Anopheles rufipes implicated in malaria transmission both indoors and outdoors alongside Anopheles funestus and Anopheles arabiensis in rural south-east Zambia

Abstract

Abstract Background The primary malaria vector-control interventions, indoor residual spraying and long-lasting insecticidal nets, are effective against indoor biting and resting mosquito species. Consequently, outdoor biting and resting malaria vectors might elude the primary interventions and sustain malaria transmission. Varied vector biting and resting behaviour calls for robust entomological surveillance. This study investigated the bionomics of malaria vectors in rural south-east Zambia, focusing on species composition, their resting and host-seeking behaviour and sporozoite infection rates. Methods The study was conducted in Nyimba District, Zambia. Randomly selected households served as sentinel houses for monthly collection of mosquitoes indoors using CDC-light traps (CDC-LTs) and pyrethrum spray catches (PSC), and outdoors using only CDC-LTs for 12 months. Mosquitoes were identified using morphological taxonomic keys. Specimens belonging to the Anopheles gambiae complex and Anopheles funestus group were further identified using molecular techniques. Plasmodium falciparum sporozoite infection was determined using sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. Results From 304 indoor and 257 outdoor light trap-nights and 420 resting collection, 1409 female Anopheles species mosquitoes were collected and identified morphologically; An. funestus (n = 613; 43.5%), An. gambiae sensu lato (s.l.)(n = 293; 20.8%), Anopheles pretoriensis (n = 282; 20.0%), Anopheles maculipalpis (n = 130; 9.2%), Anopheles rufipes (n = 55; 3.9%), Anopheles coustani s.l. (n = 33; 2.3%), and Anopheles squamosus (n = 3, 0.2%). Anopheles funestus sensu stricto (s.s.) (n = 144; 91.1%) and Anopheles arabiensis (n = 77; 77.0%) were the dominant species within the An. funestus group and An. gambiae complex, respectively. Overall, outdoor CDC-LTs captured more Anopheles mosquitoes (mean = 2.25, 95% CI 1.22–3,28) than indoor CDC-LTs (mean = 2.13, 95% CI 1.54–2.73). Fewer resting mosquitoes were collected with PSC (mean = 0.44, 95% CI 0.24–0.63). Sporozoite infectivity rates for An. funestus, An. arabiensis and An. rufipes were 2.5%, 0.57% and 9.1%, respectively. Indoor entomological inoculation rates (EIRs) for An. funestus s.s, An. arabiensis and An. rufipes were estimated at 4.44, 1.15 and 1.20 infectious bites/person/year respectively. Outdoor EIRs for An. funestus s.s. and An. rufipes at 7.19 and 4.31 infectious bites/person/year, respectively. Conclusion The findings of this study suggest that An. rufipes may play an important role in malaria transmission alongside An. funestus s.s. and An. arabiensis in the study location. Graphical Abstract

Keywords

• Anopheles rufipes
• Anopheles funestus
• Anopheles arabiensis
• Vector-control
• Entomological inoculation rate
• Zambia