Skip to main content
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases logoLink to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
. 2021 Dec 14;15(12):e0010001. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010001

Molecular surveillance of resistance to pyrethroids insecticides in Colombian Aedes aegypti populations

Yurany Granada 1, Ana María Mejía-Jaramillo 1, Sara Zuluaga 1, Omar Triana-Chávez 1,*
Editor: Jeffrey H Withey2
PMCID: PMC8735628  PMID: 34905537

Abstract

Introduction

In Colombia, organochloride, organophosphate, carbamate, and pyrethroid insecticides are broadly used to control Aedes aegypti populations. However, Colombian mosquito populations have shown variability in their susceptibility profiles to these insecticides, with some expressing high resistance levels.

Materials and methods

In this study, we analyzed the susceptibility status of ten Colombian field populations of Ae. aegypti to two pyrethroids; permethrin (type-I pyrethroid) and lambda-cyhalothrin (type-II pyrethroid). In addition, we evaluated if mosquitoes pressured with increasing lambda-cyhalothrin concentrations during some filial generations exhibited altered allelic frequency of these kdr mutations and the activity levels of some metabolic enzymes.

Results

Mosquitoes from all field populations showed resistance to lambda-cyhalothrin and permethrin. We found that resistance profiles could only be partially explained by kdr mutations and altered enzymatic activities such as esterases and mixed-function oxidases, indicating that other yet unknown mechanisms could be involved. The molecular and biochemical analyses of the most pyrethroid-resistant mosquito population (Acacías) indicated that kdr mutations and altered metabolic enzyme activity are involved in the resistance phenotype expression.

Conclusions

In this context, we propose genetic surveillance of the mosquito populations to monitor the emergence of resistance as an excellent initiative to improve mosquito-borne disease control measures.

Author summary

The main method of preventing Aedes-borne diseases such as dengue, Zika, and chikungunya is by targeting the primary mosquito vector, Aedes aegypti, with insecticides. However, the success of these vector control strategies is jeopardized by the widespread development of insecticide resistance in mosquito populations. Furthermore, the molecular mechanisms of insecticide resistance in Ae. aegypti are still not well understood, resulting in limited resistance mitigation and management strategies. In this paper, we found that resistance to some pyrethroid insecticides in different Colombian cities is associated with three allelic substitutions V419L, V1016I, and F1534C, on the voltage-gated sodium channel gene, known as kdr (‘knock-down resistance’) mutations, with all three mutations present in mosquitoes resistant to pyrethroids. The data also showed that kdr mutations are important in conferring low resistance levels, but after around 10-fold intensity, the allele frequencies don’t change, indicating that other mechanisms contribute to the resistance. Thus, we found that mosquitoes under selective pressure with insecticides present also altered enzymatic activities such as esterases and mixed-function oxidases, indicating that kdr mutations and metabolic enzymes are involved in the resistance expression. The findings on the extent of insecticide resistance and the molecular mechanisms underpinning the problem will impact the surveillance, selection, and rational use of insecticides by local health authorities.

1. Introduction

The World Health Organization has listed dengue as one of its top ten global health priorities, with several countries facing unprecedented outbreaks and declaring states of emergency, and 2019 was a record year in terms of infections and outbreaks [1]. So far, in 2020 and 2021, the number of dengue cases has increased dramatically in different Latin American countries, which the COVID-19 pandemic has further exacerbated.

Insecticides are widely used to control mosquitoes and other insect vectors that transmit different pathogens. Types of insecticides include ovicide, larvicide, and adulticide, used against insect eggs, larvae, and adults, respectively. Nearly all insecticides are toxic to humans and/or mammals, but pyrethroids are the best option, as they are less harmful than carbamates and organophosphates. Pyrethroids interrupt the mosquito’s nerve function by binding to the voltage-dependent sodium channel proteins, causing repetitive discharges, depolarizing the axonal membrane, and causing synaptic abnormalities that generate paralysis and, ultimately, death of the mosquito [2]. There are two types of pyrethroids; those lacking the α-cyano group, classified as type I pyrethroids, and those with the α-cyano called type II pyrethroids.

The lack of sensitivity of Ae. aegypti to pyrethroids is associated with higher activity and expression of the insect’s detoxifying enzymes, including unspecified esterases, glutathione S-transferases, and mixed-function oxidases [37]. Insensitivity is also attributed to increased expression of cuticular genes [8,9] and the mosquito’s microbiota [1012]. However, the primary mechanism contributing to the phenomena are mutations in the voltage-gated sodium channel coding gene, commonly called knockdown resistance (kdr) [13]. Although resistance to pyrethroids has been progressively documented in insects, the biochemical and molecular mechanisms by which Ae. aegypti develops pyrethroid insecticide resistance are not fully understood, making it challenging to design or improve effective mosquito control methods in different regions around the world [1417].

In Colombia, organochlorides, organophosphates, carbamates, and pyrethroids have been broadly used to control Ae. aegypti populations. However, these mosquito populations have shown variability in susceptibility profiles to these insecticides, with some of them expressing high resistance levels. Previous studies have determined that Ae. aegypti populations gain resistance to lambda-cyhalothrin through point mutations in the voltage-gated sodium channel gene [1820]. Furthermore, a positive association between the V410L and V1016I mutations, but not the F1534C mutation, and resistance to this insecticide have been reported, suggesting that F1534C mutation could be conferring resistance to other insecticides [13,18,2123].

Moreover, metabolic resistance due to increased activity levels of key insecticide-degrading enzymes has been described in Aedes populations from different regions of Colombia [19,20]. However, the role of these mechanisms when the mosquitoes are exposed to high concentrations of insecticides is not well understood. In the present study, we analyzed the susceptibility status of ten Colombian field populations of Ae. aegypti to permethrin (type-I pyrethroid) and lambda-cyhalothrin (type-II pyrethroid). We also determined if increasing the lambda-cyhalothrin concentration over multiple generations could alter the allelic frequency of these kdr mutations and the activity levels of some metabolic enzymes. Our results indicated that there is a generalized resistance to pyrethroids throughout the country, mainly to type I pyrethroids. Also, we found that the resistance to pyrethroids in Colombian mosquito populations is associated with three point mutations (V419L, V1016I, and F1534C) on the voltage-gated sodium channel gene. However, we showed that the resistance profile could only be partially explained by these kdr mutations and altered enzymatic activities such as the esterases and mixed-function oxidases, indicating other mechanisms yet unknown could be involved. In this context, we propose genetic surveillance of the mosquito populations to monitor the emergence of insecticide resistance, which could potentially improve mosquito control measures.

2. Results

2.1. Mosquitoes from ten different regional populations were resistant to permethrin and lambda-cyhalothrin pyrethroids

A total of 32,760 Ae. aegypti mosquitoes were tested for susceptibility to permethrin and lambda-cyhalothrin insecticides. Resistance to permethrin was observed in all ten mosquito populations tested. The most resistant population to permethrin was Cúcuta, with an RR50 of 152; the least resistant populations were Honda (RR50 of 13.82), and Itagüí and Neiva (Both with RR50 18.43; Fig 1 and Table 1).

Fig 1. Colombian cities in which Aedes aegypti mosquitoes were collected.

Fig 1

Numbers correspond to each city: 1. Bello, 2. Itagüí, 3. Moniquirá, 4. Puerto Boyacá, 5. Puerto Bogotá, 6. Neiva, 7. Villavicencio, 8. Acacías, 9. Cúcuta, and 10. Honda. For each city, the level of resistance (RR50) to permethrin (to the left of the number) and lambda-cyhalothrin (to the right of the number) in comparison to the susceptible Rockefeller strain of mosquito is shown in the half-round; darker colors represent a higher degree of insecticide resistance. The distribution of the kdr alleles for the positions V410L (pink), V1016I (blue), and F1534C (purple) are shown for each city. Lighter colors represent the wt allele frequencies, and darker colors indicate the mutated allele frequencies. Shaped downloaded from http://tapiquen-sig.jimdofree.com., Carlos Efraín Porto Tapiquén. Geografía, SIG y Cartografía Digital. Valencia, Spain, 2020 (free distribution).

Table 1. Resistance ratio to Permethrin and Lambda-cyhalothrin of Aedes aegypti populations studied in Colombia.

