein, chitin-binding type R&R consensus, adult cuticle protein 1, and insect odorant-binding protein A10/ejaculatory bulb-specific protein (S3 Fig).

Prediction of the PPI network under insecticide selection

Because protein–protein interactions play important roles in most cellular biological processes, the PPI networks under insecticides selection conditions were predicted using the STRING (www.string-db.org) online PPI prediction software to further analyze the functional correlation of differentially expressed proteins between each group (S4S6 Figs).

Validation of proteomics data by parallel reaction monitoring

To validate the accuracy and reproducibility of the proteomics analysis results, PRM-quantifiable strategy analyses were performed, Sixty-two proteins were selected as those that may play important roles in insecticides resistance, and the differentially expressed levels of these proteins were quantified in Cx_cym, Cx_pro, Cx_ddv and Cx_s strains of Cx. pipiens pallens, Energy production and conversion, Putative uncharacterized protein (B0WRN8, B0W0Q9), NADH dehydrogenase 1 alpha subcomplex subunit 5 (B0WLS3), ubiquinol-cytochrome c reductase complex core protein (B0WXM0), pyruvate dehydrogenase (B0XA87), mitochondrial malate dehydrogenase 2 (B0WMC8), malate dehydrogenase (B0W5T5), ATP synthase delta chain, mitochondrial (B0WYE7), NADH:ubiquinone dehydrogenase (B0WA75, B0W7N4), NADH-ubiquinone oxidoreductase B8 (B0WUY1), cytochrome c oxidase, -subunit VIb (B0WY92), NADH dehydrogenase iron-sulfur protein 8, mitochondrial (B0XGQ7). Translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis, acidic ribosomal protein P1 (B0WU22), ribosomal protein L28 (B0WN15), 40S ribosomal protein S21 (B0W289), 60S ribosomal protein L10 (B0XGR8), ribosomal protein L37 (B0WQU6), putative uncharacterized protein (B0WIR5), 40S ribosomal protein S15 (B0W2E6). Lipid transport and metabolism, 3-hydroxyisobutyryl-CoA hydrolase, mitochondrial (B0WY25), acetyl-coa synthetase (B0X1B3), acetyl-CoA acetyltransferase, mitochondrial (B0XJ38), acetyl-coa carboxylase (B0WE67). Posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones, thioredoxin reductase 1 (B0WGF9), proteasome endopeptidase complex (B0WTL4), T-complex protein 1 subunit delta (B0W5S5), ribosomal protein S6 (B0XH45), glutathione S-transferase 1–1 (B0XGJ8), glutathione S-transferase (B0VZ90), glutathione-s-transferase theta, gst (B0XGK0). Inorganic ion transport and metabolism, sodium/potassium-dependent ATPase beta-2 subunit (B0WIC2), sodium/potassium-dependent ATPase beta-2 subunit (B0WIC5), sodium/potassium-transporting ATPase subunit alpha (B0WFD0).

Cytoskeleton, actin (B0WY76), tropomyosin invertebrate (B0X3L6), myosin-Id (B0W191). Intracellular trafficking, secretion, and vesicular transport, secretory carrier-associated membrane protein (B0WUR5), bridging integrator (B0WUH3). Carbohydrate transport and metabolism, glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (B0WEB5), pyruvate kinase (B0WL21), triosephosphate isomerase (B0W5W4). Cell motility, thymosin 1 (B0X0W6). Amino acid transport and metabolism, clip-domain serine protease (B0W0Z4), pyrroline-5-carboxylate reductase (B0WZS2), hydrolase (B0X5I3), D-amino acid oxidase (B0WJC4). General function prediction only, leucine aminopeptidase (B0W6N8), charged multivesicular body protein 6-A (B0X3V8), Zinc finger CDGSH domain-containing protein 1 (B0WWX0), rhythmically expressed gene 2 protein (B0WVG3). Signal transduction mechanisms, troponin C (B0W6W0), phosphatase 2C beta (B0WCT7), GTP-binding protein 128up (B0WEM1). Nucleotide transport and metabolism, uridine phosphorylase (B0X890). Coenzyme transport and metabolism, S-adenosylmethionine synthase (B0W244).Secondary metabolites biosynthesis, transport and catabolism, cytochrome P450 4g15 (B0WQV0), cytochrome P450 (B0XDA9), and pupal cuticle protein (B0X2L1). Verification and validation of all proteins, peptides, and measured peptide peak areas are listed (S4 Table).

Differential protein expression in the midgut of Cx. pipiens pallens induced by bti

A total of 564 proteins were identified, with 559 proteins achieving quantitative significance. There were 66 proteins with significant differential expression (fold change > 1.2 and p value < 0.05) between the Cx_bti and Cx_nbti control groups, including 33 upregulated and 33 downregulated proteins (S5 Table). Most of the proteins were cuticular and cytoskeleton related proteins, and metabolic enzymes are enriched in differential changes in the digestive tract linings dissected from Cx_bti strain of Cx. pipiens pallens (Figs 4 and 5 and S7).Given our interest in the role of P450s in metabolic resistance, we further profiled the differential protein expression of Cytochrome P450 3A19 (B0X758) in the midgut of third instar larvae of Cx. pipiens pallens, P450 protein showed higher expression levels in Cx_bti strains.

Fig 4. Cluster of orthologous groups (COG) classification of putative proteins in the midgut of Cx. pipiens pallens exposed with bti.

Fig 4

559 putativeproteins were classified functionally into 15 molecular familiesin theCOG database, the “J” and“Z” clusterrepresent the largest two groups. B, Chromatin structure and dynamics; C, Energy production and conversion; D, Cell cycle control, cell division, chromosome partitioning; E, Amino acid transport and metabolism; F, Nucleotide transport and metabolism; G, Carbohydrate transport and metabolism; H, Coenzyme transportand metabolism; I, Lipid transport and metabolism; J, Translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis; O, Posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones; P, Inorganic ion transport and metabolism; Q, Secondary metabolites biosynthesis, transport and catabolism; R, General function prediction only; T, Signal transduction mechanisms; Z, Cytoskeleton.

Fig 5. A treemap overview of significant GO biological processes in the midgut proteome of Cx. pipiens pallen exposed with bti.

Fig 5

The diagram shows that exposed with bti condition has a significant effect on proteins biosynthetic process, microtubule-based process, organic substance biosynthetic process, organonitrogen compound metabolic process, oxidoreduction coenzyme metabolic process. The relative sizes of the treemap boxes are based on the |log10(p-value)| of the respective GO term, related terms are visualized with the same color, the color represents the significant p value of this kind of term after -log10, the deeper the color was, the greater the p value was, that is, the more significant enrichment the GO terms were.

Discussion

Cx. pipiens pallens, the primary vector of the Japanese encephalitis virus and filariasis in China, has developed resistance to several insecticides used for mosquito control. To date, the lack of genomics data available for this species has hampered characterization of the molecular mechanisms underlying resistance. A deep understanding of the molecular mechanisms regulating insecticide resistance and development may aid in the control of this mosquito by facilitating the development of more sustainable and environmentally friendly approaches. In this study, the proteomics of selected strains with resistance to three distinct chemical families of insecticides (the Cx_cym, Cx_pro, Cx_ddv groups) and the susceptible strain Cx. pipiens pallens were compared.

The insect cuticle, also known as the exoskeleton, is the outermost part of the insect body. It serves a variety of functions, such as sensory perception of the environment, means of locomotion[72], maintenance of the physical structure of the organism, i.e., the foregut, hindgut, tracheal system and apodemes[73], and protection from desiccation; moreover, the cuticle also serves as the first and major barrier against external adverse compound penetration[74]. Thus, the cuticle is a major route of insecticide penetration in insects. Insect cuticles are composed of cuticular protein, chitin and lipids; in fact, the properties of the insect cuticle, including permeability to pyrethroids, are influenced not only by the chitin sclerotization, construction, and hydration but also by regular combinations of different cuticular proteins and their arrangements[74,75]. Recent protein-level and gene-level analyses have demonstrated a surprising diversity of cuticular proteins within and among species[76].

In previous studies, some cuticle genes have been identified as overexpressed in pyrethroid resistant strains of several mosquito species, including An. stephensi[77], An. funestus[16] and Cx. pipiens pallens[20], and the bed bug, Cimex lectularius[75,78,79]. The abundance of the protein in limb cuticle correlates nicely with the >2-fold increased abundance of the transcript in pyrethroid resistant An. gambiae[32]. The uptake of organophosphate can be reduced by a thickening or a change in the chemical composition of the cuticle in organophosphate-resistant strains of Culex quinquefasciatus[80] and Culex tarsalis[81]. Pyrethroid-resistant An. funestus and An. gambiae do indeed have thicker cuticles than sensitive strains[73,82]. Decreased penetration of labeled was observed in the (1R)-trans-permethrin-selected strain of the German cockroach, Blattella germanica and in fenvalerate-resistant housefly strains[83,84]. Low levels of cross-resistance to many insecticides observed in the An. stephensi strain might be partially explained by reduced penetration[85]. The epicuticle hydrocarbon lipids were enriched in pyrethroid resistant An. gambiae[86] and An. arabiensis[87] female mosquitoes.

