The understanding of malaria vector species in association with their bionomic traits is vital for targeting malaria interventions and measuring effectiveness. Many entomological studies rely on morphological identification of mosquitoes, limiting recognition to visually distinct species/species groups. Anopheles species assignments based on ribosomal DNA ITS2 and mitochondrial DNA COI were compared to morphological identifications from Luangwa and Nyimba districts in Zambia. The comparison of morphological and molecular identifications determined that interpretations of species compositions, insecticide resistance assays, host preference studies, trap efficacy, and Plasmodium infections were incorrect when using morphological identification alone. Morphological identifications recognized eight Anopheles species while 18 distinct sequence groups or species were identified from molecular analyses. Of these 18, seven could not be identified through comparison to published sequences. Twelve of 18 molecularly identified species (including unidentifiable species and species not thought to be vectors) were found by PCR to carry Plasmodium sporozoites - compared to four of eight morphological species. Up to 15% of morphologically identified Anopheles funestus mosquitoes in insecticide resistance tests were found to be other species molecularly. The comprehension of primary and secondary malaria vectors and bionomic characteristics that impact malaria transmission and intervention effectiveness are fundamental in achieving malaria elimination.

BackgroundCurrent front line malaria vector control methods such as indoor residual spraying (IRS) and long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs), rely upon the preference of many primary vectors to feed and/or rest inside human habitations where they can be targeted with domestically-applied insecticidal products. We studied the human biting behaviour of the malaria vector Anopheles funestus Giles and the potential malaria vector Anopheles quadriannulatus Theobald in Luangwa valley, south-east Zambia.MethodsMosquitoes were collected by human landing catch in blocks of houses with either combined use of deltamethrin-based IRS and LLINs or LLINs alone. Human behaviour data were collected to estimate how much exposure to mosquito bites indoors and outdoors occurred at various times of the night for LLIN users and non-users.ResultsAnopheles funestus and An. quadriannulatus did not show preference to bite either indoors or outdoors: the proportions [95% confidence interval] caught indoors were 0.586 [0.303, 0.821] and 0.624 [0.324, 0.852], respectively. However, the overwhelming majority of both species were caught at times when most people are indoors. The proportion of mosquitoes caught at a time when most people are indoors were 0.981 [0.881, 0.997] and 0.897 [0.731, 0.965], respectively, so the proportion of human exposure to both species occuring indoors was high for individuals lacking LLINs (An. funestus: 0.983 and An. quadriannulatus: 0.970, respectively). While LLIN users were better protected, more than half of their exposure was nevertheless estimated to occur indoors (An. funestus: 0.570 and An. quadriannulatus: 0.584).ConclusionsThe proportion of human exposure to both An. funestus and An. quadriannulatus occuring indoors was high in the area and hence both species might be responsive to further peri-domestic measures if these mosquitoes are susceptible to insecticidal products.

BackgroundSampling malaria vectors and measuring their biting density is of paramount importance for entomological surveys of malaria transmission. Human landing catch (HLC) has been traditionally regarded as a gold standard method for surveying human exposure to mosquito bites. However, due to the risk of human participant exposure to mosquito-borne parasites and viruses, a variety of alternative, exposure-free trapping methods were compared in lowland, south-east Zambia.MethodsCentres for Disease Control and Prevention miniature light trap (CDC-LT), Ifakara Tent Trap model C (ITT-C), resting boxes (RB) and window exit traps (WET) were all compared with HLC using a 3 × 3 Latin Squares design replicated in 4 blocks of 3 houses with long lasting insecticidal nets, half of which were also sprayed with a residual deltamethrin formulation, which was repeated for 10 rounds of 3 nights of rotation each during both the dry and wet seasons.ResultsThe mean catches of HLC indoor, HLC outdoor, CDC-LT, ITT-C, WET, RB indoor and RB outdoor, were 1.687, 1.004, 3.267, 0.088, 0.004, 0.000 and 0.008 for Anopheles quadriannulatus Theobald respectively, and 7.287, 6.784, 10.958, 5.875, 0.296, 0.158 and 0.458, for An. funestus Giles, respectively. Indoor CDC-LT was more efficient in sampling An. quadriannulatus and An. funestus than HLC indoor (Relative rate [95% Confidence Interval] = 1.873 [1.653, 2.122] and 1.532 [1.441, 1.628], respectively, P < 0.001 for both). ITT-C was the only other alternative which had comparable sensitivity (RR = 0.821 [0.765, 0.881], P < 0.001), relative to HLC indoor other than CDC-LT for sampling An. funestus.ConclusionsWhile the two most sensitive exposure-free techniques primarily capture host-seeking mosquitoes, both have substantial disadvantages for routine community-based surveillance applications: the CDC-LT requires regular recharging of batteries while the bulkiness of ITT-C makes it difficult to move between sampling locations. RB placed indoors or outdoors and WET had consistently poor sensitivity so it may be useful to evaluate additional alternative methods, such as pyrethrum spray catches and back packer aspirators, for catching resting mosquitoes.