Ae. aegypti population N Permethrin Lambda-cyhalothrin
LC50 (95% CI) LC90 (95% CI) RR50 RR90 LC50 (95% CI) LC90 (95% CI) RR50 RR90
Rockefeller 1260 0.000217(0.000192–0.000244) 0.000796(0.000670–0.000821) 1 1 0.000474(0.000398–0.000564) 0.0016(0.0012–0.0022) 1 1
Bello (1) 1260 0.021(0.006–0.045) 0.048(0.032–0.144) 96.77** 221.19 0.0033(0.0023–0.0046) 0.010(0.008–0.015) 7.03* 6.25
Itagüí (2) 1260 0.004(0.003–0.004) 0.008(0.007–0.010) 18.43** 10.05 0.0037(0.0032–0.0042) 0.0084(0.0070–0.011) 7.8* 5.25
Moniquirá (3) 1260 0.006(0.005–0.007) 0.010(0.009–0.012) 27.64** 12.56 0.004124(0.002–0.006) 0.013 (0.012–0.016) 8.7* 8.12
Puerto Boyacá (4) 1260 0.015(0.001–0.026) 0.046(0.033–0.093) 69.12** 57.79 0.006(0.005–0.007) 0.019 (0.016–0.025) 12.66** 11.87
Puerto Bogotá (5) 1260 0.006(0.005–0.006) 0.014(0.012–0.016) 27.65** 17.59 0.00433(0.003–0.005) 0.012(0.009–0.018) 9.1* 7.5
Neiva (6) 1260 0.004(0.002–0.006) 0.009(0.007–0.012) 18.43** 11.31 0.005(0.004–0.006) 0.0105(0.00805–0.0145) 10.55** 6.56
Villavicencio (7) 1260 0.015(0.014–0.016) 0.041(0.036–0.049) 69.12** 51.51 0.008(0.006–0.0096) 0.024 (0.019–0.031) 16.87** 15
Acacías (8) 1260 0.011(0.010–0.012) 0.040(0.034–0.0489) 50.69** 50.25 0.015(0.012–0.018) 0.05 (0.04–0.09) 31.64** 31.25
Cúcuta (9) 1260 0.033(0.027–0.040) 0.135(0.98–0.210) 152.07** 169.58 0.009(0.002–0.10) 0.016(0.010–0.34) 18.98** 10
Honda (10) 1260 0.003(0.003–0.004) 0.009(0.008–0.011) 13.82** 11.31 0.0056(0.00492–0.0063) 0.0174(0.0153–0.020) 11.81** 10.87
Acacías F7 pressure 1260 0.349(0.21–0.50) 1.127(0.847–1.834) 1608.29** 1415.82 0.329(0.252–0.430) 0.798(0.644–1.080) 694.09** 498.75
Acacías F7 without pressure 1260 0.019(0.016–0.023) 0.036(0.031–0.045) 87.55** 45.22 0.009(0.007–0.010) 0.033(0.026–0.044) 18.99** 20.62
TOTAL 16380

* Tolerant population

** Resistant population.

In addition, four of the ten populations evaluated (Bello, Itagüí, Moniquirá, and Puerto Bogotá) showed moderate resistance to lambda-cyhalothrin insecticide with RR50 of 7.03, 7.8, 8.7, and 9.1, respectively. The field-collected Acacías population was the most resistant, with an RR50 of 31.64 (Fig 1 and Table 1). Overall, mosquitoes from all localities showed lower RR50 values to lambda-cyhalothrin than to permethrin insecticide (Fig 2, top).

Fig 2. Allelic frequencies for the positions V410L (pink), V1016I (blue), and F1534C (purple) in Colombian Aedes aegypti study populations.

Fig 2

The light colors in the bars indicate the wt allele frequencies; the dark colors indicate the mutated allele frequencies. The RR value for mosquitoes from each city is shown above the bars in the top graph. The bottom chart shows the variation of mutated allele frequencies for the three positions in each city.

Remarkably, the Acacías mosquito population exposed to lambda-cyhalothrin over six generations showed an RR50 of 1,608 to permethrin and 694 to lambda-cyhalothrin, increasing its resistance status 32 and 22 times, respectively, compared with the field-collected parental population. In contrast, the Acacías population without insecticide pressure showed a 1.7-fold increase in the RR50 to permethrin and a 1.7-fold decrease in the RR50 to lambda-cyhalothrin compared to the parental population (Table 1).

2.2. The kdr mutations are present in all Colombian Ae. aegypti populations studied

After analyzing at least 552 mosquitoes, the allele-specific PCR (AS-PCR) assay revealed the high frequency of the three kdr mutations, V410L, V1016I, and F1534C, in the field-caught Colombian Ae. aegypti populations (Figs 1 and 2). In the populations that were more susceptible to lambda-cyhalothrin (Bello and Itagüí), the frequency of the 410L mutant allele ranged between 0.05–0.08, while the most resistant populations showed allele frequencies ranging from 0.61–0.65 (Acacías and Cúcuta; Figs 1 and 2). Similarly, the V1016I mutant allele frequency changed from 0.06 in susceptible mosquito populations (Bello) to 0.51–0.59 in the more resistant mosquitoes (Cúcuta and Acacías). In contrast, the 1534C mutation was found in high frequencies in all the populations, with allele frequencies upwards of 0.55. Remarkably, every individual collected from Puerto Boyacá and Cúcuta presented this fixed mutated allele (i.e., frequency of 1). The control Rockefeller strain did not show the mutated allele in any of the cases.

For Loci 410 and 1016, all genotypes were found to be in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, except Puerto Bogotá and Cúcuta, and Puerto Boyacá and Cúcuta, for locus 410 and locus 1016, respectively. Finally, for locus 1534, Itagüí and Villavicencio populations were not in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (p≤ 0.05; S1 Table).

Regarding the inbreeding coefficients (FIS) for locus 410, a deficiency of heterozygotes was notorious in mosquito populations from Puerto Bogotá and Cúcuta where FIS values > 0 were observed. In contrast, for locus 1016, most of the populations presented an excess of heterozygotes (value < 0), with Puerto Boyacá and Cúcuta recording the highest values. Finally, for locus 1534, an excess of heterozygotes was observed in mosquitoes from Itagüí and a deficit in mosquitoes from Villavicencio (S1 Table).

Additionally, the dynamics of allele frequencies were analyzed for the Bello and Villavicencio localities, where we collected samples at different times across four years (2012–2016). In 2012, mosquitoes from the Bello municipality were reported as susceptible to lambda-cyhalothrin, and they presented frequencies of the 410L, 1016I, and 1534C resistant alleles of 0.05, 0.04, and 0.56, respectively [18]. In 2016 (this study), the population was described as moderately resistant, and the mutant alleles showed a slight increase, with frequencies of 0.06, 0.06, and 0.55. From 2012 through 2016, the percentage of resistant alleles in mosquitoes from Villavicencio increased by 0.45, 0.41, and 0.91 to 0.59, 0.56, and 0.94 in 410L, 1016I, and 1534C mutations, respectively (Fig 3A and 3B). Interestingly, the Villavicencio population from 2016 presented a deficiency of heterozygotes, and it was in Hardy-Weinberg disequilibrium (S1 Table).

Fig 3. Allelic frequencies for the positions V410L (pink), V1016I (blue), and F1534C (purple) in Aedes aegypti from three of the mosquito populations studied.

Fig 3

The light colors indicate the wt allele frequencies; the dark colors show the mutated allele frequencies. A-B. Time-course of allelic frequencies from Bello 2012–2013 (410 N = 58, 1016 N = 101, 1534 N = 57) and 2016 (410 N = 55, 1016 N = 59, 1534 N = 60) (A), and Villavicencio 2012 (410 N = 79, 1016 N = 89, 1534 N = 57 and 2016 (410 N = 50, 1016 N = 51, 1534 N = 51) (B) populations determined for mosquitoes collected in two different years. C. Allelic frequencies from Acacías population without lambda-cyhalothrin pressure (WP) and with lambda-cyhalothrin pressure (P) for six generations compared with the field-collected populations (Acacías F0).

2.3. Mosquitoes under insecticide pressure change the resistance status but not the allelic frequencies

To determine the allelic frequency dynamic in the absence and presence of lambda-cyhalothrin insecticide, we submitted mosquitoes from the Acacías population to continuous pressure with the LC50 and LC90 of the insecticide during six generations. The allelic frequencies of 410L and 1016I kdr mutations decreased significantly when mosquitoes were kept without insecticide pressure (Fig 3C). However, after pressure with the lambda-cyhalothrin insecticide, resistance to permethrin and lambda-cyhalothrin increased 32 and 22 times, respectively (Table 1), but the allelic frequencies of the mutated alleles did not change significantly (0.61 to 0.58, 0.59 to 0.41, and 0.92 to 1, for 410L, 1016I, and 1534C, respectively; Fig 3C). However, for the 1016 allele, a Hardy-Weinberg disequilibrium and an excess of heterozygotes (FIS values < 0) were observed in comparison with the field population (S1 Table).

2.4. Mutations in combination

The three-loci genotypes were thoroughly analyzed in 482 mosquitoes using PCR. After analyzing all the possible combinations of the wild-type and mutated alleles for the three positions, only 14 out of 27 of the possible genotypes were present in the mosquito populations studied (Fig 4). However, only four combinations were present in 82.57% (398/482) of individuals analyzed. The most frequent genotype (29.25%, 141/482 mosquitoes) was the double heterozygous for loci 410 and 1016 and homozygous resistant for locus 1534 (VL410/VI1016/CC1534). The second most frequent genotype was mosquitoes carrying only the mutation 1534C and double homozygous wild-type genotype (VV410/VV1016/CC1534) for loci 410 and 1016 (23%, 111/482). The third most common genotype was the F1534C heterozygous genotype (VV410/VV1016/FC1534), found at a frequency of 16.8% (81/482). Finally, the triple homozygous mutant (LL410/II1016/CC1534) was present in 13.48% (65/482) of mosquitoes from Moniquirá, Puerto Bogotá, Neiva, Villavicencio, Acacías and Cúcuta. Interestingly, the triple wild-type homozygous (VV410/VV1016/FF1534) was present in just 2.69% (13/482) of mosquitoes collected from Bello, Itagüí, and Puerto Bogotá, which were the populations more susceptible to insecticides. Remarkably, the 410L and 1016I kdr mutations were never found alone; they were always accompanied by other mutations.

