Hourly Biting Pattern and Monthly human biting rates (MHBRs) of Anopheline Mosquitoes
All the Anopheles species collected were aggressive throughout the night both indoors and outdoors. This aggressiveness started early in the evening (6pm) and ended very late in the morning (7a.m), with some bites recorded up to 8 a.m for An. funestus s.l irrespective of the collection site (Fig. 5a & d). In Elende, the peak of human biting rates (HBR) of An. funestus s.l was recorded during the first part of the night (between 11pm-00a.m, HBR = 25.3 b/h/n) whereas in Mibellon, it was recorded during the second part of the night (between 04-05a.m, HBR = 15.6 b/h/n). The peak HBR of An. gambiae s.l (HBR = 2.86 b/h/n) and An. nili s.l (HBR = 2.2 b/h/n) from Elende were recorded in the second part of the night (both between 00-01a.m) (Fig. 5b & c). Overall, the hourly biting activity of An. funestus s.l and An. gambiae s.l from Elende, and An. funestus s.l from Mibellon were significantly higher (IRR = 2, 95%CI [1.7–2.8], p < 0.0001; IRR = 1.7, 95%CI [1.4–2], p < 0.0001 and IRR = 2.5, 95%CI [2.3–2.7], p < 0.0001 respectively) in the second part of the night (from 00a.m to 08a.m) compared to the first part (from 6p.m to 00a.m).
In Elende, the highest MHBRs of An. funestus s.l were observed in January and February 2020, whereas in Mibellon, they were observed on September and November 2021 (Fig. 6c & d). In both collection sites, the average HBRs of An. funestus s.l were significantly higher indoors (891 and 639 b/h/m) compared to outdoors location (600 and 570 b/h/m) (IRR = 1.5, 95%CI [1.4–1.6], p < 0.001; IRR = 1.2, 95%CI [1.1–3.6], p = 0.005 respectively in Elende and Mibellon). Globally, the MHBR of An. funestus s.l was significantly higher in Elende (750 b/h/m) than in Mibellon (606 b/h/m) (IRR = 1.2, 95%CI [1.25–1.3], p < 0.001) (Table 3). In the case of An. gambiae s.l. mosquitoes, there was no significant difference in the average indoor (60 and 21 b/h/m) and outdoor (63 and 12 b/h/m) MHBR between the 2 collection sites (IRR = 1.1, 95%CI [0.9–1.3], p = 0.5; IRR = 1.2, 95%CI [0.8–1.8], p = 0.3 in Elende and Mibellon respectively). However, the overall MHBR of An. gambiae s.l. in Elende (36 b/h/m) was significantly higher than in Mibellon (18 b/h/m) (IRR = 3.6, 95%CI [3-4.5], p < 0.001) (Table 3).
Table 3
Entomological indices of the main malaria vectors collected by HLC in Elende.and Mibellon
Species | Sites | Biting Place | SIR (%) 95%CI (Tested) | IRR (95%CI) | p-value | MHBR (b/h/m) | IRR (95%CI) | p-value | MEIR (ib/h/m) | IRR (95%CI) | p-value |
An. funestuss.l | Elende | Indoor | 10.3 [7–14] (446) | 1.6 [0.9-3] | 0.07 | 891 | 1.5 [1.4–1.6] | < 0.001** | 93 | 2.3 [1.9–2.9] | < 0.001** |
Outdoor | 6.5 [4–10] (309) | 600 | 39 |
Total | 8.7 [6.7–11] (755) | | | 750 | | | 66 | | |
Mibellon | Indoor | 12.8 [10.5–15.5] (838) | 1.5 [1.1–2.1] | 0.01* | 639 | 1.2 [1.1–3.6] | < 0.005** | 81 | 1.7 [1.4–2.1] | < 0.001** |
Outdoor | 8.4 [6.4–10.7] (739) | 570 | 48 |
Total | 11 [9.2–12.5] (1577) | | | 606 | | | 66 | | |
An. gambiaes.l | Elende | Indoor | 3.6 [0.9-9] (110) | 2.9 [0.3–146] | 0.3 | 60 | 1.1 [0.9–1.3] | 0.5 | 2.1 | 2.3 [0.5–14] | 0.2 |
Outdoor | 1.2 [0.03-6] (82) | 63 | 1 |
Total | 2.6 [0.8-6] (192) | | | 60 | | | 1.5 | | |
Mibellon | Indoor | 3.3 [0.4–11] (61) | NA | NA | 21 | 1.2 [0.8–1.8] | 0.3 | 0.6 | NA | NA |
Outdoor | 0 [0] (30) | 12 | 0 |
Total | 2.2 [0.2-7] (91) | | | 18 | | | 0.3 | | |
b/h/n: bites/human/night; b/h/m: bites/human/month; ib/h/n: infected bite/human/night; ib/h/m: infected bite/human/month |
Sporozoite Infection Rates (SIRs) and Entomological Inoculation Rates (EIRs) of Anopheles funestus s.l. and Anopheles gambiae s.l. mosquitoes collected by Human-landing catch