Our experiments indicate that the GO terms structural constituent of cuticle, structural molecule activity, and chitin binding protein were affected by insecticide selection in Cx. pipiens pallens, as a relatively large number of cuticle-associated proteins with a diversity of functions showed highly differential abundance among the cypermethrin-resistant strain, propoxur resistant-strain, DDV-resistant strain and susceptible strain (Figs 2 and 3). In our study, chitin-binding type R&R consensus, insect cuticle protein, actin, conserved site, actin/actin-like conserved site, and actin family were the enriched domains among downregulated proteins in Cx_cym vs. Cx_s. In Cx_pro vs. Cx_s, chitin binding domain proteins were upregulated, whereas insect cuticle protein, chitin-binding type R&R consensus, actin, conserved site, actin/actin-like conserved site, and actin family proteins were downregulated. In Cx_ddv vs. Cx_s, the enriched upregulated proteins were ferredoxin-like fold domain and chitin-binding type R&R consensus, whereas downregulated proteins were insect cuticle protein, chitin-binding type R&R consensus, and adult cuticle protein 1(S3 Fig).

Changes in cuticular protein affect cuticle composition and performance, which is the basis for cuticle-based insecticide resistance. Therefore, other alterations of cuticle structure and composition, such as cuticular remodeling, may also be involved in cuticular resistance. Taken together, our observations confirm that cuticle proteins show altered expression and cellular cytoskeletal rearrangement, suggesting fortification of structural components in response to insecticide selection and leading to increased insecticide resistance in Cx. pipiens pallens, likely by producing cuticular-thickening compounds before entering the hemolymph. Thus, cytoskeletion-related proteins are likely major contributors to the three different family insecticides resistance. Although how cuticle proteins are involved in the process of cuticle alterations to slow the penetration of insecticides is puzzling, this result provides useful information for us to conduct further studies on cuticular proteins and the cuticle.

Metabolic resistance occurs via subtle alterations either at the protein level or in the activity of detoxification enzymes that resist insecticides[88,89], such as P450s and GSTs. P450s possess catalytic roles in the metabolism of many essential endogenous molecules and allow insects to metabolize insecticides at a higher rate[26,90]. Up- or downregulation of P450 genes may be responsible for the detoxification of insecticides and the homeostatic response of mosquitoes to changes in the cellular environment [91]. Cx. pipiens pallens, similar to most insect species, metabolizes xenobiotics such as insecticides using a suite of detoxification enzymes. We identified the expansion of gene families coding for cytochrome P450s, indicating their predominant roles in the enzymatic detoxification metabolism of chemical insecticides in Cx. pipiens pallens. Several detoxification proteins, including cytochrome P450 (B0XDA9), cytochrome P450 3A19 (B0X758), cytochrome P450 4g15 (B0WQV0, B0XHB7), cytochrome P450 9b1 (B0W6Y4), cytochrome P450 monooxygenase CYP9M10 (E5E7H3) and cytochrome P450 12b1 (B0WTS3), have been identified as differentially expressed in insecticide resistant populations in Cx. pipiens pallens. In this study, P450 proteins whose expression levels changed significantly belonged primarily to these different families. In addition, data from many other studies have highlighted a key role for P450s in insecticide detoxification in An. funestus[16] and Culex quinquefasciatus[92,93]. Elevated levels of P450 activity are frequently observed in pyrethroid-resistant malaria vectors in Africa[94102], in line with data from other insect pests such as the whitefly[103] and cockroach[104]. Overexpression of cytochrome P450s contribute to resistance to neonicotinoid insecticides in the hemipterans Bemisiatabaci and Myzuspersicae[105,106]. Furthermore, it has been suggested that elevated expression of these P450s also confer cross-resistance to carbamates[95].

Beyond insecticide metabolism and resistance, P450 enzymes play essential roles in hormone metabolism and cuticular hydrocarbon synthesis[107]. Recently, the P450 enzyme responsible for the oxidative decarbonylation of long-chain fatty aldehydes[108] was shown to be a member of the CYP4G subfamily[109], which is restricted to insects, with clearly identifiable sequence peculiarities[109]. Of note, in this present study, cytochrome P450 4g15 (B0WQV0, B0XHB7) belongs to the CYP4G family.

In this study, proteomics sequencing from larvae exposed to insecticide selection (cypermethrin, propoxur and DDV) has confirmed the cross-induction of detoxification enzymes by insecticides; that is, not with particular P450s induced by xenobiotics. Otherwise, detoxification enzymes glutathione S-transferase 1 (B0WQW9, B0XAJ0), glutathione S-transferase 1–1 (B0XGJ8, B0XGK1), glutathione S-transferase (B0VZ90, B0W6D0), glutathione-s-transferase theta (B0XGJ5, B0XGK0, B0XGK3), glutathione synthetase (B0WSC1), glutathione transferase class-sigma-like protein (D3KST8), and glutathione transferase (C4B4V7, C4B4V8) were also identified as differentially expressed in Cx. pipiens pallens. GSTs can metabolize insecticides by facilitating their reductive dehydrochlorination or by conjugation reactions with reduced glutathione, to produce water-soluble metabolites that are more readily excreted[110]. Elevated production of GSTs has been documented as a mechanism of resistance in Spodopteralittoralis, Triboliumcastaneum[111], Aedes Aegypti[112], Musca domestica[113], Tenebrio molitor[111]. Furthermore, the differential expression of glutathione S-transferase (B0W6D0), microsomal glutathione s-transferase (B0X075) and glutathione-s-transferase theta (B0XGK3) enzyme in metabolism of xenobiotics by cytochrome P450 and drug metabolism—cytochrome P450 pathways suggest a critical regulatory role associated with P450s, However, the contribution these GSTs make to insecticide resistance and their biochemical relationships with P450-mediated resistance are still unclear. These results suggested that metabolic insecticide resistance is a complex process involving various enzyme families, including cytochrome P450 and GSTs, with different expression patterns in different resistance strains.

In our study, a number of proteins associated with the ribosome, the primary site of biological protein synthesis that changed in abundance in Cx_cym-vs-Cx_s, Cx_pro-vs-Cx_s and Cx_ddv-vs-Cx_s, including 60S ribosomal protein L18a (B0WTN6), 60S ribosomal protein L7 (B0WRP5), 40S ribosomal protein S15 (B0W2E6), 39S ribosomal protein L43 (B0W3E4), ribosomal protein S6 (B8RIZ4, B0XH45), ribosomal protein L7 (B8RJJ0), all these ribosomal protein with higher increases in insecticides treatment than in the susceptible strain. In addition to the up-regulated ribosomal proteins, we observed decreases in abundance in 40S ribosomal protein S4 (Q152V2), 60S ribosomal protein L10 (B0XGR8), Ribosomal protein L28 (B0WN15), Ribosomal protein L37 (B0WQU6) in Cx_cym-vs-Cx_s, and ribosomal protein S6 (B8RIZ4,) ribosomal protein L7 (B8RJJ0) in Cx_pro-vs-Cx_s. Many ribosome proteins have been linked with cell structure, protein translation and protein biosynthesis[114,115]. Certain ribosomal proteins have functions in regulating cell growth and death in addition to their roles in translation[116]. Our findings confirm the protein level changes of these proteins. The differential expressions of these proteins suggest changes in protein biosynthesis and the process of translating mRNA into protein during mosquito adaptations selection under insecticides. The clear changed expression of ribosomal proteins in our study suggests a possible contribution of these proteins in regulating the insecticides resistance of Cx. pipiens pallens.

The tissue-specific expression of a protein is normally related to its function in that tissue[117]. The functional significance of the digestive tract linings in regards to Cx. pipiens pallens is especially important. All these tissues contain epidermis and cuticle, as the digestive tract lining constitutes the major part of the body. When Cx. pipiens pallens larvae come in contact with or consume insecticides, they may develop resistance by modification of the insect cuticle or digestive tract linings that prevent or reduce the rate of penetration. In this study, cuticular and cytoskeleton- related proteins are enriched among the proteins with differential expression in the digestive tract linings compared to the Cx_bti strain of Cx. pipiens pallens(Figs 4, 5 and S7 and S5 Table). Higher levels of cytochrome P450 3A19 (B0X758) proteins were detected in the midgut in Cx_bti vs. Cx_nbti, suggesting a potential role of P450 in metabolic resistance. Once insecticide enters the Cx. pipiens pallens larvae, enhanced metabolic detoxification could decrease the concentration of insecticides before they reach the target site, the midgut-associated Cx. pipiens pallens P450s consistent with their role in xenobiotic metabolism.

Our results suggested that a large set of proteins involved in various cellular and metabolic processes were activated and directly or indirectly associated with the insecticide resistance, possibly by influencing the physiology of the cells. In summary, these results significantly increase the molecular resources available for the study of mosquitoes, and we have identified several candidate proteins potentially involved in different phases of insecticide metabolism as well as those participating in other modes of insecticide resistance in Cx. pipiens pallens. Significantly differentially expressed proteins across biologically variant samples were revealed by aniTRAQ proteomics approach. Specifically, the high occurrence of differential expression of cuticular and cytoskeleton-related proteins, and the expression patterns of P450s in midgut (cuticular) tissue, support previous studies suggesting unique sites for penetration resistance (cuticle) as well as metabolic resistance (P450s) in Cx. pipiens pallens.

A common phenomenon in insecticide resistance is that multiple mechanisms operate simultaneously in resistant mosquitoes. Typically, a combination of diverse mechanisms provides significantly higher levels of resistance than one individual mechanism. In addition, this study has provided further support for the role of P450 genes in insecticide resistance while suggesting that other gene families, such as cuticular genes, could also be involved. Future functional studies of cuticular and P450 proteins could lay the foundation for identifying common sites for insecticide resistance in Cx. pipiens pallens, which could provide the basis for developing effective management strategies.

