Molecular xenomonitoring of diurnally subperiodic Wuchereria bancrofti infection in Aedes (Downsiomyia) niveus (Ludlow, 1903) after nine rounds of Mass Drug Administration in Nancowry Islands, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India

Detection of Wuchereria bancrofti DNA in wild caught vector and non-vector mosquitoes: implications for elimination of lymphatic filariasis

BACKGROUND

Transmission Assessment Survey (TAS) is the WHO recommended method used for decision-making to stop or continue the MDA in lymphatic filariasis (LF) elimination programme. The WHO has also recommended Molecular Xenomonitoring (MX) of LF infection in vectors as an adjunct tool in settings under post-MDA or validation period. Screening of non-vectors by MX in post-MDA / validation settings could be useful to prevent a resurgence of LF infection, as there might be low abundance of vectors, especially in some seasons. In this study, we investigated the presence of LF infection in non-vectors in an area endemic for LF and has undergone many rounds of annual MDA with two drugs (Diethylcarbamazine and Albendazole, DA) and two rounds of triple drug regimens (Ivermectin + DA).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Mosquitoes were collected from selected villages of Yadgir district in Karnataka state, India, during 2019. A total of 680 female mosquitoes were collected, identified morphologically by species and separated as pools. The female mosquitoes belonging to 3 species viz., Anopheles subpictus, Culex gelidus and Culex quinquefaciatus were separated, pooled, and the DNA extracted using less expensive method and followed by LDR based real-time PCR assay for detecting Wuchereria bancrofti infection in vector as well as non-vector mosquitoes. One pool out of 6 pools of An. subpictus, 2 pools out of 6 pools of Cx. gelidus, and 4 pools out of 8 pools of Cx. quinquefaciatus were found to be positive for W. bancrofti infection by RT-PCR. The infection rate in vectors and non-vectors was found to be 1.8% (95% CI: 0.5-4.2%) and 0.9% (95% CI: 0.2-2.3%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that non-vectors also harbour W. bancrofti, thus opening an opportunity of using these mosquitoes as surrogate vectors for assessing risk of transmission to humans in LF endemic and post MDA areas.

Mosquitoes, Lymphatic Filariasis, and Public Health: A Systematic Review of Anopheles and Aedes Surveillance Strategies

Lymphatic Filariasis (LF) affects over 120 million people in 72 countries, with sub-periodic filariasis common in the Pacific. Wuchereria bancrofti has three physiological races, each with a unique microfilarial periodicity, and each race is isolated to a specific geographical region. Sub-periodic W. bancrofti is transmitted by various Aedes mosquito species, with Aedes polynesiensis and Aedes samoanus being the primary vectors in Samoa. The Aedes scutellaris and Aedes kochi groups are also important vectors in the South Pacific Islands. Anopheles species are important vectors of filariasis in rural areas of Asia and Africa. The Anopheles gambiae complex, Anopheles funestus, and the Anopheles punctulatus group are the most important vectors of W. bancrofti. These vectors exhibit indoor nocturnal biting behaviour and breed in a variety of habitats, including freshwater, saltwater, and temporary water bodies. Effective vector surveillance is central to LF control and elimination programs. However, the traditional Human Landing Collection (HLC) method, while valuable, poses ethical concerns and risks to collectors. Therefore, this review critically analyses alternative trapping tools for Aedes and Anopheles vectors in LF-endemic regions. We looked at 14 research publications that discussed W. bancrofti vector trapping methods. Pyrethrum Spray Catches (PSC), one of the seven traps studied for Anopheles LF vectors, was revealed to be the second most effective strategy after HLC, successfully catching Anopheles vectors in Nigeria, Ghana, Togo, and Burkina Faso. The PSC method has several drawbacks, such as the likelihood of overlooking exophilic mosquitoes or underestimating Anopheles populations. However, exit traps offered hope for capturing exophilic mosquitoes. Anopheles populations could also be sampled using the Anopheles Gravid Trap (AGT). In contrast, the effectiveness of the Double Net Traps (DNT) and the CDC Light Trap (CDC LT) varied. Gravid mosquito traps like the OviArt Gravid Trap (AGT) were shown to be useful tools for identifying endophilic and exophilic vectors during the exploration of novel collection techniques. The Stealth trap (ST) was suggested for sampling Anopheles mosquitoes, although specimen damage may make it difficult to identify the species. Although it needs more confirmation, the Ifakara Tent Trap C design (ITT-C) showed potential for outdoor mosquito sampling in Tanzania. Furvela tent traps successfully captured a variety of Anopheles species and are appropriate for use in a variety of eco-epidemiological settings. By contrast, for Aedes LF vectors, no specific sampling tool was identified for Aedes niveus, necessitating further research and development. However, traps like the Duplex cone trap, Resting Bucket Trap (RB), and Sticky Resting Bucket trap (SRB) proved effective for sampling Aedes albopictus, offering potential alternatives to HLC. This review emphasises the value of looking into alternative trapping methods for Aedes and Anopheles vectors in the LF-endemic region. Further research is required to determine the efficacy of novel collection techniques in various contexts, even if PSC and AGT show promise for sampling Anopheles vectors. The identified traps, along with ongoing research, provide valuable contributions to vector surveillance efforts in LF-endemic regions, enabling LF control and elimination strategies to advance.