Fig 4. Genotypes observed in Colombian Aedes aegypti populations.

Fig 4

On the other hand, the Acacías populations, with or without insecticide pressure, showed the loss of some allele combinations compared with the parental population. Thus, there were no mosquitoes in both populations with the double homozygous wild-type genotype for loci 410 and 1016 and heterozygous for loci 1534 (VV410/VV1016/FC1534) or the triple heterozygous (VL410/VI1016/FC1534). Likewise, only two individuals with the triple homozygous mutant genotype (LL410/II1016/CC1534) were found in the selected population. Additionally, there was an increase in VV410/VV1016/CC1534, especially in the population without selection pressure, and an increase in the combination of LL410/VI1016/CC1534, particularly in the selected one. Finally, the new genotype heterozygous for loci 410 and double mutant homozygous for loci 1016 and 1534 (VL410/II1016/CC1534) emerged in the population with heavy selection pressure with the insecticide.

2.5. Association of different mutations and genotypes with pyrethroid resistance

A significant correlation was observed between the kdr alleles 410L, 1016I, and 1534C and resistance to lambda-cyhalothrin (p = 0.0004, 0.0036, and 0.0328, respectively). Remarkably, all the mosquito populations presented high frequencies of the 1534C kdr mutation, with the Puerto Boyacá and Cúcuta populations showing 100% of mosquitoes homozygous at this allele (Figs 2 and 5). Additionally, we found a significant positive correlation between the resistance ratio between lambda-cyhalothrin and the triple homozygous mutant genotype LL410/II1016/CC1534 (r = 0.739; p = 0.015) and a negative correlation with other genotypes described in the supplementary S2 Table. Finally, we did not find a significant correlation between permethrin resistance ratio and any genotype (S2 Table).

Fig 5.

Fig 5

Spearman Correlation test (RR) for permethrin (A) and lambda-cyhalothrin (B) and the frequency of the mutated alleles for positions 410L, 1016I, and 1534C of the Colombian populations of Aedes aegypti evaluated. The Spearman correlation r and p values are shown for each correlation (*** = p < 0.001, ** = p < 0.01, * = p < 0.05).

2.6. Correlation between the different mutations

A robust linear relationship between the 410L and 1016I positions was found with R2 = 0.9445 and a Pearson correlation of p < 0.0001. Additionally, a weaker but still significant linear relationship was observed between positions 410L and 1534C, and 1016I and 1534C (R2 = 0.7453 and 0.6773, respectively; Spearman correlation values p = 0.0065 and 0.0328, respectively; Fig 6).

Fig 6. Linear regressions of the sodium channel mutation frequencies at positions 410L vs. 1016I, 410L vs. 1534C, and 1016I vs. 1534C.

Fig 6

The data for 410L and 1016I passed normality tests, while the other comparisons did not pass (D’Agostino & Pearson and Shapiro-Wilk tests; alpha = 0.05).

2.7. Biochemical assays

Based on the results obtained with kdr alleles, we wanted to analyze the activity of some insecticide-degrading enzymes between mosquitoes that underwent, or did not, selection pressure with the lambda-cyhalothrin insecticide. During six generations, the population exposed to insecticide showed significantly higher activity in the AChE and GST enzymes (Fig 7A and 7B). In contrast, higher β-EST activity levels were observed in mosquitoes from Acacías without selection pressure (Fig 7C). Both populations showed the same activity levels in the detoxification enzymes MFO and α-EST (Fig 7D and 7E). However, in multiple comparisons, all showed significant differences (S3 Table).

Fig 7. Enzyme activity for Aedes aegypti collected from Acacías with lambda-cyhalothrin pressure in the lab (Acacías P) and without pressure (Acacías WP).

Fig 7

A) Acetylcholinesterase (AChE), B) glutathione-S-transferases (GST), C) β-esterases (β-EST) D) mixed-function oxidases (MFO) and E) α-esterases, (α-EST). Forty individuals were used in each assay. Box plots include the mean (+), median (line), 5th, 25th, 75th, and 95th percentiles. The dotted line corresponds to the median activity for the susceptible strain (Rockefeller). Asterisks indicate significant differences between the Rockefeller strain and the corresponding population (Kruskal-Wallis test; **** = p < 0.0001, *** = p < 0.001, ** = p < 0.01, * = p < 0.05).

3. Discussion

The molecular mechanisms of insecticide resistance in Ae. aegypti are still not well understood. A clear understanding of the origin, evolution, and consequences of resistance to insecticides are needed to provide evidence-based solutions to the elevated risk of mosquito-borne diseases. Unfortunately, today there is no other alternative to insecticides, which means that insecticide-based mosquitoes control will still be used for a long time. Pyrethroids are the best insecticide option because they are less toxic than carbamates and organophosphates to humans. In this study, we observed high pyrethroid (type I and II) resistance in ten Colombian Ae. aegypti populations, along with the presence of three different kdr mutations in the sodium channel. Moreover, we found an alteration in some insecticide-degrading metabolic enzymes in mosquitoes under insecticide selection pressure. In addition, we highlight changes in allele frequencies and the selection of some genotypes in insecticide-resistant mosquitoes.

At present, sixteen-point mutations have been reported in the voltage-gated sodium channel genes in Ae. aegypti from around the world [2426]. For instance, in the southeast of China, the mutations S989P, V1016G, and F1534C have been reported [13], while in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, the mutations S996P, V1023G, and F1565C were found [27]. However, only three mutations, 410L, 1016I, and 1534C, in Colombia have been reported in Ae. aegypti populations across the country [14,18,19,28]. In this study, we confirmed the presence of these kdr alleles in Colombia and presented further evidence of changes in allelic frequencies in mosquitoes collected from ten different cities across seven departments of Colombia; most of the mosquitoes showed resistance to pyrethroid insecticides. This result is not surprising, as high resistance to different kinds of pyrethroids was recently reported in other regions in Colombia. All populations analyzed presented variations in these mutated alleles [19,20].

This paper presents further evidence indicating that the 1534C mutation is involved in the resistance to permethrin (type I-pyrethroid). All the highly resistant populations to permethrin also had a high allelic frequency of the mutation 1534C. Interestingly, we also found two mosquito populations where this allele was fixed (one-hundred percent of mosquitoes were homozygotes) and five others where the allele frequency was close to fixation with values above 92%. Similarly, high allelic frequencies of 1534C were also reported in mosquitoes from Venezuela, and it was found that the allele was fixed in some populations [29]. These results are not surprising since the correlation between the 1534C mutation and resistance to type I pyrethroids has been observed in other parts of the world [23,27,30,31].

In contrast, we propose that resistance to lambda-cyhalothrin requires the sequential evolution of at least three mutations. The high allelic frequency of mutant 1534C in all the studied Colombian populations indicates that this mutation appeared first, as a resistance response to type-I pyrethroids, probably due to cross-resistance to DDT used extensively to control mosquitoes that transmit malaria in Colombia [3234]. Afterward, the 410L mutation surged, and finally, the 1016I mutation. This hypothesis is supported from the data obtained in mosquitoes from Cúcuta where LL410 was observed together VV1016 genotype. In this sense, our results support the idea proposed by Vera-Maloof et al., 2015 who indicated that the 1534C mutation appears first and that pyrethroid resistance requires the sequential evolution of new mutations [35]. Moreover, in other insect species, the combination of different mutations in the sodium channel gene produces the phenotype super-kdr, which confers higher resistance levels [36,37]. Whether these mutations mixed in Aedes confer high resistance levels in Colombian mosquito populations must be analyzed in more detail using crosses from congenic strains and examining changes in allele and genotype frequencies.

Synergism among point mutations in the sodium channel gene has been demonstrated before in Ae. aegypti [35]. Here, we observed that resistant mosquitoes are carrying two or three kdr mutations supporting this concept. For instance, we did not observe mosquitoes carrying only the 410L or 1016I mutations, but the mutation 1534C was found in all localities studied, where 29% (111/482) of mosquitoes presented only this mutation. Furthermore, the triple mutant homozygotes LL410/II1016/CC1534 were found in 13.5% of the total number of the field caught mosquitoes, which consisted of individuals from all locations except Bello, Itagüí, and Puerto Boyacá and disappeared in the Acacías population without selection pressure and almost faded in the population pressured with the insecticide. In Malaysia, low frequencies of the triple homozygous mutations GG1016/CC1534/PP989 (0.63%) have been reported, with researchers suggesting that the low occurrence of this triple homozygous mutation was most probably attributable to its effect on fitness [5,25]. This would suggest that the triple mutation LL410/II1016/CC1534 may be linked to, or associated with, the loss of fitness parameters in Ae. aegypti. Finally, the triple homozygous wild-type (VV410/VV1016/FF1534) was found only in low proportions in individuals from populations that were tolerant to lambda-cyhalothrin (Bello, Itagüí, and Puerto Bogotá).