Supporting information

S1 Fig

A. Representative KEGG metabolism of xenobiotics by cytochrome P450 pathway (map00980); B. Representative KEGG drug metabolism—cytochrome P450 pathway (map00982); C. Annotated KEGG map for Oxidative phosphorylation, map00190; D. Annotated KEGG map for Ribosome, map03010 The rectangular nodes in the figure represent gene products, the blue border belongs to the background proteins, and the white color indicates proteins not identified in this experiment. The red/green colors in the figure indicate to the differentially expressed proteins detected in this study, with red representing upregulated proteins and green downregulated proteins. Half red and half green indicates both upregulated and downregulated proteins for that gene product (the same meaning as in this manuscript).

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Comparison of protein expression pattern clusters between Cx_cym, Cx_pro, Cx_ddv and Cx_s in Cx. pipiens pallens For the expression trend line graph of each sub-cluster, the x-axis is the comparison sample group, and the y-axis is the relative expression level of the protein in the group of samples.

Each line in the figure represents a protein, and the different color representations show the relationship between relative expression and the mean value. Each graph shows one type of expression pattern, a trend that reflects changes in the expression of this group of proteins.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Significantly enriched upregulation and downregulation domain in Cx. pipiens pallens, respectively.

Clustering of the results of differential protein enrichment in different groups, the color −log10 (Fisher’s exact test p value) represents the credibility of enrichment.

(TIF)

S4 Fig. PPI networks analysis of altered proteins in Cx_cym vs. Cx_s in Cx. pipiens pallens (the same meaning as in this manuscript) The interaction map of altered proteins under insecticide selection in Cx. pipiens pallens is illustrated as confidence view, each circle in the figure represents a protein, interaction between expressed proteins are indicated by the connecting line, where the thickness of the connecting lines indicates the level of confidence, stronger associations are represented by thicker lines.

Network interaction analysis was performed using the STRING protein interaction prediction online software and was visualized using Cytoscape version 3.4

(TIF)

S5 Fig. PPI networks analysis of altered proteins inCx_ddv vs. Cx_s in Cx. pipiens pallens.

(TIF)

S6 Fig. PPI networks analysis of altered proteins in Cx_pro vs. Cx_s in Cx. pipiens pallens.

(TIF)

S7 Fig

A, Significantly enriched domain in Cx_bti vs. Cx_nbti, B, Visualization of significantly enriched downregulation domain in Cx_bti vs. Cx_nbti. Proteins in functional categorizations of proteins differentially expressed according to Fisher’s extract test. The Number of Diffproteins is the number of differentially expressed proteins enriched in the Domain; the Domain enriched fold is shown on a log2 scale in a color gradient.

(TIF)

S1 Table. Resistance levels after insecticide selection.

(XLSX)

S2 Table. Proteins identified in Cx. pipiens pallens after selection with three distinct chemical families of insecticides using iTRAQ.

(XLSX)

S3 Table. Upregulated and downregulated proteins among Cx_cym, Cx_ddv, Cx_pro and Cx_s strains.

(XLSX)

S4 Table. PRM verification analysis of insecticide resistance related proteins.

(XLSX)

S5 Table. Proteins identified in the midgut of Cx. pipiens pallens larvae exposed bti by using iTRAQ.

(XLSX)

S1 Data. Number of sequences of downloading.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We thank Kai Yu of Shanghai MHelixBioTech Co., Ltd. for their assistance with experiment, we also thank Miao Feng, Haifang Wang (Shandong Institute of Parasitic Diseases) for their review and edit the manuscript and assistance with insect rearing.

Data Availability

Data can be found in Dryad Digital Repository https://datadryad.org/stash/dataset/doi:10.5061/dryad.pzgmsbcjs.