BackgroundMonitoring mosquito population dynamics is essential to guide selection and evaluation of malaria vector control interventions but is typically implemented by mobile, centrally-managed teams who can only visit a limited number of locations frequently enough to capture longitudinal trends. Community-based (CB) mosquito trapping schemes for parallel, continuous monitoring of multiple locations are therefore required that are practical, affordable, effective, and reliable.MethodsA CB surveillance scheme, with a monthly sampling and reporting cycle for capturing malaria vectors, using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention light traps (LT) and Ifakara Tent Traps (ITT), were conducted by trained community health workers (CHW) in 14 clusters of households immediately surrounding health facilities in rural south-east Zambia. At the end of the study, a controlled quality assurance (QA) survey was conducted by a centrally supervised expert team using human landing catch (HLC), LT and ITT to evaluate accuracy of the CB trapping data. Active surveillance of malaria parasite infection rates amongst humans was conducted by CHWs in the same clusters to determine the epidemiological relevance of these CB entomological surveys.ResultsCB-LT and CB-ITT exhibited relative sampling efficiencies of 50 and 7%, respectively, compared with QA surveys using the same traps. However, cost per sampling night was lowest for CB-LT ($13.6), followed closely by CB-ITT ($18.0), both of which were far less expensive than any QA survey (HLC: $138, LT: $289, ITT: $269). Cost per specimen of Anopheles funestus captured was lowest for CB-LT ($5.3), followed by potentially hazardous QA-HLC ($10.5) and then CB-ITT ($28.0), all of which were far more cost-effective than QA-LT ($141) and QA-ITT ($168). Time-trends of malaria diagnostic positivity (DP) followed those of An. funestus density with a one-month lag and the wide range of mean DP across clusters was closely associated with mean densities of An. funestus caught by CB-LT (P < 0.001).ConclusionsCB trapping schemes appear to be far more affordable, epidemiologically relevant and cost-effective than centrally supervised trapping schemes and may well be applicable to enhance intervention trials and even enable routine programmatic monitoring of vector population dynamics on unprecedented national scales.

BackgroundThere has been rapid scale-up of malaria vector control in the last ten years. Both of the primary control strategies, long-lasting pyrethroid treated nets and indoor residual spraying, rely on the use of a limited number of insecticides. Insecticide resistance, as measured by bioassay, has rapidly increased in prevalence and has come to the forefront as an issue that needs to be addressed to maintain the sustainability of malaria control and the drive to elimination. Zambia's programme reported high levels of resistance to the insecticides it used in 2010, and, as a result, increased its investment in resistance monitoring to support informed resistance management decisions.Methodology/Principal FindingsA country-wide survey on insecticide resistance in Zambian malaria vectors was performed using WHO bioassays to detect resistant phenotypes. Molecular techniques were used to detect target-site mutations and microarray to detect metabolic resistance mechanisms. Anopheles gambiae s.s. was resistant to pyrethroids, DDT and carbamates, with potential organophosphate resistance in one population. The resistant phenotypes were conferred by both target-site and metabolic mechanisms. Anopheles funestus s.s. was largely resistant to pyrethroids and carbamates, with potential resistance to DDT in two locations. The resistant phenotypes were conferred by elevated levels of cytochrome p450s.Conclusions/SignificanceCurrently, the Zambia National Malaria Control Centre is using these results to inform their vector control strategy. The methods employed here can serve as a template to all malaria-endemic countries striving to create a sustainable insecticide resistance management plan.