To further explore the role of kdr mutations in pyrethroids resistance, we created a selection pressure with lambda-cyhalothrin on the Acacías mosquito populations over six generations. Interestingly, our data suggest that two mutations (410L and 1016I) are only meaningful in conferring low resistance levels since, after the RR50 reaches values higher than 10, the allele frequencies do not change significantly (Fig 2). We support this idea with two findings: firstly, although the mosquitoes from Villavicencio, Neiva, and Acacías had the same frequencies of these kdr alleles, the mosquitoes from Acacías are more resistant to pyrethroids, indicating that the kdr genotype may not fully explain the variance in resistance phenotypes. Secondly, when the Acacías mosquito population was pressured with lambda-cyhalothrin for six generations, it became 450-fold resistant, but the frequencies of the 410L and 1016I mutant alleles in this population did not change significantly. These findings support the hypothesis that additional resistance mechanisms are involved in the resistance phenotype. Nevertheless, the slight decrease in the allelic frequencies of these two mutations in the population without insecticide pressure and the change in the RR50 from 32 in the parental population to 19 corroborates the importance of these mutations in the resistant phenotypes.

This current panorama in Colombian Ae. aegypti populations may result from decades of chemical control used in the vector surveillance programs without knowing the resistance status of the different populations. This phenomenon could favor resistant phenotypes in Ae. aegypti mediated by bottlenecks, as is the case for all populations evaluated for the insecticide permethrin (Table 1). Although not all populations were resistant to lambda-cyhalothrin, the presence of the kdr mutations and the frequent use of chemical control by health authorities could negatively select susceptible mosquitoes and the appearance of the resistant phenotype. The best example of this scenario is shown in the Bello mosquito population, which changed from being insecticide-susceptible to moderately insecticide-resistant in just three years.

Another good example is the Villavicencio population, which showed an increase in the frequencies of the mutated alleles in the sodium channel gene. Furthermore, in 2012, the Villavicencio population was in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium [18], a condition that was lost in 2016, at least for the 1534 locus. This phenomenon is also supported by the analysis of inbreeding, in which we observed a deficit of heterozygotes.

Overall, our results suggest that other mutations in the sodium channel have not yet been identified or that other mechanisms are present in the Colombian mosquito populations. Recently, it was demonstrated that insecticide-resistant mosquitoes showed different expression profiles of genes involved in xenobiotic detoxification compared with non-resistant populations. These genes include glutathione-S-transferases, esterases, and cytochrome P450 mono-oxygenases [38]. This evidence highlights the importance of understanding both the genomic determinants of resistance (i.e., well-mapped mutations and copy number variations) and other mechanisms likely related to the crosstalk between metabolic activity and gene expression, which whole transcriptomic analyses can help to decipher [34]. In addition, the role of mosquito microbiota in insecticide resistance has begun to be studied. Recently, we analyzed the midgut microbiota from adult female Ae. aegypti collected in different Colombian locations to test for any correlations between insecticide resistance and specific microbial symbionts. Although the bacterial core was the same for all regions, interestingly, we detected differences in bacterial populations that might contribute to the insecticide-resistant phenotype [10]. According to our results, some species of bacteria such as Klebsiella sp and Pseudomonas oleovorans presented the ability to degrade lambda-cyhalothrin insecticide [39]. Similarly, the genus Rhizobium was related to the degradation of the malathion insecticide [40]. Moreover, pyrethroids degradation based on bacteria such as Acinetobacter, Bacillus, Ochrobactrum, Pseudomonas, Serratia, Sphingomonas, and Klebsiella has been recently reported [41].

Since the insensitivity of Ae. aegypti to pyrethroids is also associated with higher activity and expression of detoxifying enzymes; we also evaluated some of these enzymes in the Acacías populations with or without insecticide selection pressure. We found that esterases and mixed-function oxidases were related to pyrethroid resistance, as was previously reported in Colombian populations from Guadalupe (Huila department), Tumaco (Nariño department), Valledupar (Cesar department), Montería (Córdoba department), Juan de Acosta (Atlántico department), Medellín (Antioquia department) and Yumbo (Valle del Cauca department) [19,42]. Furthermore, mosquito populations around the world are showing similar behaviors [6,29,4345]. In addition, we found that Glutathione S-Transferase activity is increased in the population exposed to the insecticide, supporting its suggested role in resistance. Recently, Aponte et al. (2020) reported that metabolic resistance and kdr mutations were also present in pyrethroid resistant mosquitoes, but they found enhanced GST expression [19].

On the other hand, although acetylcholinesterase (AChE) altered activity is not associated with pyrethroids resistance, we found that our selected population, through exposure to insecticide, presented altered levels of this enzyme. This result has also been observed in bees, where exposure to deltamethrin increased AChE activity, suggesting that AChE activity could function as a biomarker of insecticide exposure [46]. The alteration of enzyme activity could result from mutations in other genes from permanent exposure to insecticides. These questions merit further study using other tools such as genome and RNA-seq analyses.

Finally, we hypothesized that the underlying mechanism of insecticide resistance is multifactorial, involving genetic, biochemical, and possibly epigenetic aspects. Future studies involving analyses of transcriptomes, genomes, microbiomes, and epigenomes from field resistant and susceptible Ae. aegypti are needed to understand this phenotype fully.

In conclusion, our results indicate that the continuous exposure of Ae. aegypti to insecticides could favor the fixation of some kdr alleles and the emergence of some genotypes involved in insecticide resistance, as was observed in the Acacías mosquito populations. In addition, the results observed in the Villavicencio population demonstrate that in just four years, the kdr allele frequency was altered, and the mosquitoes became more resistant to insecticides. The fixation of the 1534C allele and its connection with resistance to permethrin suggest that this insecticide should be monitored continuously. These Colombian mosquito populations offer the potential to study variations in insecticide resistance and shed light on the origins, evolution, mechanisms, and management of insecticide resistance. These data indicate that health authorities undertake permanent molecular surveillance programs to identify these mutations and carry out frequent bioassays in mosquitoes from the field to select which insecticides should be used to control and prevent mosquito-borne diseases. Finally, further studies are necessary to monitor the changes in allelic frequencies of these mutations, identify other mechanisms involved in insecticide resistance, and improve disease control and prevention programs.

4. Materials and methods

Ethics statement

Ethical approval (Act No 113 of 2017) for analyzing animal species was obtained from the Antioquia University’s animal ethics committee. Moreover, the University of Antioquia has a permit from the national environmental authority to collect biological specimens for research purposes (0524 -27-05-2014).

4.1. Study area

This study was conducted during 2016–2019 in ten Colombian municipalities from seven departments. We focused on cities that had experienced increased dengue transmission or outbreaks in the last few years. We chose 20 randomized houses from four to six neighborhoods in each municipality following the recommendations previously published [47]. (Table 2 and Fig 1).

Table 2. Eco-epidemiological information for Aedes aegypti populations collected from seven provinces.

Province City Altitude Annual Biotemperature average Annual rainfall Year of collection Number of dengue cases during collection by province GPS coordinates
Antioquia Bello (1) 1310 m.a.s.l 26.7°C 1347 mm 2016 1739 6°19′55″ N 75°33′29″ O
Itagüí (2) 1550 m.a.s.l. 21.1°C 1760 mm 2018 3956 6°11’4.6” N 75°35’56.9” O
Boyacá Moniquirá (3) 1669 m.a.s.l. 19.6°C 2201 mm 2017 378 5°52’35” N 73°34’22.2” O
Puerto Boyacá (4) 130 m.a.s.l. 27.7°C 2369 mm 2019 944 5°58’32.4” N 74°35’32.1” O
Cundinamarca Puerto Bogotá (5) 240 m.a.s.l. 27.5°C 1598 mm 2016 4546 5°12’22.8” N 74°43’51.5” O
Huila Neiva (6) 442 m.a.s.l. 27.1°C 1216 mm 2016 4163 2°55’38.3” N 75°16’54.8” O
Meta Villavicencio (7) 467 m.a.s.l. 25.5°C 3856 mm 2016 2607 4°8’31.2” N 73°37’35.9” O
Acacías (8) 498 m.a.s.l. 25.0°C 3247 mm 2016 2607 3°59’13” N 73°45’28.7” O
Norte de Santander Cúcuta (9) 320 m.a.s.l. 26.6°C 622 mm 2017–2018 1240–4874 7°53’38.1” N 72°30’28.2” O
Tolima Honda (10) 226 m.a.s.l. 27.5°C 1608 mm 2016 5853 5°12’30.8” N 74°44’9” O
m.a.s.l.: meters above sea level

4.2. Ae. aegypti collections

Aedes spp. larvae, pupae, adults, and eggs were collected in collaboration with staff involved in vector-borne diseases programs for each city. The immature stages were reared to adults (F0 generation) and maintained under controlled conditions of temperature (28°C ± 1°C), relative humidity (80% ± 5%), and photoperiod (12 h light: 12 dark). After adult identification, mosquitoes were separated by species and Ae. aegypti specimens were kept for breeding following standardized techniques [48]. F1 larvae were used for the bioassays described below with the lambda-cyhalothrin insecticide, and larvae up to F6 were utilized with the permethrin insecticide. The insecticide susceptible Rockefeller strain was used as a control in all the experiments.