Funding Statement

GMQ and ZCX was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (Grant No. 8187168), GMQ, ZCX and CP were supported through Academic promotion programme of Shandong First Medical University (2019QL005), ZCX was supported by the development of medical science and technology project of Shandong Province (2018WS302). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Lounibos L. Invasions by insect vectors of human disease. Annu Rev Entomol. 2002; 47:233–66. 10.1146/annurev.ento.47.091201.145206 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Bhatt S, Gething PW, Brady OJ, Messina JP, Farlow AW, Moyes CL, et al. The global distribution and burden of dengue. Nature. 2013; 496(7446):504–7. 10.1038/nature12060 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Petersen L, Hayes EB. West nile virus in the Americas. Med Clin North Am. 2008; 92(6):1307–22, ix. 10.1016/j.mcna.2008.07.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Toé K, Jones CM, N’Fale S, Ismail HM, Dabiré RK, Ranson H. Increased pyrethroid resistance in malaria vectors and decreased bed net effectiveness, Burkina Faso. Emerg Infect Dis. 2014; 20(10):1691–6. 10.3201/eid2010.140619 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ranson H, N’guessan R, Lines J, Moiroux N, Nkuni Z, Corbel V. Prethroid resistance in African anopheline mosquitoes: what are the implications for malaria control? Trends Parasitol. 2011; 27(2):91–8. 10.1016/j.pt.2010.08.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Hemingway J. The role of vector control in stopping the transmission of malaria: Threats and opportunities. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2014; 369(1645):20130431. 10.1098/rstb.2013.0431 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hemingway J, Field L, Vontas J. An overview of insecticide resistance. Science. 2002; 298(5591):96–7. 10.1126/science.1078052 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kelvin A. Outbreak of Chikungunya in the Republic of Congo and the global picture. J Infect Dev Ctries 2011; 5:441–44. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Andriessen R, Snetselaar J, Suer RA, Osinga AJ, Deschietere J, Lyimo IN, et al. Electrostatic coating enhances bioavailability of insecticides and breaks pyrethroid resistance in mosquitoes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015; 112(39):12081–6. 10.1073/pnas.1510801112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Liu N. Insecticide Resistance in Mosquitoes: Impact, Mechanisms, and Research Directions. Annu Rev Entomol. 2015; 60(1):537–59. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.David JP, Boyer S, Mesneau A, Ball A, Ranson H, Dauphin-Villemant C. Involvement of cytochrome P450 monooxygenases in the response of mosquito larvae to dietary plant xenobiotics. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2006; 36(5):410–20. 10.1016/j.ibmb.2006.02.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kikuchi Y, Hayatsu M, Hosokawa T, Nagayama A, Tago K, Fukatsu T. Symbiont-mediated insecticide resistance. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012; 109(22):8618–22. 10.1073/pnas.1200231109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.James AA, Behura SK, Gomez-Machorro C, Harker BW, deBruyn B, Lovin DD, et al. Global Cross-Talk of Genes of the Mosquito Aedes aegypti in Response to Dengue Virus Infection. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011; 5(11):e1385. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001385 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.David JP, Strode C, Vontas J, Nikou D, Vaughan A, Pignatelli PM, et al. The Anopheles gambiae detoxification chip: a highly specific microarray to study metabolic-based insecticide resistance in malaria vectors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005; 102(11):4080–4. 10.1073/pnas.0409348102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Komagata O, Kasai S, Tomita T. Overexpression of cytochrome P450 genes in pyrethroid-resistant Culex quinquefasciatus. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2010; 40(2):146–52. 10.1016/j.ibmb.2010.01.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Gregory R, Darby AC, Irving H, Coulibaly MB, Hughes M, Koekemoer LL, et al. A de novo expression profiling of Anopheles funestus, malaria vector in Africa, using 454 pyrosequencing. PLoS One. 2011; 6(2):e17418. 10.1371/journal.pone.0017418 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Reid WR, Zhang L, Liu F, Liu N. The transcriptome profile of the mosquito Culex quinquefasciatus following permethrin selection. PLoS One. 2012; 7(10):e47163. 10.1371/journal.pone.0047163 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.He W, You M, Vasseur L, Yang G, Xie M, Cui K, et al. Developmental and insecticide-resistant insights from the de novo assembled transcriptome of the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella. Genomics. 2012; 99(3):169–77. 10.1016/j.ygeno.2011.12.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lv Y, Wang W, Hong S, Lei Z, Fang F, Guo Q, et al. Comparative transcriptome analyses of deltamethrin-susceptible and -resistant Culex pipiens pallens by RNA-seq. Mol Genet Genomics. 2016;291(1):309–21. 10.1007/s00438-015-1109-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Wang W, Lv Y, Fang F, Hong S, Guo Q, Hu S, et al. Identification of proteins associated with pyrethroid resistance by iTRAQ-based quantitative proteomic analysis in Culex pipiens pallens. Parasit Vectors. 2015; 8:95. 10.1186/s13071-015-0709-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Yang N, Xie W, Yang X, Wang S, Wu Q, Li R, et al. Transcriptomic and proteomic responses of sweetpotato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci, to thiamethoxam. PLoS One. 2013; 8(5):e61820. 10.1371/journal.pone.0061820 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Bi R, Pan Y, Shang Q, Peng T, Yang S, Wang S, et al. Comparative proteomic analysis in Aphis glycines Mutsumura under lambda-cyhalothrin insecticide stress. Comp Biochem Physiol Part D Genomics Proteomics. 2016;19:90–6. 10.1016/j.cbd.2016.06.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Cheng L, Du Y, Hu J, Jiao D, Li J, Zhou Z, et al. Proteomic analysis of ubiquitnated proteins from deltamethrin-resistant and susceptible strains of the diamondback moth, Plutella Xylostella L. Arch Insect Biochem Physiol. 2015; 90(2):70–88. 10.1002/arch.21245 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ji T, Shen F, Liu Z, Yin L, Shen J, Liang Q, et al. Comparative proteomic analysis reveals mite (Varroa destructor) resistance-related proteins in Eastern honeybees (Apis cerana). Genet Mol Res. 2015; 14(3):10103–18. 10.4238/2015.August.21.18 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Sharma R, Komatsu S, Noda H. Proteomic analysis of brown planthopper: application to the study of carbamate toxicity. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2004; 34(5):425–32. 10.1016/j.ibmb.2004.01.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.David JP, Ismail HM, Chandor-Proust A, Paine MJ. Role of cytochrome P450s in insecticide resistance: impact on the control of mosquito-borne diseases and use of insecticides on Earth. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2013; 368(1612):20120429. 10.1098/rstb.2012.0429 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Nkya T, Akhouayri I, Kisinza W, David JP. Impact of environment on mosquito response to pyrethroid insecticides: facts, evidences and prospects. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2013; 43:407–16. 10.1016/j.ibmb.2012.10.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Liu N, Pridgeon JW. Metabolic detoxication and the kdr mutation in pyrethroid resistant house flies, Musca domestica (L.). Pestic Biochem Physiol. 2002; 73:157–63. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Wen Z, Scott JG. Genetic and biochemical mechanisms limiting fipronil toxicity in the LPR strain of house fly, Musca domestica. Pestic Sci. 1999; 55(10):988–92. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Scott JG, Georghiou GP. Mechanisms responsible for high levels of permethrin resistance in the house fly. Pest Manag Sci. 2010; 17(3):195–206. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Anspaugh DD, Rose RL, Koehler PG, Hodgson E, Roe RM. Multiple Mechanisms of Pyrethroid Resistance in the German Cockroach, Blattella germanica (L.). Pestic Biochem Physiol. 1994; 50(2):138–48. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Awolola T, Oduola OA, Strode C, Koekemoer LL, Brooke B, Ranson H. Evidence of multiple pyrethroid resistance mechanisms in the malaria vector Anopheles gambiae sensu stricto from Nigeria. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 2009; 103(11):1139–45. 10.1016/j.trstmh.2008.08.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Hardstone MC, Leichter CA, Scott JG. Multiplicative interaction between the two major mechanisms of permethrin resistance, kdr and cytochrome P450-monooxygenase detoxification, in mosquitoes. J Evol Biol. 2009; 22(2):416–23. 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01661.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Perera MD HJ, Karunaratne SP. Multiple insecticide resistance mechanisms involving metabolic changes and insensitive target sites selected in anopheline vectors of malaria in Sri Lanka. Malar J 2008; 7(168). 10.1186/1475-2875-7-168 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Xu Q LH, Zhang L, Liu N. Resistance in the mosquito, Culex quinquefasciatus, and possible mechanisms for resistance. Pest Manag Sci. 2005; 61:1096–102. 10.1002/ps.1090 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Martin T C F, Ochou OG, Vaissayre M, Fournier D. Pyrethroid resistance mechanisms in the cotton bollworm Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) from West Africa. Pestic Biochem Physiol. 2002; 74:17–26. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Dang K DS, Veera Singham G, Lee CY. Insecticide resistance and resistance mechanisms in bed bugs, Cimex spp. (Hemiptera: Cimicidae). Parasit Vectors. 2017; 10(1). 10.1186/s13071-017-2232-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Hemingway J, Hawkes NJ, McCarroll L, Ranson H. The molecular basis of insecticide resistance in mosquitoes. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2004; 34:653–65. 10.1016/j.ibmb.2004.03.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Martinez-Torres D, Chandre F, Williamson MS, Darriet F, Bergé JB, Devonshire AL, et al. Molecular characterization of pyrethroid knockdown resistance (kdr) in the major malaria vector Anopheles gambiae s.s. Insect Mol Biol. 1998; 7(2):179–84. 10.1046/j.1365-2583.1998.72062.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Ranson H, Jensen B, Vulule JM, Wang X, Hemingway J, Collins FH. Identification of a point mutation in the voltage-gated sodium channel gene of Kenyan Anopheles gambiae associated with resistance to DDT and pyrethroids. Insect Mol Biol. 2000; 9(5):491–7. 10.1046/j.1365-2583.2000.00209.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Weill M, Malcolm C, Chandre F, Mogensen K, Berthomieu A, Marquine M, et al. The unique mutation in ace-1 giving high insecticide resistance is easily detectable in mosquito vectors. Insect Mol Biol. 2004; 13(1):1–7. 10.1111/j.1365-2583.2004.00452.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Du W, Awolola TS, Howell P, Koekemoer LL, Brooke BD, Benedict MQ, et al. Independent mutations in the Rdl locus confer dieldrin resistance to Anopheles gambiae and An. arabiensis. Insect Mol Biol. 2005; 14(2):179–83. 10.1111/j.1365-2583.2005.00544.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Kasai S, Ng LC, Lam-Phua SG, Tang CS, Itokawa K, Komagata O, et al. First detection of a putative knockdown resistance gene in major mosquito vector, Aedes albopictus. Jpn J Infect Dis. 2011; 64(3):217–21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Martinez-Torres D, Chevillon C, Brun-Barale A, Bergé JB, Pasteur N, Pauron D. Voltage-dependent Na+ channels in pyrethroid-resistant Culex pipiens mosquitoes. Pestic Sci. 1999; 55:1012–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Li X, Schuler MA, Berenbaum MR. Molecular mechanisms of metabolic resistance to synthetic and natural xenobiotics. Annu Rev Entomol. 2007; 52:231–53. 10.1146/annurev.ento.51.110104.151104 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Scott J. Cytochromes P450 and insecticide resistance. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 1999; 29(9):757–77. 10.1016/s0965-1748(99)00038-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Nardini L, Christian RN, Coetzer N, Koekemoer LL. DDT and pyrethroid resistance in Anopheles arabiensis from South Africa. Parasit Vectors. 2013; 6(1):229. 10.1186/1756-3305-6-229 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Liu N, Li T, Reid WR, Yang T, Zhang L. Multiple Cytochrome P450 genes: their constitutive overexpression and permethrin induction in insecticide resistant mosquitoes, Culex quinquefasciatus. PLoS One. 2011; 6(8):e23403. 10.1371/journal.pone.0023403 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Lumjuan N, Rajatileka S, Changsom D, Wicheer J, Leelapat P, Prapanthadara LA, et al. The role of the Aedes aegypti Epsilon glutathione transferases in conferring resistance to DDT and pyrethroid insecticides. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2011; 41(3):203–9. 10.1016/j.ibmb.2010.12.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Antonio-Nkondjio C, Poupardin R, Tene BF, Kopya E, Costantini C, Awono-Ambene P, et al. Investigation of mechanisms of bendiocarb resistance in Anopheles gambiae populations from the city of Yaoundé, Cameroon. Malar J. 2016; 15(1):424. 10.1186/s12936-016-1483-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Fonseca I, Quinones ML. Resistencia a insecticidas en mosquitos (Diptera: Culicidae): mecanismos, deteccion y vigilancia en salud publica Inseclicide resistance in mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae): mechanisms, detection and monitoring in public health. Revista Colombiana De Entomología. 2005; 31(2):107–15. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Scott JG. Handbook of Pest Management in Agriculture. (ed Pimentel, D) 663 (CRC Press, Boca Raton. 1991.
