A comparison of DNA sequencing and the hydrolysis probe analysis (TaqMan assay) for knockdown resistance (<it>kdr</it>) mutations in <it>Anopheles gambiae </it>from the Republic of the Congo

Abstract

Abstract Background Knockdown resistance (kdr) caused by a single base pair mutation in the sodium channel gene is strongly associated with pyrethroid insecticide resistance in Anopheles gambiae in West-Central Africa. Recently, various molecular techniques have been developed to screen for the presence of the kdr mutations in vector populations with varying levels of accuracy. In this study, the results of the hydrolysis probe analysis for detecting the kdr mutations in An. gambiae s.s. from the Republic of the Congo were compared with DNA sequence analysis. Methods A total of 52 pyrethroid and DDT resistant An. gambiae from Pointe-Noire (Congo-Brazzaville) were tested for detection of the two kdr mutations (kdr-e and kdr-w) that are known to occur in this species. Results from the hydrolysis probe analysis were compared to DNA sequencing to verify the accuracy of the probe analysis for this vector population. Results Fifty-one specimens were found to be An. gambiae S-form and one was a M/S hybrid. DNA sequencing revealed that more than half of the specimens (55.8%) carried both the kdr-e and kdr-w resistance mutations, seven specimens (13.5%) were homozygous for the kdr-e mutation, and 14 specimens (26.9%) were homozygous for the kdr-w mutation. A single individual was genotyped as heterozygous kdr-e mutation (1.9%) only and another as heterozygous kdr-w mutation (1.9%) only. Analysis using hydrolysis probe analysis, without adjustment of the allelic discrimination axes on the scatter plots, revealed six specimens (11.5%) carrying both mutations, 30 specimens (57.8%) as homozygous kdr-w, six specimens (11.5%) homozygous for the kdr-e mutation, one specimen (1.9%) heterozygous for the kdr-w mutation and one specimen (1.9%) present in wild type form. Eight of the specimens (15.4%) could not be identified using unadjusted hydrolysis probe analysis values. No heterozygous kdr-e mutations were scored when adjustment for the allelic discrimination axes was omitted. However, when the axes on the scatter plots were adjusted the results were consistent with those of the DNA sequence analysis, barring two individuals that were mis-scored in the hydrolysis probe analysis. Conclusion Both the kdr-e and kdr-w mutations were abundant in An. gambiae S-form from Pointe-Noire. The hydrolysis probe analysis can lead to misleading results if adjustment to allelic discrimination axes is not investigated. This is mainly relevant when both kdr-e and kdr-w are present in a population in a high frequency. This report highlights the importance of concurrent screening for both mutations. Therefore, performing routine assay protocols blindly can result in the misinterpretation of results. Although hydrolysis probe analysis of kdr is still held as the gold standard assay, this paper highlights the importance of kdr mutation confirmation via sequencing especially in regions where kdr frequency has never been reported before or where both the kdr-e and kdr-w mutations are present simultaneously.