Overall infection rates of An. funestus s.l. mosquitoes by sporozoites of different plasmodial species were very high in both collection sites (8.7% and 11% respectively in Elende and Mibellon) (Fig. 6a & b) and varied according to the survey months. In Elende, SIRs were ranged from 1.2 to 23%, with the highest rate detected in July (23%) and March 2020 (17%), whilst in Mibellon, SIRs varied from 5 to 20%, with the highest rate found in September (20%) and November 2021 (16%) (Additional file 1, Table S4). Plasmodium falciparum was by far the predominant species infecting An. funestus s.l in both sites with 92 and 70% of the overall infection in Elende and Mibellon respectively, whilst P. malariae accounted for 3 and 21% respectively in the same sites. However, P. ovale infection (2%) was detected in Elende and P. falciparum/P. malariae co-infection (9%) was noticed in Mibellon (Fig. 6a & b). Regardless of the collection site, the SIR of An. funestus s.l was not different between the rainy and the dry season (IRR = 1.4, 95%CI [0.8–2.3], p = 0.2; IRR = 1.02, 95%CI [0.7–1.4], p = 0.9 in Elende and Mibellon respectively). The comparison between indoor and outdoor SIRs showed that there was no significant difference for An. funestus s.l (IRR = 1.6, 95% CI [0.9-3], p = 0.07) and An. gambiae s.l (IRR = 2.9, 95%CI [0.3–146], p = 0.3) collected in Elende. However, An. funestus s.l from Mibellon were significantly more infected indoor than outdoor (IRR = 1.5, 95%CI [1.1–2.1], p = 0.01) (Table 3). Despite differences in monthly SIRs and Plasmodium species infecting An. funestus s.l mosquitoes across sites, there was no significant difference in overall SIR between the two study sites (IRR = 1.2, 95%CI [0.9–1.6], p = 0.1).
The SIRs of An. gambiae s.l, in Elende (2.6%) and Mibellon (2.2%) were lower than those of An. funestus s.l. (Table 3), with P. falciparum being the only Plasmodium species detected. These previous results suggest that in Elende, An. funestus s.l. supported 93% (66/71) of the sporozoite infection events while An. gambiae s.l. supported only 7% (5/71). On the other hand, in Mibellon, 98.8% of the sporozoite infection events were supported by An. funestus s.l. while only 1.2% were supported by An. gambiae s.l. Overall, 97% (236/243) of all sporozoite infection events at both sites were supported by An. funestus s.l. while only 3% were supported by An. gambiae s.l. No infection was detected for the other Anopheles species collected during the survey period.
The overall monthly EIRs of An. funestus s.l. mosquitoes at both sites were exactly the same (66 ib/h/m). However, irrespective to the site, indoor monthly EIRs (93 and 81 ib/h/m) were significantly higher than outdoor (39 and 41 ib/h/m) (IRR = 2.3, 95%CI [1.9–2.9], p < 0.001; IRR = 1.7, 95%CI [1.4–2.1], p < 0.001 in Elende and Mibellon respectively) (Table 3). As with HBRs, EIRs were also subject to monthly variations, with the highest EIRs observed in the same months than monthly HBRs in Mibellon, but in different months in Elende, especially July (98 ib/h/m) and March 2020 (94 ib/h/m) (Fig. 6c & d). Despite this latter observation, there was no significant difference between malaria transmission intensities of An. funestus s.l recorded during the rainy and dry season, irrespective to the site (IRR = 1.2, 95%CI [0.9–1.4], p = 0.09; IRR = 1.1, 95%CI [0.9–1.3], p = 0.3 in Elende and Mibellon respectively). In contrast to An. funestus s.l mosquitoes, An. gambiae s.l were associated with a very low malaria transmission intensity at both sites (1.5 and 0.3 ib/h/m in Elende and Mibellon respectively) with no significant difference between indoor and outdoor transmission intensity (Table 3). Globally, across the both sites, An. funestus s.l. supported 98.6% of all malaria transmission events while An. gambiae s.l. plays a minor role (1.4%).