  • 53.Arensburger P, Megy K, Waterhouse RM, Abrudan J, Amedeo P, Antelo B, et al. Sequencing of Culex quinquefasciatus establishes a platform for mosquito comparative genomics. Science. 2010; 330(6000):86–8. 10.1126/science.1191864 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Holt RA, Subramanian GM, Halpern A, Sutton GG, Charlab R, Nusskern DR, et al. The genome sequence of the malaria mosquito Anopheles gambiae. Science. 2002; 298(5591):129–49. 10.1126/science.1076181 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Nene V, Wortman JR, Lawson D, Haas B, Kodira C, Tu ZJ, et al. Genome sequence of Aedes aegypti, a major arbovirus vector. Science. 2007; 316(5832):1718–23. 10.1126/science.1138878 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Djegbe I, Cornelie S, Rossignol M, Demettre E, Seveno M, Remoue F, et al. Differential expression of salivary proteins between susceptible and insecticide-resistant mosquitoes of Culex quinquefasciatus. PLoS One. 2011; 6(3):e17496. 10.1371/journal.pone.0017496 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Sun L, Ye Y, Sun H, Yu J, Zhang L, Sun Y, et al. Identification of proteasome subunit beta type 6 (PSMB6) associated with deltamethrin resistance in mosquitoes by proteomic and bioassay analyses. PLoS One. 2013; 8(6):e65859. 10.1371/journal.pone.0065859 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Gan CS, Chong PK, Pham TK, Wright PC. Technical, experimental, and biological variations in isobaric tags for relative and absolute quantitation (iTRAQ). J Proteome Res. 2007; 6(2):821–7. 10.1021/pr060474i [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Chen L, Zhong D, Zhang D, Shi L, Zhou G, Gong M, et al. Molecular ecology of pyrethroid knockdown resistance in Culex pipiens pallens mosquitoes. PLoS One. 2010; 5(7):e11681. 10.1371/journal.pone.0011681 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Zhou D, Hao S, Sun Y, Chen L, Xiong C, Ma L, et al. Cloning and characterization of prophenoloxidase A3 (proPOA3) from Culex pipiens pallens. Comp Biochem Physiol B Biochem Mol Biol. 2012; 162(4):57–65. 10.1016/j.cbpb.2012.04.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Shetty V, Sanil D, Shetty NJ. Insecticide susceptibility status in three medically important species of mosquitoes, Anopheles stephensi, Aedes aegypti and Culex quinquefasciatus, from Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Karnataka, India. Pest Manag Sci. 2013; 69:257–67. 10.1002/ps.3383 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.WHO. International programme on chemical safety (IPCS): Microbial pest control agent Bacillus thuringiensis. Environ Health Criteria 1999; 217:1–105. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Supek F, Bošnjak M, Škunca N, Šmuc T. REVIGO summarizes and visualizes long lists of gene ontology terms. PLoS One. 2011; 6(7):e21800. 10.1371/journal.pone.0021800 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Kanehisa M, Goto S. KEGG Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000; 28(1):27–30. 10.1093/nar/28.1.27 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Kanehisa M, Sato Y, Kawashima M, Furumichi M, Tanabe M. KEGG as a reference resource for gene and protein annotation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016; 44(D1):D457–D62. 10.1093/nar/gkv1070 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Kanehisa M, Furumichi M, Tanabe M, Sato Y, Morishima K. KEGG: new perspectives on genomes, pathways, diseases and drugs. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017; 45(D1):D353–D61. 10.1093/nar/gkw1092 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Deng W, Wang Y, Liu Z, Cheng H, Xue Y. HemI: a toolkit for illustrating heatmaps. PLoS One. 2014; 9(11):e111988. 10.1371/journal.pone.0111988 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Szklarczyk D, Franceschini A, Kuhn M, Simonovic M, Roth A, Minguez P, et al. The STRING database in 2011: functional interaction networks of proteins, globally integrated and scored. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011; 39(Database issue):D561–8. 10.1093/nar/gkq973 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Lopes CT, Franz M, Kazi F, Donaldson SL, Morris Q, Bader GD. Cytoscape Web: an interactive web-based network browser. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England). 2010; 26(18):2347–8. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq430 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Wang W, Zhou H, Lin H, Roy S, Shaler TA, Hill LR, et al. Quantification of proteins and metabolites by mass spectrometry without isotopic labeling or spiked standards. Anal Chem. 2003; 75(18):4818–26. 10.1021/ac026468x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.MacLean B, Tomazela DM, Shulman N, Chambers M, Finney GL, Frewen B, et al. Skyline: an open source document editor for creating and analyzing targeted proteomics experiments. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England). 2010; 26(7):966–8. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq054 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Wan C, Hao Z, Feng X. Structures, properties, and energy-storage mechanisms of the semi-lunar process cuticles in locusts. Sci Rep. 2016; 6:35219. 10.1038/srep35219 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Vannini L, Reed TW, Willis JH. Temporal and spatial expression of cuticular proteins of Anopheles gambiae implicated in insecticide resistance or differentiation of M/S incipient species. Parasit Vectors. 2014;7(24). 10.1186/1756-3305-7-24 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Andersen S, Højrup P, Roepstorff P. Insect cuticular proteins. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 1995; 25(2):153–76. 10.1016/0965-1748(94)00052-j [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Koganemaru R, Miller DM, Adelman ZN. Robust cuticular penetration resistance in the common bed bug (Cimex lectularius L.) correlates with increased steady-state transcript levels of CPR-type cuticle protein genes. Pestic Biochem Physiol. 2013; 106:190–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Cornman RS, Willis JH. Annotation and analysis of low-complexity protein families of Anopheles gambiae that are associated with cuticle. Insect Mol Biol. 2009; 18(5):607–22. 10.1111/j.1365-2583.2009.00902.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Vontas J, David JP, Nikou D, Hemingway J, Christophides GK, Louis C, et al. Transcriptional analysis of insecticide resistance in Anopheles stephensi using cross-species microarray hybridization. Insect Mol Biol. 2007; 16(3):315–24. 10.1111/j.1365-2583.2007.00728.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Mamidala P, Wijeratne AJ, Wijeratne S, Kornacker K, Sudhamalla B, Rivera-Vega LJ, et al. RNA-Seq and molecular docking reveal multi-level pesticide resistance in the bed bug. BMC Genomics. 2012; 13:6. 10.1186/1471-2164-13-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Zhu F, Gujar H, Gordon JR, Haynes KF, Potter MF, Palli SR. Bed bugs evolved unique adaptive strategy to resist pyrethroid insecticides. Sci Rep. 2013; 3(1456.). 10.1038/srep01456 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Stone B, Brown, AW. Mechanisms of resistance to fenthion in Culex pipiens fatigans Wied. Bull World Health Organ. 1969; 40(401–408). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Apperson C, Georghiou GP. Mechanisms of resistance to organophosphorus insecticides in Culex tarsalis. J Econ Entomol. 1975; 68(153–157). 10.1093/jee/68.2.153 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Wood O, Hanrahan S, Coetzee M, Koekemoer L, Brooke B. Cuticle thickening associated with pyrethroid resistance in the major malaria vector Anopheles funestus. Parasit Vectors. 2010; 3(1):67. 10.1186/1756-3305-3-67 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.DeVries D, Georghiou GP. Decreased nerve sensitivity and decreased cuticular penetration as mechanisms of resistance to pyrethroids in a (1R)-trans-permethrin-selected strain of the housefly. Pestic Biochem Physiol. 1981; 15:231–4. [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Wu D, Scharf ME, Neal JJ, Suiter DR, Bennett GW. Mechanisms of fenvalerate resistance in the German cockroach, Blattella germanica (L). Pestic Biochem Physiol. 1998; 61:53–62. [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Vatandoost H. The functional basis of pyrethroid resistance in the malaria vector, Anopheles stephensi. PhD Thesis, University of Liverpool, UK. 1996.
  • 86.Balabanidou V, Kampouraki A, MacLean M, Blomquist GJ, Tittiger C, Juárez MP, et al. Cytochrome P450 associated with insecticide resistance catalyzes cuticular hydrocarbon production in Anopheles gambiae. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016; 113(33):9268–73. 10.1073/pnas.1608295113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Simma EA, Dermauw W. Genome-wide gene expression profiling reveals that cuticle alterations and P450 detoxification are associated with deltamethrin and DDT resistance in Anopheles arabiensis populations from Ethiopia. Pest Manag Sci. 2019; 75(7):1808–18. 10.1002/ps.5374 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Hemingway J, Ranson, H. Insecticide resistance in insect vectors of human disease. Annu Rev Entomol. 2000; 45:371–91. 10.1146/annurev.ento.45.1.371 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Feyereisen R. Insect P450 enzymes. Annu Rev Entomol. 1999; 44:507–33. 10.1146/annurev.ento.44.1.507 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Chandor-Proust A, Bibby J, Régent-Kloeckner M, Roux J, Guittard-Crilat E, Poupardin R, et al. The central role of mosquito cytochrome P450 CYP6Zs in insecticide detoxification revealed by functional expression and structural modelling. Biochem J. 2013;455(1):75–85. 10.1042/BJ20130577 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Yang T, Liu N. Genome Analysis of Cytochrome P450s and Their Expression Profiles in Insecticide Resistant Mosquitoes, Culex quinquefasciatus. PLoS One. 2011; 6(12):e29418. 10.1371/journal.pone.0029418 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Kasai S, Weerashinghe IS, Shono T, Yamakawa M. Molecular Cloning, Nucleotide Sequence and Gene Expression of a Cytochrome P450 (CYP6F1) From the Pyrethroid-Resistant Mosquito, Culex Quinquefasciatus Say. Insect Biochem Mol Biol 2000; 30(2):163–71. 10.1016/s0965-1748(99)00114-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Kasai S, Weerashinghe IS, Shono T. P450 monooxygenases are an important mechanism of permethrin resistance in Culex quinquefasciatus Say larvae. Arch Insect Biochem Physiol. 1998; 37:47–56. [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Nahlen B, Clark JP, Alnwick D. Insecticide treated bed nets. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2003; 68:1–2. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Brooke BD, Kloke G, Hunt RH, Koekemoer LL, Temu EA, Taylor ME, et al. Bioassay and biochemical analyses of insecticide resistance in southern African Anopheles funestus (Diptera: Culicidae). Bull Entomol Res. 2001; 91(4):265–72. 10.1079/ber2001108 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Vulule JM, Beach RF, Atieli FK, McAllister JC, Brogdon WG, Roberts JM, et al. Elevated oxidase and esterase levels associated with permethrin tolerance in Anopheles gambiae from Kenyan villages using permethrin-impregnated nets. Med Vet Entomol. 1999; 13(3):239–44. 10.1046/j.1365-2915.1999.00177.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Etang J, Chandre F, Guillet P, Manga L. Reduced bio-efficacy of permethrin EC impregnated bednets against an Anopheles gambiae strain with oxidase-based pyrethroid tolerance. Malar J. 2004; 3(1):46. 10.1186/1475-2875-3-46 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Wondji CS, Irving H, Morgan J, Lobo NF, Collins FH, Hunt RH, et al. Two duplicated P450 genes are associated with pyrethroid resistance in Anopheles funestus, a major malaria vector. Genome Res. 2009; 19(3):452–9. 10.1101/gr.087916.108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Amenya DA, Naguran R, Lo TC, Ranson H, Spillings BL, Wood OR, et al. Over expression of a cytochrome P450 (CYP6P9) in a major African malaria vector, Anopheles Funestus, resistant to pyrethroids. Insect Mol Biol. 2008; 17(1):19–25. 10.1111/j.1365-2583.2008.00776.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Matambo T, Paine MJ, Coetzee M, Koekemoer LL. Sequence characterization of cytochrome P450 CYP6P9 in pyrethroid resistant and susceptible Anopheles funestus (Diptera: Culicidae). Genet Mol Res. 2010; 9(1):554–64. 10.4238/vol9-1gmr719 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Djouaka RF, Bakare AA, Coulibaly ON, Akogbeto MC, Ranson H, Hemingway J, et al. Expression of the cytochrome P450s, CYP6P3 and CYP6M2 are significantly elevated in multiple pyrethroid resistant populations of Anopheles gambiaes. s. from Southern Benin and Nigeria. BMC Genomics. 2008; 9:538. 10.1186/1471-2164-9-538 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Müller P, Warr E, Stevenson BJ, Pignatelli PM, Morgan JC, Steven A, et al. Field-caught permethrin-resistant Anopheles gambiae overexpress CYP6P3, a P450 that metabolises pyrethroids. PLoS Genet. 2008; 4(11):e1000286. 10.1371/journal.pgen.1000286 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Karatolos N, Pauchet Y, Wilkinson P, Chauhan R, Denholm I, Gorman K, et al. Pyrosequencing the transcriptome of the greenhouse whitefly, Trialeurodes vaporariorum reveals multiple transcripts encoding insecticide targets and detoxifying enzymes. BMC Genomics. 2011; 12:56. 10.1186/1471-2164-12-56 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Pauchet Y, Wilkinson P, Vogel H, Nelson DR, Reynolds SE, Heckel DG, et al. Pyrosequencing the Manduca sexta larval midgut transcriptome: messages for digestion, detoxification and defence. Insect Mol Biol. 2010; 19(1):61–75. 10.1111/j.1365-2583.2009.00936.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Karunker I, Benting J, Lueke B, Ponge T, Nauen R, Roditakis E, et al. Over-expression of cytochrome P450 CYP6CM1 is associated with high resistance to imidacloprid in the B and Q biotypes of Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae). Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2008;38(6):634–44. 10.1016/j.ibmb.2008.03.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Puinean AM, Foster SP, Oliphant L, Denholm I, Field LM, Millar NS, et al. Amplification of a cytochrome P450 gene is associated with resistance to neonicotinoid insecticides in the aphid Myzus persicae. PLoS Genet. 2010; 6(6):e1000999. 10.1371/journal.pgen.1000999 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Feyereisen R. Insect P450 inhibitors and insecticides: challenges and opportunities. Pest Manag Sci. 2015; 71(6):793–800. 10.1002/ps.3895 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Reed J, Vanderwel D, Choi S, Pomonis JG, Reitz RC, Blomquist GJ. Unusual mechanism of hydrocarbon formation in the housefly: cytochrome P450 converts aldehyde to the sex pheromone component (Z)-9-tricosene and CO2. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994; 91(21):10000–4. 10.1073/pnas.91.21.10000 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Qiu Y, Tittiger C, Wicker-Thomas C, Le Goff G, Young S, Wajnberg E, et al. An insect-specific P450 oxidative decarbonylase for cuticular hydrocarbon biosynthesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012; 109(37):14858–63. 10.1073/pnas.1208650109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Enayati AA, Ranson H, Hemingway J. Insect glutathione transferases and insecticide resistance. Insect Mol Biol. 2005; 14(1):3–8. 10.1111/j.1365-2583.2004.00529.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Kostaropoulos I, Papadopoulos AI, Metaxakis A, Boukouvala E, Papadopoulou-Mourkidou E. Glutathione S-transferase in the defence against pyrethroids in insects. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2001; 31(4–5):313–9. 10.1016/s0965-1748(00)00123-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Lumjuan N, McCarroll L, Prapanthadara LA, Hemingway J, Ranson H. Elevated activity of an Epsilon class glutathione transferase confers DDT resistance in the dengue vector, Aedes aegypti. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2005; 35(8):861–71. 10.1016/j.ibmb.2005.03.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Syvanen M, Zhou Z, Wharton J, Goldsbury C, Clark A. Heterogeneity of the glutathione transferase genes encoding enzymes responsible for insecticide degradation in the housefly. J Mol Evol. 1996; 43(3):236–40. 10.1007/BF02338831 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Baker NE, Kale A. Mutations in ribosomal proteins: Apoptosis, cell competition, and cancer. Mol Cell Oncol. 2016; 3(1):e1029065. 10.1080/23723556.2015.1029065 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Bursać S, Brdovčak MC, Pfannkuchen M, Orsolić I, Golomb L, Zhu Y, et al. Mutual protection of ribosomal proteins L5 and L11 from degradation is essential for p53 activation upon ribosomal biogenesis stress. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012; 109(50):20467–72. 10.1073/pnas.1218535109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Naora H. Involvement of ribosomal proteins in regulating cell growth and apoptosis: translational modulation or recruitment for extraribosomal activity? Immunol Cell Biol. 1999; 77(3):197–205. 10.1046/j.1440-1711.1999.00816.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Regard JB, Sato IT, Coughlin SR. Anatomical profiling of G protein coupled receptor expression. Cell. 2008; 135:561–71. 10.1016/j.cell.2008.08.040 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009237.r001

