METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We conducted a one year longitudinal study of P. knowlesi vectors in three sites within an endemic area of Sabah, Malaysia. All mosquitoes were captured using human landing catch. Anopheles mosquitoes were dissected to determine, oocyst, sporozoites and parous rate. Anopheles balabacensis is confirmed as the primary vector of. P. knowlesi (using nested PCR) in Sabah for the first time. Vector densities were significantly higher and more seasonally variable in the village than forest or small scale farming site. However An. balabacensis survival and P. knowlesi infection rates were highest in forest and small scale farm sites. Anopheles balabacensis mostly bites humans outdoors in the early evening between 1800 to 2000 hrs.
CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: This study indicates transmission is unlikely to be prevented by bednets. This combined with its high vectorial capacity poses a threat to malaria elimination programmes within the region.
METHODS: A randomized 4 × 4 Latin square designed experiment was conducted to compare the efficiency of the Mosquito Magnet against three other common trapping methods: human landing catch (HLC), CDC light trap and human baited trap (HBT). The experiment was conducted over six replicates where sampling within each replicate was carried out for 4 consecutive nights. An additional 4 nights of sampling was used to further evaluate the Mosquito Magnet against the "gold standard" HLC. The abundance of Anopheles sampled by different methods was compared and evaluated with focus on the Anopheles from the Leucosphyrus group, the vectors of knowlesi malaria.
RESULTS: The Latin square designed experiment showed HLC caught the greatest number of Anopheles mosquitoes (n = 321) compared to the HBT (n = 87), Mosquito Magnet (n = 58) and CDC light trap (n = 13). The GLMM analysis showed that the HLC method caught significantly more Anopheles mosquitoes compared to Mosquito Magnet (P = 0.049). However, there was no significant difference in mean nightly catch of Anopheles mosquitoes between Mosquito Magnet and the other two trapping methods, HBT (P = 0.646) and CDC light traps (P = 0.197). The mean nightly catch for both An. introlatus (9.33 ± 4.341) and An. cracens (4.00 ± 2.273) caught using HLC was higher than that of Mosquito Magnet, though the differences were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). This is in contrast to the mean nightly catch of An. sinensis (15.75 ± 5.640) and An. maculatus (15.78 ± 3.479) where HLC showed significantly more mosquito catches compared to Mosquito Magnet (P
METHODS: Anopheles mosquitoes were collected from the location where P. knowlesi cases were reported. Cases of knowlesi malaria from 2011 to 2019 in Johor were analyzed. Internal transcribed spacers 2 (ITS2) and cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) genes were used to identify the Leucosphyrus Group of Anopheles mosquitoes. In addition, spatial analysis was carried out on the knowlesi cases and vectors in Johor.
RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-nine cases of P. knowlesi were reported in Johor over 10 years. Young adults between the ages of 20-39 years comprised 65% of the cases. Most infected individuals were involved in agriculture and army-related occupations (22% and 32%, respectively). Four hundred and eighteen Leucosphyrus Group Anopheles mosquitoes were captured during the study. Anopheles introlatus was the predominant species, followed by Anopheles latens. Spatial analysis by Kriging interpolation found that hotspot regions of P. knowlesi overlapped or were close to the areas where An. introlatus and An. latens were found. A significantly high number of vectors and P. knowlesi cases were found near the road within 0-5 km.
CONCLUSIONS: This study describes the distribution of P. knowlesi cases and Anopheles species in malaria-endemic transmission areas in Johor. Geospatial analysis is a valuable tool for studying the relationship between vectors and P. knowlesi cases. This study further supports that the Leucosphyrus Group of mosquitoes might be involved in transmitting knowlesi malaria cases in Johor. These findings may provide initial evidence to prioritize diseases and vector surveillance.
METHODS: The prevalence of Wolbachia in Culicinae mosquitoes was assessed via PCR with wsp primers. For some of the mosquitoes, in which the wsp primers failed to amplify a product, Wolbachia screening was performed using nested PCR targeting the 16S rRNA gene. Wolbachia sequences were aligned using Geneious 9.1.6 software, analyzed with BLAST, and the most similar sequences were downloaded. Phylogenetic analyses were carried out with MEGA 7.0 software. Graphs were drawn with GraphPad Prism 8.0 software.
RESULTS: A total of 217 adult mosquitoes representing 26 mosquito species were screened. Of these, infections with Wolbachia were detected in 4 and 15 mosquito species using wsp and 16S rRNA primers, respectively. To our knowledge, this is the first time Wolbachia was detected using 16S rRNA gene amplification, in some Anopheles species (some infected with Plasmodium), Culex sinensis, Culex vishnui, Culex pseudovishnui, Mansonia bonneae and Mansonia annulifera. Phylogenetic analysis based on wsp revealed Wolbachia from most of the mosquitoes belonged to Wolbachia Supergroup B. Based on 16S rRNA phylogenetic analysis, the Wolbachia strain from Anopheles mosquitoes were more closely related to Wolbachia infecting Anopheles from Africa than from Myanmar.
CONCLUSIONS: Wolbachia was found infecting Anopheles and other important disease vectors such as Mansonia. Since Wolbachia can affect its host by reducing the life span and provide resistance to pathogen infection, several studies have suggested it as a potential innovative tool for vector/vector-borne disease control. Therefore, it is important to carry out further studies on natural Wolbachia infection in vector mosquitoes' populations as well as their long-term effects in new hosts and pathogen suppression.