Selection for insecticide resistance can promote Plasmodium falciparum infection in Anopheles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Insecticide resistance is under strong selective pressure in Anopheles mosquitoes due to widespread usage of insecticides in vector control strategies. Resistance mechanisms likely cause changes that profoundly affect mosquito physiology, yet it remains poorly understood how selective pressures imposed by insecticides may alter the ability of the mosquito to host and transmit a Plasmodium infection. From pyrethroid-resistant field-derived Anopheles gambiae s.l. mosquitoes, we established resistant (RES) and susceptible (SUS) colonies by either selection for, or loss of insecticide resistance. We show increased oocyst intensity and growth rate as well as increased sporozoite prevalence and intensity in RES compared to SUS females infected with Plasmodium falciparum. The increase in infection intensity in RES females was not associated with the presence of the kdrL1014F mutation and was not impacted by inhibition of Cytochrome P450s. The lipid transporter lipophorin (Lp), which was upregulated in RES compared to SUS, was at least partly implicated in the increased intensity of P. falciparum but not directly involved in the insecticide resistance phenotype. Interestingly, we observed that although P. falciparum infections were not affected when RES females were exposed to permethrin, these females had decreased lipid abundance in the fat body following exposure, pointing to a possible role for lipid mobilization in response to damage caused by insecticide challenge. The finding that selection for insecticide resistance can increase P. falciparum infection intensities and growth rate reinforces the need to assess the overall impact on malaria transmission dynamics caused by selective pressures mosquitoes experience during repeated insecticide challenge.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".