4.3. Bioassays

Larval bioassays were carried out according to WHO guidelines [49] using technical grade permethrin (96.1% active ingredient [a.i.]) and lambda-cyhalothrin (99.8% a.i.), purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (USA). Although pyrethroids are not used for larval treatment, we tested them against Ae. aegypti larvae to obtain information on the larval resistance status that may reflect the adult resistance status since pyrethroids’ target is a constitutive gene. Bioassays were performed on late third- and early fourth-instar larvae of each population in containers with 99 ml of distilled water and one ml of the insecticide tested at the desired concentration. Three replicates per concentration (20 larvae per replicate) and six concentrations in the activity range of each insecticide were used to determine the lethal concentrations (LC50 and LC90), and confidence intervals were calculated for every mosquito population included in the three biologically independent replicates [20,50]. We used lambda-cyhalothrin concentrations ranging from 0.0009 to 0.06 and permethrin concentrations from 0.0007 until 0.096. The susceptible Rockefeller laboratory Ae. aegypti strain was used as a reference population. Control treatments consisted of 1% ethanol, and larval mortality was recorded after an exposure of 24 hours. For each bioassay, temperature, relative humidity, and photoperiod were maintained as described above.

4.4. Changes in allelic frequencies in mosquitoes with or without insecticide pressure

Since the Acacías population showed the highest resistance to lambda-cyhalothrin, it was selected to assess allele frequency changes with or without the insecticide selection pressure. For the first experiment, late third- and early fourth-instar larvae from the F1 generation were exposed to the LC50 (0.015ppm), and the surviving larvae were reared to adults. Larvae of the next generation (F2) underwent the same experimental procedures. Subsequently, the same experiment was performed in larvae from F3- F6 generations, but these were exposed LC90 (0.05) until the F7 generation was reached. Next, the RR to lambda-cyhalothrin and permethrin was determined using the larval bioassays described above. For the second experiment, mosquitoes from the F1 generation of the Acacías population were maintained without selection pressure with the insecticide until generation F7 was obtained, when the larval bioassay was performed. The resistance level and kdr mutations were quantified in all cases.

4.5. Kdr mutations genotyping

Allele-specific PCR (AS-PCR) was used to identify the V410L, V1016I, and F1534C kdr mutations because they were found previously in insecticide-resistant mosquitoes from Colombia [18,20]. Genomic DNA from individual mosquitoes was extracted using the protocol described by Collins et al. [51]. A minimum of 30 adult mosquitoes from each population was analyzed. Likewise, mosquitoes from the Acacías population with and without insecticide selection pressure were processed for genotyping using AS-PCR as described previously [18]. The susceptible Ae. aegypti Rockefeller strain was used as a reference to the wild-type alleles (V1016, V410, and F1534) of the voltage-gated sodium channel gene.

4.6. Biochemical assays

To determine if the observed insecticide resistance was also due to metabolic resistance, the activity levels of enzymes associated with resistance were measured. Enzymatic activity assays were conducted on Acacías Ae. aegypti populations described above with or without the insecticide lambda-cyhalothrin pressure. Biochemical assays were performed following the guidelines reported previously with slight modifications [52]. Briefly, two to three-day-old females (40 in total) were homogenized individually in 300 μL of deionized water on ice. The adult mosquitoes were assayed for acetylcholinesterase (AChE), mixed-function oxidases (MFO), α- esterases (α-EST), β- esterases (β-EST), and glutathione-S-transferases (GST) activities. For this process, 25 μL of the homogenate was pipetted for the AChE assay and 20 μL for the MFO assay. Subsequently, samples were centrifuged at 14,000 rpm for 60 seconds at 4°C; the supernatant was aliquoted and transferred to 96-well microplates for all other enzyme assays. Absorbances were measured using an ELISA Multiskan Spectrum from Thermo Fisher Scientific, using the wavelengths reported previously for each enzyme [6]. Five individuals from the susceptible Rockefeller strain were included in every experiment as controls.

Finally, since the body masses between mosquitoes are different, all analyses of enzyme activities were corrected using the total protein concentration as a standard correction factor. The commercial protein assay kit (Pierce BCA Protein Assay Kit, Thermo Scientific, Rockford, IL) was used with 10 μL of mosquito homogenate following manufacture recommendations.

4.7. Data analysis

4.7.1 Bioassays

For each population and each insecticide, the dose and mortality ratios were adjusted using a regression (p< 0.05). Results were analyzed using the log-probit analysis to estimate the regression line’s slope and determine the 50% and 90% lethal concentrations (LC50 and LC90, respectively) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The resistance ratios (RR50 and RR90) were obtained by comparing the LC50 or the LC90 of the field populations and Rockefeller strain. Field populations were considered moderately resistant to a given insecticide when their Resistance Ratios (RR) were between 5 and 10 and very resistant when the RR values were over 10 [49].

4.7.2. Allelic and genotypic frequencies of kdr mutations

GENEPOP v.4.6 (Laboratoire de Genetique et Environment, Montpellier, France, http://genepop.curtin.edu.au/) was used to calculate allelic and genotypic frequencies, and the data were tested for conformity to the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium [53]. The Chi-square test was used to determine whether the populations were in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. If the calculated value of χ2 was < tabulated χ2 (1 gl) = 3.84 and p> 0.05, the H0 was accepted, meaning that the study population was in HW equilibrium; otherwise, the Ha was accepted. Moreover, the endogamy coefficient, FIS, was calculated following the method previously reported by Pareja-Loaiza et al. 2020 [20]. Finally, the number of mosquitoes with every haplotype for the three kdr mutations was calculated for every population.

4.7.3. Association of kdr alleles with pyrethroid resistance and between alleles

The association between kdr allele frequencies or genotypes and pyrethroid susceptibility profiles was tested using a Spearman correlation test (p <0.05). Additionally, the relationship between two different alleles was evaluated using a simple linear regression and either a Pearson or Spearman correlation test (p <0.05) according to the normality of the data. Finally, a Bonferroni test correction was performed for multiple comparisons. Both analyses were performed in the GraphPad Prism program (version 5.1 for Windows, GraphPad Software, La Jolla California USA, www.graphpad.com) and SPSS for the Bonferroni correction.

4.7.4. Biochemical assays

The biochemical assay was analyzed using Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests to check the normality of the enzymatic activities. Differences in enzymatic activities between each field population and the Rockefeller strain were compared using the Mann-Whitney non-parametric test. The comparison between groups was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test in the GraphPad Prism program (version 5.1 for Windows, GraphPad Software, La Jolla California USA, www.graphpad.com).

Supporting information

S1 Table. Genotypic and allelic frequencies of the V410L, V1016I, and F1534C kdr alleles in Colombian mosquito populations.

The HW equilibrium and the coefficient of endogamy (FIS) are shown.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Genotypes observed in Colombian Aedes aegypti populations and the association between genotypes frequencies and pyrethroid susceptibility profiles using the Spearman correlation test.

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Mean of enzyme activities for Acetylcholinesterase (AChE), glutathione-S-transferases (GST), β-esterases (β-EST), Mixed function oxidases (MFO), and α-esterases (α-EST), detected in Aedes aegypti from Acacías with and without insecticide pressure.

P-values were calculated using the Kruskal-Wallis test for multiple comparisons.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors want to thank Prof. Carl Lowenberger from Simon Fraser University and Jenny Peterson from Portland State University for the English edition.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