Decision Letter 0

Joshua B Benoit, Karin Kirchgatter

9 Sep 2020

Dear Dr. Zhang,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Culex pipiens pallens Coquillett has multi-level molecular resistance mechanism adaptations to different insecticides by comparative proteomics analysis" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

The reviewers have indicated the the manuscript is of interest, but significant revisions are necessary. In specific, two commented that along with specific changes the manuscript was difficult to read in many section. Please pay specific attention to comments raised by Reviewer 3.

We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

Thank you again for your submission. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Joshua B. Benoit

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Karin Kirchgatter

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

The reviewers have indicated the the manuscript is of interest, but significant revisions are necessary. In specific, two commented that along with specific changes the manuscript was difficult to read in many sections. Please pay specific attention to comments raised by Reviewer 3.

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: The authors discussed other mechanisms of insecticide resistance that are far from being fully understood, in addition to resistance at the target site. The work is important in that mosquito control based on chemical insecticides is considered an important element in current global strategies to control mosquito-borne diseases. The authors used a comparative proteomics approach. They have achieved excellent results. I recommend acceptance with minor revision.

But there is still room for improvement in the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: The objectives of the study is clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated.

I also think the study design is appropriate to address the stated objectives.

The population is nearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested and the sample size is sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested and the statistical analysis is also sufficient.

There are no ethical or regulatory requirements being met.

Reviewer #3: Methods are solid, but the presentation of the data should be better edited.

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: The legend of the figures can be better improved. Authors should make a detailed description of the colours and meanings of clusters.

Reviewer #2: The analysis presented matches the analysis plan and the results are clearly presented. All figures and tables are very good and have sufficient quality.

Reviewer #3: For clarity, I strongly recommend simplify and edit the KEGG presentations. Please remove unnecessary content. The paper will be then better readable and easier to understand. In the KEGGs there are pathways without any mark/connection – why?

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: I propose a general conclusion of the study that could provide the following perspectives.

Reviewer #2: It is certain that he data support the conclusions.

The authors also discussed how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study such as offering the viewpoint about using RNA interference on the identified metabolic targets to control those pests.

The relevance of Culex pipiens pallens to public health is addressed well.

Reviewer #3: It can be better presented that a set of markers for future studies was obtained. Novel markers that can be further studied should be better(clearly) stressed. Maybe - section containing "future perspectives" can be useful.

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: I recommend acceptance with minor revision.

Reviewer #2: An interesting work, it was a pleasure reading. The author used proteome technology to study insecticides-associated resistance mechanism of Culex pipiens pallens and obtained some valuable data, which is helpful to clarify the specific ways and mechanisms of insecticide resistance in mosquitoes. I consider this study has important reference significance for the management of resistance to mosquitoes by using insecticides, and this paper is a valuable contribution to its field.

Below is a list of some comments and changes that might be considered:

1. Title - The title should be made some modification, this manuscript studied the insecticides-associated resistance mechanism by comparative proteomics, is not adaptations to different insecticides, so, I suggest the title revise to ‘Comparative proteomics reveals complex insecticides-associated resistance mechanism of Culex pipiens pallens Coquillett’ is much better.

2. Abstract - The abstract is concise and well documented. I don't have any comments about the same.

3. For KEGG pathways annotation, oxidative phosphophrylation (map00190), ribosome (03010), do you acquire KEGG Copyright Permission? If not, please provide.

4. One of key concerns for the manuscript is that there are some grammatical errors and English improvement need to be carried by professional editor. Some errors but not all that I found are listed below, and I guess there are more mistakes in this manuscript.