Distribution of the L119F- GSTe2 Gene in An. funestus s.s mosquitoes and its influence on malaria transmission in Elende and Mibellon
Following monthly collections, a total of 3630 mosquitoes (1744 and 1886 from Elende and Mibellon respectively) were genotyped for the L119F-Gste2 gene and the annual distribution of each genotype and allele is presented in Fig. 7. Data revealed a significant lower frequency of the 119F resistant allele in the An. funestus s.s. population from Mibellon (35%) compared to Elende (56%) (IRR = 1.8, 95%IC [1.7-2], p < 0.001).
a-Association between the L119F- GSTe2 resistant marker and An. funestus’ Parity
In Elende, the 69% (399/579) of parous mosquitoes were comprised of 35% (140/399) 119F/F-RR homozygous resistant, 42% (168/399) L119F-RS heterozygous, and 23% (91/399) L/L119-SS homozygous susceptible, with no significant difference observed in the distribution of the three genotypes in nulliparous mosquitoes (χ2 = 1.6, p = 0.4). Same observation was made in Mibellon (χ2 = 0.1, p = 0.9) (Fig. 8a & b). However, in Mibellon, 119F/F-RR homozygous resistant vectors showed a tendency to be more nulliparous, whereas the L/L119-SS homozygous susceptible were more parous (Fig. 8b). The same trend was observed in Elende only for 119F/F-RR mosquitoes (Fig. 8a).
b-Association between the L119F- GSTe2 resistant marker and An. funestus’ biting behaviour and aggressivity
In Elende, the 48% (837/1744) of mosquitoes collected outdoors were comprised of 35% (297/837) 119F/F-RR homozygous resistant, 41% (345/837) L119F-RS heterozygous, and 24% (195/837) L/L119-SS homozygous susceptible. A similar distribution of the three genotypes was observed for mosquitoes collected indoor showing no significant difference (χ2 = 0.08, p = 0.9) in biting preference (Fig. 8a). In Mibellon, similar trend was observed with no significant association between L119F-GSTe2 genotypes and the biting behaviour (χ2 = 0.3, p = 0.86) although 119F/F-RR homozygous resistant individuals tended to bite more outdoor than indoor (Fig. 8b).
Irrespective to the site, the aggressivity of mosquitoes with all the three genotypes started very early in the evening (06:00 p.m) till late in the morning, with a higher proportion of 119F/F-RR and L119F-RS mosquitoes recorded at 07:00 a.m compared to the L/L119-SS mosquitoes (Fig. 8c & d). The RR and RS individuals had a similar peak biting time around 04-05am in both locations whereas it was between 02-04am for the SS mosquitoes.
c-Association between the L119F-GSTe2 resistant marker and An. funestus’ infectivity and Entomological inoculation rate (EIR)
Regarding the infectious status, in Elende, the 8.7% (66/755) of infected mosquitoes included 40% (26/66) 119F/F-RR homozygous resistant, 42% (28/66) L119F-RS heterozygous and only 18% (12/66) L/L119-SS homozygous susceptible. As observed with the two first entomological indices, similar distribution of the three genotypes was observed with the opposite index (non-infected status) (χ2 = 0.8, p = 0.6). In Mibellon, there was also no significant association between L119F-GSTe2 genotypes and infectious status (χ2 = 0.3, p = 0.86). Surprisingly, whatever the site, 119F/F-RR homozygous resistant vectors showed a tendency to be more infected (Fig. 8a & b), whereas the L/L119-SS homozygous susceptible were more often non-infected in Elende (Fig. 8a).
Analysis of the association between L119F-GSTe2 and Entomological Inoculation Rate (EIR) was performed only in Elende because of the high frequency of the 119F-GSTe2 resistant allele in this location enabling a better comparison. In this location, monthly malaria transmission intensities associated to the 119F/F-RR (6.6 ib/h/m) and L119F-RS (7.5 ib/h/m) mosquitoes were significantly higher compared to that of L/L119-SS mosquitoes (3 ib/h/m) (IRR = 2.2, 95%CI (1.1–5.2), p = 0.03; IRR = 2.5, 95%CI (1.2–5.8), p = 0.01 respectively). However, there was no significant difference between 119F/F-RR and L119F-RS mosquitoes (IRR = 0.8, 95%CI (0.5–1.6), p = 0.6) (Table 4).
Table 4
Influence of L119F GSTe2 genotypes on malaria transmission intensity in Elende
Sites | Entomological parameters | L119F GSTe2 genotypes (HLC) | Global | Sites | Statistical analysis |
L119F GSTe2 genotypes | Entomological Inoculation Rate (EIR) |
RR | RS | SS | | | | IRR (95%CI) | p-value |
Elende | SIR (%) | 9.4 | 9.1 | 6.9 | 8.7 | |
HBR | 2.3 | 2.7 | 1.5 | 6.5 | | RR vs RS | 0.8 (0.5–1.6) | 0.6 |
EIR (b/h/n) | 0.22 | 0.25 | 0.1 | 0.57 | Elende | RR vs SS | 2.2 (1.1–5.2) | 0.03* |
MEIR (ib/h/m) | 6.6 | 7.5 | 3 | 17.1 | | RS vs SS | 2.5 (1.2–5.8) | 0.01* |