OTC was funded by CODI - Universidad de Antioquia, UdeA, Grant CPT-2005 and British Council Institutional Links Newton Fund. YG has a fellowship from Gobernación del Tolima and Universidad del Tolima (Project BPIN 2013000100103). The Funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.WHO. Dengue and severe dengue [Internet]. [cited 2019 Nov 21]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/dengue-and-severe-dengue
  • 2.Rinkevich FD, Du Y, Dong K. Diversity and convergence of sodium channel mutations involved in resistance to pyrethroids. Pestic Biochem Physiol. 2013;106(3):93–100. doi: 10.1016/j.pestbp.2013.02.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Amelia-Yap ZH, Chen CD, Sofian-Azirun M, Low VL. Pyrethroid resistance in the dengue vector Aedes aegypti in Southeast Asia: Present situation and prospects for management. Parasites and Vectors. 2018;11(1):1–17. doi: 10.1186/s13071-017-2573-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Varon LS, Cordoba BC, Brochero HL. Susceptibility of Aedes aegypti to DDT, deltamethrin, and lambdacyhalothrin in Colombia. [Spanish]. Rev Panam Salud Publica/Pan Am J Public Heal [Internet]. 2010;27 (1):66–73. Available from: http://www.scielosp.org/pdf/rpsp/v27n1/10.pdf http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed9&AN=20209234 http://eleanor.lib.gla.ac.uk:4550/resserv?sid=OVID:embase&id=pmid:20209234&id=doi:&issn=1020-4989&isbn=&volume=27&issue=1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ishak IH, Jaal Z, Ranson H, Wondji CS. Contrasting patterns of insecticide resistance and knockdown resistance (kdr) in the dengue vectors Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus from Malaysia. Parasit Vectors. 2015; doi: 10.1186/s13071-015-0797-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Pinto J, Palomino M, Mendoza-Uribe L, Sinti C, Liebman KA, Lenhart A. Susceptibility to insecticides and resistance mechanisms in three populations of Aedes aegypti from Peru. Parasites and Vectors [Internet]. 2019;12(1):1–11. Available from: doi: 10.1186/s13071-018-3256-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Aponte HA, Penilla RP, Dzul-Manzanilla F, Che-Mendoza A, López AD, Solis F, et al. The pyrethroid resistance status and mechanisms in Aedes aegypti from the Guerrero state, Mexico. Pestic Biochem Physiol. 2013;107(2):226–34. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gao Y, Kim K, Kwon DH, Jeong IH, Clark JM, Lee SH. Transcriptome-based identification and characterization of genes commonly responding to five different insecticides in the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella. Pestic Biochem Physiol. 2018;144(September 2017):1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.pestbp.2017.11.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Sun X, Guo J, Ye W, Guo Q, Huang Y, Ma L, et al. Cuticle genes CpCPR63 and CpCPR47 may confer resistance to deltamethrin in Culex pipiens pallens. Parasitol Res. 2017;116(8):2175–9. doi: 10.1007/s00436-017-5521-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Arévalo-Cortés A, Mejia-Jaramillo AM, Granada Y, Coatsworth H, Lowenberger C, Triana-Chavez O. The Midgut Microbiota of Colombian Aedes aegypti Populations with Different Levels of Resistance to the Insecticide Lambda-cyhalothrin. Insects [Internet]. 2020. Sep 1 [cited 2020 Sep 11];11(9):584. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4450/11/9/584 doi: 10.3390/insects11090584 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Gracy G, Venkatesan T, Samaddar S. The gut bacterial diversity of insecticide-susceptible and -resistant nymphs of the brown planthopper, Nilaparvata lugens Stål (Hemiptera: Delphacidae) and the elucidation of their. 2018;28(April):976–86. doi: 10.4014/jmb.1711.11039 [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. May;109(22):8618–22. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1200231109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Plernsub S, Saingamsook J, Yanola J, Lumjuan N, Tippawangkosol P, Sukontason K, et al. Additive effect of knockdown resistance mutations, S989P, V1016G and F1534C, in a heterozygous genotype conferring pyrethroid resistance in Aedes aegypti in Thailand. Parasit Vectors [Internet]. 2016;9(1):417. Available from: http://parasitesandvectors.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13071-016-1713-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Maestre-Serrano R, Gomez-Camargo D, Ponce-Garcia G, Flores AE. Susceptibility to insecticides and resistance mechanisms in Aedes aegypti from the Colombian Caribbean Region. Pestic Biochem Physiol [Internet]. 2014;116:63–73. Available from: doi: 10.1016/j.pestbp.2014.09.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Dusfour I, Vontas J, David JP, Weetman D, Fonseca DM, Corbel V, et al. Management of insecticide resistance in the major Aedes vectors of arboviruses: Advances and challenges. PLoS Negl Trop Dis [Internet]. 2019;13(10):1–22. Available from: doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007615 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ngoagouni C, Kamgang B, Brengues C, Yahouedo G, Paupy C, Nakouné E, et al. Susceptibility profile and metabolic mechanisms involved in Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus resistant to DDT and deltamethrin in the Central African Republic. Parasit Vectors. 2016. Nov;(1):599. doi: 10.1186/s13071-016-1887-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Labbé P, David JP, Alout H, Milesi P, Djogbénou L, Pasteur N, et al. Evolution of Resistance to Insecticide in Disease Vectors. In: Genetics and Evolution of Infectious Diseases: Second Edition. 2017.
  • 18.Granada Y, Mejía-Jaramillo AMAM, Strode C, Triana-Chavez O. A Point Mutation V419L in the Sodium Channel Gene from Natural Populations of Aedes aegypti Is Involved in Resistance to lambda-Cyhalothrin in Colombia. Insects. 2018;9(1). doi: 10.3390/insects9010023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Aponte A, Penilla RP, Rodríguez AD, Ocampo CB. Mechanisms of pyrethroid resistance in Aedes (Stegomyia) aegypti from Colombia. Acta Trop. 2019. Mar 1;191:146–54. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2018.12.021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Pareja-Loaiza PX, Varon LS, Vega GR, Gómez-Camargo D, Maestre-Serrano R, Lenhart A. Mechanisms associated with pyrethroid resistance in populations of aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) from the Caribbean Coast of Colombia. PLoS One. 2020;15(10 October):1–29. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228695 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Liebman KA, Billeter SA, Yoshimizu MH, Yang F, Metzger ME, Schildhauer S, et al. Identification of Molecular Determinants of Resistance to Pyrethroid Insecticides in Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) Populations in California, USA. J Med Entomol. 2019;56(5):1353–8. doi: 10.1093/jme/tjz076 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Stenhouse SA, Plernsub S, Yanola J, Lumjuan N, Dantrakool A, Choochote W, et al. Detection of the V1016G mutation in the voltage-gated sodium channel gene of Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) by allele-specific PCR assay, and its distribution and effect on deltamethrin resistance in Thailand. Parasites and Vectors [Internet]. 2013. [cited 2020 Sep 9];6(1). Available from: https://aplicacionesbiblioteca.udea.edu.co:2598/24059267/ [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kawada H, Oo SZM, Thaung S, Kawashima E, Maung YNM, Thu HM, et al. Co-occurrence of Point Mutations in the Voltage-Gated Sodium Channel of Pyrethroid-Resistant Aedes aegypti Populations in Myanmar. PLoS Negl Trop Dis [Internet]. 2014. [cited 2020 Sep 9];8(7). Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC4117438/?report=abstract [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Du Y, Nomura Y, Zhorov BS, Dong K. Sodium Channel Mutations and Pyrethroid Resistance in Aedes aegypti. Insects. 2016. Oct;7(4). doi: 10.3390/insects7040060 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Leong CS, Vythilingam I, Liew JWK, Wong ML, Wan-Yusoff WS, Lau YL. Enzymatic and molecular characterization of insecticide resistance mechanisms in field populations of Aedes aegypti from Selangor, Malaysia. Parasites and Vectors [Internet]. 2019;12(1):1–17. Available from: doi: 10.1186/s13071-018-3256-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Kandel Y, Vulcan J, Rodriguez SD, Moore E, Chung HN, Mitra S, et al. Widespread insecticide resistance in Aedes aegypti L. From New Mexico, U.S.A. PLoS One. 2019;14(2):1–16. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0212693 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Sayono S, Hidayati APN, Fahri S, Sumanto D, Dharmana E, Hadisaputro S, et al. Distribution of Voltage-Gated Sodium Channel (Nav) Alleles among the Aedes aegypti Populations In Central Java Province and Its Association with Resistance to Pyrethroid Insecticides. PLoS One [Internet]. 2016;11(3):e0150577. Available from: http://apps.webofknowledge.com.kuleuven.ezproxy.kuleuven.be/full_record.do?product=UA&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=3&SID=Y1FWC79DnkBxY9HMuy2&page=1&doc=3 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150577 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Maestre R, Rey G, De Las Salas J, Vergara C, Santacoloma L, Goenaga S, et al. Insecticide resistance and genetic variability in natural populations of Aedes (Stegomyia) aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) from Colombia. Biomédica [Internet]. 2016. [cited 2019 May 8];11(4):273–90. Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=48842014&lang=es&site=ehost-live [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Alvarez LC, Ponce G, Saavedra-Rodriguez K, Lopez B, Flores AE. Frequency of V1016I and F1534C mutations in the voltage-gated sodium channel gene in Aedes aegypti in Venezuela. Pest Manag Sci. 2015;71(6):863–9. doi: 10.1002/ps.3846 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Li C-XX, Kaufman PE, Xue R-DD, Zhao M-HH, Wang G, Yan T, et al. Relationship between insecticide resistance and kdr mutations in the dengue vector Aedes aegypti in Southern China. Parasit Vectors [Internet]. 2015;8(1):325. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26068925 doi: 10.1186/s13071-015-0933-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Fan Y, Scott JG. The F1534C voltage-sensitive sodium channel mutation confers 7- to 16-fold resistance to pyrethroid insecticides in Aedes aegypti. Pest Manag Sci. 2020;76(6):2251–9. doi: 10.1002/ps.5763 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Fonseca-González I, Quiñones ML, Lenhart A, Brogdon WG, Fonseca-González I, Quiñones ML, et al. Insecticide resistance status of Aedes aegypti (L.) from Colombia. Pest Manag Sci. 2011;67(4):430–7. doi: 10.1002/ps.2081 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Ocampo CB, Salazar-Terreros MJ, Mina NJ, McAllister J, Brogdon W. Insecticide resistance status of Aedes aegypti in 10 localities in Colombia. Acta Trop. 2011;118(1):37–44. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2011.01.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Samb B, Konate L, Irving H, Riveron JM, Dia I, Faye O, et al. Investigating molecular basis of lambda-cyhalothrin resistance in an Anopheles funestus population from Senegal. Parasit Vectors. 2016. Aug;9(1):449. doi: 10.1186/s13071-016-1735-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Vera-Maloof FZ, Saavedra-Rodriguez K, Elizondo-Quiroga AE, Lozano-Fuentes S, Black IV WC. Coevolution of the Ile1,016 and Cys1,534 Mutations in the Voltage Gated Sodium Channel Gene of Aedes aegypti in Mexico. PLoS Negl Trop Dis [Internet]. 2015. Dec 11 [cited 2020 Sep 11];9(12). Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC4684211/?report=abstract doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004263 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Freeman JC, San Miguel K, Scott JG. All resistance alleles are not equal: the high fitness cost of super-kdr in the absence of insecticide. Pest Manag Sci. 2021;77(8):3693–7. doi: 10.1002/ps.6115 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Scott JG. Evolution of resistance to pyrethroid insecticides in Musca domestica. Pest Manag Sci. 2017;73(4):716–22. doi: 10.1002/ps.4328 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Marcombe S, Fustec B, Cattel J, Chonephetsarath S, Thammavong P, Phommavanh N, et al. Distribution of insecticide resistance and mechanisms involved in the arbovirus vector Aedes aegypti in Laos and implication for vector control. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019;13(12):e0007852. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007852 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Sharma A, Bhatt P, Khati P GS. Microbial degradation of pesticides for environmental cleanup. In: Ram Naresh Bharagava Gaurav Saxenaeditor. Bioremediation of Industrial pollutants. New Delhi: Write & Print Publications; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Kanade S, Shaikh S, Ade A K V. DEGRADATION OF MALATHION BY RHIZOBIUM ISOLATED FROM FENUGREEK (TRIGONELLA FOENUM GRAECUM). J Biotechnol Bioinforma. 2010;(January). [Google Scholar]
  • 41.H Z, Y H, Z L, P B, S C. New insights into the microbial degradation and catalytic mechanism of synthetic pyrethroids. Environ Res [Internet]. 2020. Mar 1 [cited 2021 Nov 5];182. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32069744/ doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2020.109138 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Maestre S R, Rey V G, De Las Salas A J, Vergara S C, Santacoloma V, Liliana Goenaga O S, Carrasquilla F MC. Susceptibility status of Aedes aegypti to insecticides in Atlántico (Colombia). Rev Colomb Entomol [Internet]. 2010;36(2):242–8. Available from: http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0120-04882010000200012&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=es [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Ferraz Lopes TB, Amaro TR, Silva BP, Cyrino Zequi JA, Vilas-Bôas GT, Navarro da Silva MA, et al. Genetic study in Aedes (Stegomyia) aegypti (Linnaeus, 1762) from Londrina (Paraná State, Brazil): An approach to population structure and pyrethroid resistance. Rev Bras Entomol. 2021;65(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Moyes CL, Vontas J, Martins AJ, Ng LC, Koou SY, Dusfour I, et al. Contemporary status of insecticide resistance in the major Aedes vectors of arboviruses infecting humans. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11(7):1–20. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005625 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Vera-Maloof FZ, Saavedra-Rodriguez K, Penilla-Navarro RP, Rodriguez-Ramirez AD, Dzul F, Manrique-Saide P, et al. Loss of pyrethroid resistance in newly established laboratory colonies of aedes aegypti. Pestic Biochem Physiol [Internet]. 2020. [cited 2020 Sep 9];133(3):1–20. Available from: https://aplicacionesbiblioteca.udea.edu.co:2598/24059267/ doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007753 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Badiou A, Belzunces LP. Is acetylcholinesterase a pertinent biomarker to detect exposure of pyrethroids? A study case with deltamethrin. Chem Biol Interact. 2008;175(1–3). doi: 10.1016/j.cbi.2008.06.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Jaimes-Dueñez J, Triana-Chávez O, Mejía-Jaramillo AM. Spatial-temporal and phylogeographic characterization of Trypanosoma spp. in cattle (Bos taurus) and buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis) reveals transmission dynamics of these parasites in Colombia. Vet Parasitol. 2018;249. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Gerberg E, Barnard D WR. Manual for mosquito rearing and experimental techniques. American Mosquito Control Association; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.World Health Organization (WHO). Monitoring and Managing Insecticide Resistance in Aedes mosquito Populations. Who [Internet]. 2016;16(10665):7. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/204588 [Google Scholar]
  • 50.K H, HVV T, Y D, WR V, Y N, GF M, et al. Detection of a new pyrethroid resistance mutation (V410L) in the sodium channel of Aedes aegypti: a potential challenge for mosquito control. Sci Rep [Internet]. 2017. Apr 19 [cited 2021 Nov 5];7. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28422157/ doi: 10.1038/srep46549 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Collins FH, Mendez MA, Rasmussen MO, Mehaffey PC, Besansky NJ, Finnerty V. A ribosomal RNA gene probe differentiates member species of the Anopheles gambiae complex. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1987;37(1). doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.1987.37.37 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Valle D, Montella IR, Ribeiro RA, Viana Medeiros PF, Martins Junior A de J, Pereira Lima JB. Metodologia para Quantificação de Atividade de Enzimas Relacionadas com a Resistência a Inseticidas em Aedes aegypti. Ministerio da Saúde, Fundacao Oswaldo Cruz. 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Raymond M, Rousset F. GENEPOP (Version 1.2): Population Genetics Software for Exact Tests and Ecumenicism. J Hered. 1995;86(3). [Google Scholar]
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010001.r001