Line 74 ‘resulted in’ can change to ‘result in’

Line 250 ‘increased’ can change to ‘increase’

5. Results - Line 257, A total of 2,502 protein were identified in two replicates of the LC-MS/MS experiments with a high confidence of peptide selection (FDR=0.01). Among them, 1513 protein obtained quantitative message, why were some proteins not quantified?

6. Material - Line 197: What UniProt dataset is used for the annotation? I do not believe a Culex pipiens pallens proteome annotation set exists at this point. Are you using the Culex quinquefasciatus annotation set? The Drosophila melanogaster set? Or something else?

7. Line 214-217: Same question as above, Culex pipiens pallens is not an available species for KEGG mapping, what dataset is being used?

8. Line 281: What program/algorithm was used to generate the hierarchical clustering? What settings were used?

9. Line 328-332: Again, Culex pipiens pallens is not included in the STRING database, what protein network is used to predict the identified protein interactions? What settings were used for this analysis?

10. Figure 3: What do the blue highlighted proteins represent? The caption states that “differentially expressed proteins were mapped as red and green”. Is red more abundant and green less abundant? What does it mean when a protein is mapped in BOTH red and green as in figure 3?

11. Figure 4: What is the y-axis scale in these plots – Log2(fold change), raw fold change?

12. Figure S1: Annotated KEGG map for oxidative phosphorylation, map00190, the caption states “The enzymes marked by the red frame is related to up-regulated gene, and the enzyme labeled by the green frame is related to down-regulated gene.” This raises several questions. First, is this showing gene expression data rather than protein abundance data? If so, where is this data coming from and how does it relate to the proteomics experiment described in the manuscript? Many enzymes are marked in blue, what does this color represent?

13. Figure S5: What does a figure contribute? It appears to show the entire COG Function Classification map with none of the measured protein data included?

I would recommend that this manuscript could be accepted for publication after minor revisions.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: In this study, Zhang et al. claim the multi-level molecular resistance mechanism adaptations to different insecticides by comparative proteomics analysis in Culex pipiens. Such studies are of importance and interest for number of scientists. I suggest improvements for better readability of the study and possibly stress some more markers. I believe that this interesting study can be published.

For clarity, I strongly recommend simplify and edit the KEGG presentations. Please remove unnecessary content. The paper will be then better readable and easier to understand. In the KEGGs there are pathways without any mark/connection – why?

It is recommended to mention some more relevant studies that investigated the insecticide resistance using proteomics. Authors reference “iTRAQ” study such as doi: 10.1186/s13071-015-0709-5 , however, there are different technologies used, for the proteomic profiling and searching the markers. It would be interesting if the authors could stress more studies that investigated the resistance mechanisms in various insects using the high-throughput proteomics approach – in addition, the introduction could not be limited only to the mosquito. What is the difference (compared to proteomics) if the study is performed on transcript level? or if the resistance is studied based on changes in the DNA sequence (aka the kdr resistance e.g. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0215541 https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3098575)? Authors stress in the conclusion targeting the RNAi. They also stress cuticular, cytochrome P450s and glutathione S-transferase proteins. Indeed, the resistance (especially multiresistance adaptation) can also have the epigenetic basis, which is often overlooked. These mechanisms can be responsible for the multiple resistance mechanisms rather than kdr or the change in CYPs (that respond usually to the specific chemicals-pesticides). See for example DOI: 10.1016/j.jprot.2016.09.016 . If you are able provide discussion on such markers (epigenetic), it can be important for future studies. Resistance may not be “only” kdr, detoxification enzymes (CYPs, GSTs, and other detoxification enzymes such as esterases/lipases, UGTs). As I can see from your results, the ribosomal proteins were importantly changed this appears also of importance, because of translation modulation can be --- linked beyond the ribosome. Further, there is also interesting the vitellinogen change (It may be of importance that there was observed change in vitellogenin isoforms due to deltamethrin treatment 10.1016/j.jprot.2016.09.016 )

Further notes:

- Full names “Bacillus thuringiensis var. Israelensis“are provided at lines 139 and 142 – please revise appropriate use of abbreviations throughout the text

- Line 156: here and elsewhere, please provide x g instead of rpm (rpm does not provide exact info about the centrifugal force because depending on the rotor size)

- Could you please provide the raw data of LC-MS/MS analyses performed?

- Could you please provide number of sequences and the date of downloading? The database can be provided along with the raw LC-MS/MS data.

- Lines 209, 215 – again, you provide full names together with abbreviation “Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG)“

- Should “z scores“ should be „Z-score“ ?

- Line 236: proteine-protein - protein-protein

- „involved in cuticular resistence“ – what does it mean?

You mention the “cuticle” / ”cellular cytoskeletal rearrangement“ …. These changes are really hard to explain… However, a proteomic study showed in heads of non-target Bombus terrestris important change in cuticle proteins (in particular cuticle protein 18.7-like ; cuticle protein 21-like in Table 1 of https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jprot.2018.12.022) or the actin binding troponin C and filamin-A due to sublethal insecticide treatment. In that study it was suggested „These changes may reflect partial compensation for the disrupted synthetic pathways, such as the generation of membrane proteins.“ It is possible, that this suggestion may be useful to your story – especially in the discussion (Lines 407-417).

Maybe ??? Is it possible that the resistant insect to pesticides can be differently adapted to the stress linked to changes in the structural proteins?

Indeed, the response of targets as well as non-targets to pesticides appears complex. The tolerance/resistance mechanisms developed can be surprising - as indicated by various high-throughput studies. Unfortunately, some (such) important changes in markers are underestimated in most studies that focus primarily to the detoxification enzymes.

Be aware - the proteins presented as “cuticular/cuticle” the function and localization of the proteins should be confirmed, but most of the proteins are assigned based on similarity. This is important to consider also for number of other proteins. Overall, the changes of the high-throughput analysis give sense together – because some markers change because another markers also change….

--------------------

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, PLOS recommends that you deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/submission-guidelines#loc-methods

Attachment

Submitted filename: renamed_b0c63.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases Reviewer 1 comments.doc

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009237.r003

Decision Letter 1

Joshua B Benoit, Karin Kirchgatter

30 Nov 2020

Dear Dr. Zhang,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Comparative proteomics reveals complex insecticides-associated mechanism of Culex pipiens pallens Coquillett" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

The reviewers have indicated that the manuscript is improved, but still have a few issues.

1. Along with the specific comments from the reviewers, please ensure that the Dryad link is active.

2. One of the reviewers commented that the replicate description is not adequate. Please directly indicate that biological replicates used for measuring protein levels. This needs clarification as three lines are mentioned for each selection, so if all lines were examined then at 24 proteomic samples are required to analyze the samples as described (only 8 are shown in table 1). If only a single line is examined twice, this needs to be mentioned as the results are less strong and this requires a correlation analysis between the replicates.

3. The figures need improvement as example, the labeling in Figure 5 and 6 overlap. In addition, it is very likely that figures can be combined.

Note: Please indicate in the response letter how these points along with those from the reviewers are addressed rather than only indicate that they have been reviewed.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.  

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. 

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Joshua B. Benoit

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Karin Kirchgatter

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

The reviewers have indicated that the manuscript is improved, but still have a few issues.

1. Along with the specific comments from the reviewers, please ensure that the Dryad link is active.

2. One of the reviewers commented that the replicate description is not adequate. Please directly indicate that biological replicates used for measuring protein levels. This needs clarification as three lines are mentioned for each selection, so if all lines were examined then at 24 proteomic samples are required to analyze the samples as described (only 8 are shown in table 1). If only a single line is examined twice, this needs to be mentioned as the results are less strong and this requires a correlation analysis between the replicates.

3. The figures need improvement as example, the labeling in Figure 5 and 6 overlap. In addition, it is very likely that figures can be combined.

Note: Please indicate in the response letter how these points along with those from the reviewers are addressed rather than only indicate that they have been reviewed.

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: yes

Reviewer #2: The objectives of the study are clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated and the study design is appropriate to address the stated objectives doubtlessly; the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested;All the data were statistically analyzed correctly and there are no ethical concerns to consider.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: yes

Reviewer #2: The results are clearly and completely presented in the MS and be analyzed correctly. The figures (Tables, Images) are sufficient quality to meet the requirements of publication.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: yes

Reviewer #2: The conclusions are well supported by the data presented and the authors also discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: accept

Reviewer #2: The author revised the original manuscript with great effort.All concerns have been well addressed and I recommend acccepting this article for publication.However, the author needs to check the text and change the word "drug" with "insecticide",For example, a similar error occurs in Figure 3.b.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: no comment.

Reviewer #2: Proteomics is undoubtedly a powerful tool for studying the mechanisms of insect resistance.This study has found a number of interesting proteins, some of which are clearly reported to be involved in resistance and some of which are not, and it is hoped that subsequent studies will clarify these important protein functions and the association between resistance.It maybe provide better targets for insecticide resistance detection and management.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript has been improved and I am respecting the way of presentation. Authors must be aware that only minor part of the proteins were COG classified. Thus, by that connection it is of high importance to stress and discuss the particular markers. It is a pity that authors did not improve the discussion despite recommendations in previous version. It is a pity that instead of discussion of particular markers with different studies the section about cuticular proteins (now lines 484-496 and 497-511) appears only general. It is recommended to provide discussion on particular markers and this can be done as minor revision.

In addition, would like to see clustering on columns – Fig 3. How do the treatments cluster?

Lines231+ Please provide number of sequences used for search along with the date and source of download.