Decision Letter 0

Jeffrey H Withey, Tereza Magalhaes

12 Oct 2021

Dear Dr Triana-Chávez,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Molecular Surveillance of Resistance to Pyrethroids Insecticides in Colombian Aedes aegypti Populations" 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.

All reviewers agreed that this study is important and of good quality. Please respond to the suggestions for improvement point by point when a revised version is submitted.

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,

Jeffrey H Withey

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Tereza Magalhaes

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

Your manuscript has been reviewed by three experts in the field and all agree that this study is important and of good quality. Please respond to the suggestions for improvement point by point when a revised version is submitted.

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: 1. Are the objetives of the study claerly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

The objectives of the study are articulated with the hypothesis of the study, however, it is suggested to expand them taking into account the results. Include the above at the end of the introduction section.

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

The design of the study is perfectly in line with the results obtained, however, it is suggested to expand the objectives of the study (lines 78 to 85) taking into account the design and the results obtained.

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

The study population is clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis raised.

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

The size of the sample used for the development of each of the bioassays is adequate, as well as each of the statistical tests used.

5. Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

The statistical analysis is correct to support the results and the conclusions obtained.

6.Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requiremenst being met?

In the Materials and Methods section, numeral 4.8, the ethical requirements are clarified "Statement of Ethics Ethical approval was obtained (Law No. 113 of 2017) for the analysis of animal species from the animal ethics committee of the University of Antioquia"

-Please, in the Materials and Methods section, provide information about the permits you obtained for the development of the work. Include the full name of the authority that approved access to the field site. If permits are not required, explain why briefly.

-Was the selection of the study site justified based on previous results of resistance monitoring at the national level? This should be mentioned somewhere in the manuscript.

-Please make sure to use proper abbreviation for species name throughout the manuscript (e.g. Aedes aegypti being Ae. aegypti instead of A. aegypti).

-In the Materials and Methods section 4.2 lines 409 and 410 please include the name of the protocol or the appointment in which the technique is evidenced.

-In the Materials and Methods section 4.3, document through other studies the idea consigned in lines 417 to 419.

-In the Materials and Methods section 4.3, include the six concentrations evaluated lines 422,423.

-In the Materials and Methods section section 4.4, the insecticide permethrin was also used with the Acacias population for showing a high degree of resistance as indicated in lines 431, 432 and 433 for lambda-cyhalothrin? Please clarify.

Reviewer #2: Lines 487-489: “If the calculated value of chi-squared was < tabulated chi-squared (1 gl) = 3.84 and p< 0.05, the H0 was accepted, meaning that the study population was in HW equilibrium; otherwise, the Ha was accepted.” The inequality sign for the p-value is flipped in the text, and should be edited to “p> 0.05” for the statement to be correct.

Lines 206-209 and Supplementary Table S2: Given the large number of Spearman correlation analyses performed (14 triple genotypes vs each insecticide, 28 analyses total), the p-values should be corrected for multiple comparisons. For instance, the sole correlation between triple genotype and permethrin resistance (VV410/VV1016/CC1534) may no longer meet the threshold for significance after multiple comparison adjustment. In contrast, the identified significant correlations for lambda-cyhalothrin look more robust (with the possible exception of VV410/VI1016/FC1534).

Reviewer #3: The study objectives were clear, appropriately designed with a clearly defined population and sufficient sample to test the stated objectives. The statistical analyses were appropriate and in line with field standards. There do not appear to be concerns on ethical or regulatory grounds.

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

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: 1. Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

The analysis presented is in accordance with the one proposed in the Materials and Methods section, numeral 4.7

2. Are the results clearly and completely presented?

The results were presented clearly and completely.

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

Figure 1 is not seen defined, please consider improving resolution since the number inside the semicircle is not clearly displayed. Consider deleting the image in the upper left of the figure and placing the map of South America on the left.

Figures 4 and 6 are not defined, please consider improving resolution.

Supplementary Table 1 Specify in the Table’s footnotes what ND means in the FIS column

In figure 3 Include the N used to determine the allele frequencies of the populations of Bello and Villavicencio during 2012 to 2016, lines 151 to 153

- In the Results section, numeral 2.1 on lines 93 and 94 please consider clarifying that the data correspond to permethrin. Additionally, consider including the itagui data with RR50 of 18.43, lines 93 and 94.

- In the Results section, numeral 2.2, please clarify if the results mentioned in lines 137 to 147 obtained in the study carried out in Bello and Villavicencio during the years 2012 to 2016 all correspond to the same study "A Point Mutation V419L in the Sodium Channel Gene from Natural Populations of Aedes aegypti Is Involved in Resistance to lambda-Cyhalothrin in Colombia. Insects. 2018; 9 (1), if so, place the quote (18) at the end of the paragraph.

- It is important to clarify in the Discussion section why the V410L mutation was named as V419L in the article “A Point Mutation V419L in the Sodium Channel Gene from Natural Populations of Aedes aegypti Is Involved in Resistance to lambda-Cyhalothrin in Colombia”.

- In the Discussion section, expand Bello's situation regarding the use of insecticides three years ago and currently, lines 324 to 329. Additionally, include data that support the idea that in 2012 the population of Villavicencio was on HW equilibrium, lines 330 to 332.

- In the Discussion section Include more studies in which the microbiota of the A. aegypti midgut is correlated with resistance to insecticides, lines 344 to 349

Reviewer #2: Lines 121-122 and Supplementary Table S1: For F1534C, Itagui does not meet the criteria to reject the null hypothesis. The chi-squared value is < 3.84 and p = 0.050 (but is not less than 0.05). Instead, the authors can revise the text to state that the value for Itagui “approached significance”.

Lines 121-122: The authors should not comment on Puerto Boyaca or Cucuta Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) because HWE analysis does not apply for alleles that have achieved fixation. The authors can revise the text to simply state that for those two locations, the L allele achieved fixation (and not mention anything about HWE).

Lines 123-130: The authors should only comment on inbreeding coefficients for populations that are in HW disequilibrium, because these are the only populations where the genotype frequencies are significantly different from what we would expect at HWE. For populations that have achieved HWE, to state that there is a heterozygote “deficiency” or “excess” is not meaningful. HWE (acceptance of the null hypothesis) implies that the genotype frequency is not significantly different from the equilibrium state, so even if there is a higher or lower number of heterozygotes than expected, the difference is not significant.

Figure 6: Please add the p-value of each correlation to the figure, for ease of reading.

Reviewer #3: The analyses described matched the proposed analyses and the results were presented quite well in a variety of graphs and tables with sufficient clarity to appreciate their findings.

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

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: 1. Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

The conclusions are clearly supported by the data presented.

2. Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

Please include in the manuscript at the end of the Discussion section the strength and limitations of the study

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

Include in the manuscript in the Discussion section how the variations in the Kdr frequencies affect the control methods currently used in the study site.

4. Is public health relevance addressed?

Please include in the manuscript at the end of the Discussion section the relevance of this type of studies for public health.

Reviewer #2: Lines 272-275 and Supplementary Table S1: In reference to 1534C, “Interestingly, we also found two mosquito populations where this allele was fixed (one-hundred percent of mosquitoes were homozygotes) and two others where the allele frequency was close to fixation with values above 95%.” Reviewing the table, I see only one population (Neiva) where the allele frequency is 0.95 or higher but has not achieved fixation, the other populations are at 0.94 and below. Please correct this text in the manuscript.

Lines 284-287: The authors propose that after the emergence of the 1534C mutation, that 410L emerged next, followed by 1016I, however it is not clear why the authors’ data supports the emergence of 410L then 1016I, in that temporal order. While I agree 1534C is most likely the first mutation, it is plausible that 1016I could emerge first, followed by 410L. Alternatively, 410L and 1016I could co-evolve in the same population contemporaneously. Please revise this section to explicitly demonstrate how your data support a specific temporal order of mutation emergence, or state that multiple models for the order of mutation emergence are consistent with your results.

Lines 290-292: The finding that the authors never observed solo mutations in either 410L or 1016I is one of the most notable results of the study, while “1534C was found in all localities studied.” In the Discussion, please expand on your interpretation of why this pattern of mutations emerged. Do you feel that 1534C was most prevalent simply because of prior DDT exposure and cross-resistance (lines 283-284)? Or is there an epistatic interaction between 1534C and the other two mutated loci? For example, does the presence of 1534C somehow (a) increase the probability of the 410L or 1016I mutations occurring, or (b) convey a fitness advantage that allows these mutations to persist, whereas in isolation the fitness cost of 410L or 1016I is too high to maintain these mutants in the population? The Discussion would be strengthened by hearing the authors’ thoughts on these possible mechanisms.

Reviewer #3: The conclusions were supported by the data and the limitations were noted. The authors described the public health relevance of their findings and how they were advance the field.

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

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Accept with minor revisions. I have only a few specific edits/critiques:

-The logical flow of the paper might be enhanced by presenting the 'Material and Methods' section of the paper ahead of the 'Results' section, as understanding of the results necessitated being familiar with what was accomplished first.

-For Line 270, I would alter the word 'new' to read 'additional' or something along those lines, as the sentence last sentence in the paragraph seems to contradict the first sentence in the paragraph.

-For Line 410, please describe or include a reference for the 'standardized techniques' of breeding that are alluded to.

-For Table 1, please include a footnote for what 'm.a.s.l.' stands for.

-Please correct 'mosquitos' to the correct English plural 'mosquitoes' throughout the paper (e.g. Lines 8, 129, 257, 430).

-Please correct 'CL50' or 'CL 90' to 'LC50' or 'LC90', (e.g. Lines 160, 434, 437).

-Please correct 'correlation test of Spearman' to the active voice 'Spearman correlation test' (e.g. 213, 495, 497, Supplementary Table S2).

Additional minor edits are included in the attached document.

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

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: The present study is of great importance since it expands the knowledge of the susceptibility status of A. aegypti to pyrethroid-type insecticides used for control in Colombia, as well as the knowledge of the different resistance mechanisms and their modes of action

Reviewer #2: This manuscript by Garzon et al. describes a field survey of pyrethroid resistance in Aedes aegypti populations from ten different geographic locations in Columbia that have a high incidence of dengue. The authors expand on their field data using genotypic and biochemical assays to explore potential mechanisms for the resistance phenotypes they observe.

My critiques and suggestions are limited to minor corrections, modifications, or clarifications. Overall, this is a strong manuscript, due to the scope of the project, the use of a range of complementary experimental methods (phenotypic bioassays, allele-specific PCR, and enzymatic activity assays), and several notable discoveries, including (1) the high prevalence and geographic variability of pyrethroid resistance in Columbia, (2) evidence of selection for specific combinations of kdr mutations, (3) the correlation of kdr mutant alleles with lambda-cyhalothrin resistance and with the presence of other kdr mutations, (4) that in field populations the 410L and 1016I do not occur in isolation, but only in combination with mutations at other kdr loci, (5) allele frequency alone is insufficient to explain the high levels of pyrethroid resistance, and (6) increased metabolic enzyme activity that may account for part of the resistance mechanism. I also applaud the authors for the clarity of their visual data presentation, particularly Figures 1 through 4, which condensed a lot of numerical data into visually clean and comprehensible images.

I recommend Minor Revisions before the manuscript is accepted for publication.

Reviewer #3: Overall, I found the paper to be an excellent addition to the current knowledge of pyrethroid resistance. The focus on the genetic and toxicological makeup of the populations found throughout Colombia will be a boon to local efforts as well as to the larger field dealing with similar issues of control. I especially appreciated the time course observations of the mosquito populations samples over several years, and the loss of function/gain of function analyses employed with rearing out to 7 generations both with and without insecticidal pressure. The discussion appeared to be well-versed in the current literature, so my only critique in this area would be that the authors did not reference the phenomenon of super-kdr (either in favor or in opposition to the concept) when discussing synergistic phenotypes.

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

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: Paula Pareja-Loaiza

Reviewer #2: Yes: Joshua R. Lacsina

Reviewer #3: Yes: Natasha Marie Agramonte, PhD

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, we recommend that you deposit your 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

References

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article's retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS NTD Review.pdf

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010001.r003

Decision Letter 1

Jeffrey H Withey, Tereza Magalhaes

16 Nov 2021

Dear Dr Triana-Chávez,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Molecular Surveillance of Resistance to Pyrethroids Insecticides in Colombian Aedes aegypti Populations' 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,

Jeffrey H Withey

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Tereza Magalhaes

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010001.r004

Acceptance letter

Jeffrey H Withey, Tereza Magalhaes

9 Dec 2021

Dear Dr Triana-Chávez,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Molecular Surveillance of Resistance to Pyrethroids Insecticides in Colombian Aedes aegypti Populations," 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 Table. Genotypic and allelic frequencies of the V410L, V1016I, and F1534C kdr alleles in Colombian mosquito populations.

    The HW equilibrium and the coefficient of endogamy (FIS) are shown.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Genotypes observed in Colombian Aedes aegypti populations and the association between genotypes frequencies and pyrethroid susceptibility profiles using the Spearman correlation test.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. Mean of enzyme activities for Acetylcholinesterase (AChE), glutathione-S-transferases (GST), β-esterases (β-EST), Mixed function oxidases (MFO), and α-esterases (α-EST), detected in Aedes aegypti from Acacías with and without insecticide pressure.

    P-values were calculated using the Kruskal-Wallis test for multiple comparisons.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLOS NTD Review.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewers_answers_Oct2021.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


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

    RESOURCES