--------------------

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Abdou Azaque ZOURE

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, PLOS recommends that you deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see http://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009237.r005

Decision Letter 2

Joshua B Benoit, Karin Kirchgatter

9 Dec 2020

Dear Dr. Zhang,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Comparative proteomics reveals complex insecticides-associated mechanism of Culex pipiens pallens Coquillett" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

The manuscript is improved, but there are still quality issues with figures and in the manuscript.

1. Labels need to be added to the scale for each figure.

2. Parts of the figures are cut off.

3. Labels are overlapping in Figure 6.

4. Format references.

5. Please check the manuscript for grammar and format issues.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.  

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. 

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Joshua B. Benoit

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Karin Kirchgatter

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

The manuscript is improved, but there are still quality issues with figures and in the manuscript.

1. Labels need to be added to the scale for each figure.

2. Parts of the figures are cut off.

3. Labels are overlapping in Figure 6.

4. Format references.

5. Please check the manuscript for grammar and format issues.

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, PLOS recommends that you deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see http://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009237.r007

Decision Letter 3

Joshua B Benoit, Karin Kirchgatter

13 Jan 2021

Dear Dr. Zhang,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Comparative proteomics reveals complex insecticides-associated mechanism of Culex pipiens pallens Coquillett" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

There are still issues that persist in the manuscript.

1. Please correct the references by hand. There are many errors, specifically species names should be in italics and other aspects of the references aren't uniform.

2. The scale labels are still missing. There are not units. Are these fold change, z scores, etc?

3. Figure 6: Revigo will output an editable pdf. Labels should not overlap. Also, what setting were used for this program.

4. All abbreviations need to be defined in the figure legends.

5. Some of the figure legends lack details. For example, the title does not necessarily reflect what is described in the legend. Please review all figure titles and legends.

6. What do the cluster represent in Fig. 4? This is not integrated well into the results.

Following these revisions, please provide a direct response to these specific comments (if possible) with line numbers.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.  

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. 

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Joshua B. Benoit

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Karin Kirchgatter

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

There are still issues that persist in the manuscript.

1. Please correct the references by hand. There are many errors, specifically species names should be in italics and other aspects of the references aren't uniform.

2. The scale labels are still missing. There are not units. Are these fold change, z scores, etc?

3. Figure 6: Revigo will output an editable pdf. Labels should not overlap. Also, what setting were used for this program.

4. All abbreviations need to be defined in the figure legends.

5. Some of the figure legends lack details. For example, the title does not necessarily reflect what is described in the legend. Please review all figure titles and legends.

6. What do the cluster represent in Fig. 4? This is not integrated well into the results.

Following these revisions, please provide a direct response to these specific comments (if possible) with line numbers.

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, PLOS recommends that you deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see http://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009237.r009

Decision Letter 4

Joshua B Benoit, Karin Kirchgatter

1 Feb 2021

Dear Dr. Zhang,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Comparative proteomics reveals complex insecticides-associated mechanism of Culex pipiens pallens Coquillett" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

Response to previous comments are not sufficient.

1. There is still no indication that the scales for each figure are fold change, z score, etc. This still needs correction in all figures. As an example, there is no label on scale bar for Figure 1 and no indication what the scale represents in the legend. This needs correction as the reader would have no idea what this figure represents based on Figure 1 and the associated legend. Similarly, the scale labels should be moved next to the scale bar in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

2. The figure legends still lack specific details to be read independently, such as abbreviations should be discussed, what is actually significantly upregulated, bold vs. normal font differences, and any other details. Also, please delete "Visualization of" as this is redundant.

3. Fisher is not spelled correctly in Figure 5.

4. For clarity purposes, please move the Figure legends to the end of the document.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.  

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. 

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Joshua B. Benoit

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Karin Kirchgatter

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

Response to previous comments are not sufficient.

1. There is still no indication that the scales for each figure are fold change, z score, etc. This still needs correction in all figures. As an example, there is no label on scale bar for Figure 1 and no indication what the scale represents in the legend. This needs correction as the reader would have no idea what this figure represents based on Figure 1 and the associated legend. Similarly, the scale labels should be moved next to the scale bar in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

2. The figure legends still lack specific details to be read independently, such as abbreviations should be discussed, what is actually significantly upregulated, bold vs. normal font differences, and any other details. Also, please delete "Visualization of" as this is redundant.

3. Fisher is not spelled correctly in Figure 5.

4. For clarity purposes, please move the Figure legends to the end of the document.

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, PLOS recommends that you deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see http://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009237.r011

Decision Letter 5

Joshua B Benoit, Karin Kirchgatter

12 Feb 2021

Dear Dr. Zhang,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Comparative proteomics reveals complex insecticides-associated mechanism of Culex pipiens pallens Coquillett' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Joshua B. Benoit

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Karin Kirchgatter

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************************************************

I am happy to recommend for publication, but please check the manuscript carefully before publication:

1. Please check carefully for errors (e.g. there is a misspelling in the Figure 4 title, which is also confusing, Line 39: there is a word missing, and others).

2. I would recommend that the title be changed as "Comparative proteomics reveals complex insecticides-associated mechanism of Culex pipiens pallens Coquillett" is not correct. I would suggest "Comparative proteomics reveals mechanisms that underlie insecticide

resistance in Culex pipiens pallens Coquillett"

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009237.r012

Acceptance letter

Joshua B Benoit, Karin Kirchgatter

3 Mar 2021

Dear Dr. Zhang,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Comparative proteomics reveals mechanisms that underlie insecticide resistance in Culex pipiens pallens Coquillett," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Editorial, Viewpoint, Symposium, Review, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript will be published online unless you opted out of this process. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig

    A. Representative KEGG metabolism of xenobiotics by cytochrome P450 pathway (map00980); B. Representative KEGG drug metabolism—cytochrome P450 pathway (map00982); C. Annotated KEGG map for Oxidative phosphorylation, map00190; D. Annotated KEGG map for Ribosome, map03010 The rectangular nodes in the figure represent gene products, the blue border belongs to the background proteins, and the white color indicates proteins not identified in this experiment. The red/green colors in the figure indicate to the differentially expressed proteins detected in this study, with red representing upregulated proteins and green downregulated proteins. Half red and half green indicates both upregulated and downregulated proteins for that gene product (the same meaning as in this manuscript).

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Comparison of protein expression pattern clusters between Cx_cym, Cx_pro, Cx_ddv and Cx_s in Cx. pipiens pallens For the expression trend line graph of each sub-cluster, the x-axis is the comparison sample group, and the y-axis is the relative expression level of the protein in the group of samples.

    Each line in the figure represents a protein, and the different color representations show the relationship between relative expression and the mean value. Each graph shows one type of expression pattern, a trend that reflects changes in the expression of this group of proteins.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. Significantly enriched upregulation and downregulation domain in Cx. pipiens pallens, respectively.

    Clustering of the results of differential protein enrichment in different groups, the color −log10 (Fisher’s exact test p value) represents the credibility of enrichment.

    (TIF)

    S4 Fig. PPI networks analysis of altered proteins in Cx_cym vs. Cx_s in Cx. pipiens pallens (the same meaning as in this manuscript) The interaction map of altered proteins under insecticide selection in Cx. pipiens pallens is illustrated as confidence view, each circle in the figure represents a protein, interaction between expressed proteins are indicated by the connecting line, where the thickness of the connecting lines indicates the level of confidence, stronger associations are represented by thicker lines.

    Network interaction analysis was performed using the STRING protein interaction prediction online software and was visualized using Cytoscape version 3.4

    (TIF)

    S5 Fig. PPI networks analysis of altered proteins inCx_ddv vs. Cx_s in Cx. pipiens pallens.

    (TIF)

    S6 Fig. PPI networks analysis of altered proteins in Cx_pro vs. Cx_s in Cx. pipiens pallens.

    (TIF)

    S7 Fig

    A, Significantly enriched domain in Cx_bti vs. Cx_nbti, B, Visualization of significantly enriched downregulation domain in Cx_bti vs. Cx_nbti. Proteins in functional categorizations of proteins differentially expressed according to Fisher’s extract test. The Number of Diffproteins is the number of differentially expressed proteins enriched in the Domain; the Domain enriched fold is shown on a log2 scale in a color gradient.

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. Resistance levels after insecticide selection.

    (XLSX)

    S2 Table. Proteins identified in Cx. pipiens pallens after selection with three distinct chemical families of insecticides using iTRAQ.

    (XLSX)

    S3 Table. Upregulated and downregulated proteins among Cx_cym, Cx_ddv, Cx_pro and Cx_s strains.

    (XLSX)

    S4 Table. PRM verification analysis of insecticide resistance related proteins.

    (XLSX)

    S5 Table. Proteins identified in the midgut of Cx. pipiens pallens larvae exposed bti by using iTRAQ.

    (XLSX)

    S1 Data. Number of sequences of downloading.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: renamed_b0c63.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases Reviewer 1 comments.doc

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLOS NTD Reviewer 1-3 Point rebuttal.doc

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 2020.12.06 PLOS NTDs Reviewer Point rebuttal.doc

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 2020.12.16 PLOS NTDs Reviewer rebuttal.doc

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 2021.01.20 PLoS NTSs Review 4th.doc

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 2021.02.08 Review 5th.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Data can be found in Dryad Digital Repository https://datadryad.org/stash/dataset/doi:10.5061/dryad.pzgmsbcjs.


    Articles from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES