<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
    <rss version="2.0">
      <channel xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
        <title>Frontiers in Malaria | Vectors section | New and Recent Articles</title>
        <link>https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/malaria/sections/vectors</link>
        <description>RSS Feed for Vectors section in the Frontiers in Malaria journal | New and Recent Articles</description>
        <language>en-us</language>
        <generator>Frontiers Feed Generator,version:1</generator>
        <pubDate>2026-05-02T21:07:20.55+00:00</pubDate>
        <ttl>60</ttl>
        <item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2026.1776838</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2026.1776838</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Editorial: Addressing contemporary threats to global malaria control: new tools and strategies]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-02-17T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Editorial</category>
        <author>Annette Elizabeth Kaiser</author><author>Louisa Alexandra Messenger</author><author>Richard Oxborough</author><author>Nancy Stephen Matowo</author>
        <description></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2025.1693543</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2025.1693543</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Stakeholders’ perceptions, acceptability, and sustainability of a larviciding intervention in Tanga Region, Tanzania]]></title>
        <pubdate>2025-12-01T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Original Research</category>
        <author>Fadhila Kihwele</author><author>Tegemeo Gavana</author><author>Denis Kailembo</author><author>Elizabeth Kasagama</author><author>Charles Dismas Mwalimu</author><author>Jubilate Bernard</author><author>Best Yoram</author><author>Leah Ndekuka</author><author>Stella Kajange</author><author>Samwel Lazaro</author><author>Noela Kisoka</author><author>Prosper Chaki</author><author>Christian Lengeler</author><author>Angel Dillip</author>
        <description><![CDATA[BackgroundIn 2019, the Government of Tanzania endorsed the countrywide implementation of mosquito larviciding to complement insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS) as vector control interventions. Between 2022 and 2024, a large-scale pilot project covering a population of over 1 million individuals was implemented in the Tanga Region, in the northeast of the country. The program was implemented entirely by the government system and made use of community-owned resource persons (CORPs). This manuscript presents the key results of a qualitative study assessing the perceptions and awareness of the stakeholders and the acceptability, facilitating factors, barriers, and sustainability of the intervention. Companion publications report on the operations, entomological and epidemiological impacts, and costs of the program.MethodologyThis cross-sectional qualitative study used in-depth interviews (IDIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) to assess perceptions, acceptability, and sustainability regarding larviciding. A total of 44 IDIs were conducted with government officials who oversaw project implementation. In addition, 13 FGDs were held with 156 community participants(72 CORPs involved in larviciding activities and 84 other community members). Data were analyzed using framework analysis.ResultsThe study findings showed that community-based larviciding was perceived as safe, acceptable, effective, feasible, and sustainable. However, several key challenges were identified, including the unpleasant smell of the larvicide, the CORP turnover, logistic problems, and discontinuous implementation.ConclusionThe pilot larviciding intervention implemented in the Tanga Region was perceived as safe, effective, feasible, and sustainable, and was widely accepted by the community. However, addressing key operational challenges such as the unpleasant odor of the larvicide, high CORP turnover, logistical constraints, and discontinuous implementation will be essential to ensuring the effectiveness and sustainability of future large-scale rollouts.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2025.1621965</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2025.1621965</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Efficacy of the spatial repellent SC Johnson Mosquito Shield™ against anophelines in free-flight chambers, semi-field systems, experimental huts, and in-home tests]]></title>
        <pubdate>2025-07-24T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Original Research</category>
        <author>Johnson K. Swai</author><author>Watson S. Ntabaliba</author><author>Hassan A. Ngonyani</author><author>Noely O. Makungwa</author><author>Antony P. Mseka</author><author>Saphina H. Ngoyani</author><author>Ibrahim S. Kibwengo</author><author>Ahmadi B. Mpelepele</author><author>Jason D. Moore</author><author>Madeleine R. Chura</author><author>Thomas M. Mascari</author><author>Sarah J. Moore</author>
        <description><![CDATA[BackgroundEvaluation of vector control tools follows a phased approach, progressing from laboratory studies to semi-field trials in experimental huts, and finally to small-scale (in-home test) and large-scale (randomized control trials) field evaluations under user conditions. Method selection depends on the specific data objectives.MethodsWe assessed the entomological efficacy of the transfluthrin-based spatial repellent product SC Johnson Mosquito Shield™ in free-flight chambers, semi-field and field experimental hut trials, and an in-home test against Afrotropical malaria vectors. We focused on efficacy endpoints and mosquito collection methods to inform evidence-based evaluation of spatial repellents.ResultsMosquito Shield reduced number of mosquitoes blood-feeding and landing, and also induced mortality, exophily, and deterrence at different magnitudes across the testing methods. However, not all endpoints were measurable with every method. Landing reductions were measured using human landing catches and remained similar in magnitude across experimental hut tests in the semi-field (71%) and field (70%), as well as in-home tests (66%), but were higher in the free-flight chambers (96%) using a susceptible mosquito strain. Other endpoints (mortality, and exophily) generally showed higher estimates in controlled environments with lab-reared mosquitoes, compared to ambient conditions with wild, free-flying mosquitoes.ConclusionThis study supports the use of multiple test methods to generate entomological efficacy data required for country registrations, WHO prequalification dossiers, and post-deployment monitoring. The findings highlight the strengths and limitations of free-flight chambers, semi-field systems, experimental huts, and in-home tests in generating efficacy data for new spatial repellent products. These results support integration of Mosquito Shield into malaria vector control programs pending further operational evaluation. Mosquito landing reduction estimated via human landing catches is a reliable metric for monitoring spatial repellent product longevity across efficacy testing methods. The efficacy gradient between controlled and ambient conditions highlights the importance of testing under realistic settings before public health deployment.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2025.1614476</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2025.1614476</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Laboratory efficacy of Bactivec® and Griselesf® biolarvicides used for large-scale larviciding in Tanzania]]></title>
        <pubdate>2025-07-21T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Original Research</category>
        <author>Tegemeo Gavana</author><author>Denis Kailembo</author><author>Jane Machange</author><author>Venance Michael</author><author>Kyeba Swai</author><author>Olukayode G. Odufuwa</author><author>Frank Tenywa</author><author>Charles Dismas Mwalimu</author><author>Jubilate Bernard</author><author>Samwel Lazaro</author><author>Best Yoram</author><author>Stella Kajange</author><author>Elizabeth Kasagama</author><author>Noela Kisoka</author><author>Emmanuel Mbuba</author><author>Prosper Chaki</author><author>Christian Lengeler</author><author>Sarah J. Moore</author>
        <description><![CDATA[BackgroundFrom 2022 to 2024, a project piloting large-scale larviciding in Tanzania was implemented in Tanga Region. The project used in-country manufactured biolarvicides, Bactivec® and Griselesf®. This study independently assessed the efficacy of both biolarvicide products to ensure that they represented a good option for scaling up.MethodologyThe study was conducted at Ifakara Health Institute (IHI) in Tanzania. Laboratory-based dose–response experiments were performed using Bactivec® and Griselesf® against laboratory-reared early third instar larvae of Anopheles gambiae sensu stricto, Anopheles arabiensis, Anopheles funestus, Aedes aegypti and Culex quinquefasciatus. Larvae were exposed to various concentrations of Bactivec® and Griselesf®. VectoBac® served as a positive control, and distilled water as a negative control. Twelve replicates per concentration, with 25 larvae per replicate, were tested. Larval mortality was recorded at 24 and 48 hours after exposure to Bactivec® and Griselesf®, respectively. Probit regression analysis was used to determine the lethal concentration (LC50 and LC90) values.ResultsBactivec® demonstrated similar LC50 values across all species, ranging from 0.0122 mg/mL (95% CI: 0.0114–0.0130) for An. gambiae s.s. to 0.0155 mg/mL (95% CI: 0.0147–0.0163) for An. funestus. LC90 varied slightly, with An. arabiensis being the most susceptible at 0.0217 mg/mL (95% CI: 0.0202–0.0233), and An. gambiae s.s. the least at 0.0330 mg/mL (95% CI: 0.0298–0.0363). Griselesf® showed greater variation, with LC50 ranging from 0.0130 mg/mL (95% CI: 0.0124–0.0136) for An. gambiae s.s. and 0.0212 mg/mL (95% CI: 0.0199–0.0226) for An. arabiensis. Similarly, the LC90 for Griselesf® also varied, being the lowest for An. gambiae s.s., 0.0235 mg/mL (95% CI: 0.0219–0.0252) and the highest for An. arabiensis, 0.0609 mg/mL (95% CI: 0.0548–0.0669). Ae. aegypti was not susceptible to Griselesf® at the concentrations tested. The LC90 observed in this study were below the maximum application rates recommended by the manufacturer but exceeded the minimum application rates for both larvicides.ConclusionThe Tanzanian-made Bactivec® and Griselesf® demonstrated efficacy against multiple species of mosquitoes, when applied according to the manufacturer’s recommendations except for Ae. aegypti, which was not susceptible to Griselesf®. Field applications should use maximum application rates. As Tanzania prepares to expand larviciding nationwide, the availability of these efficacious biolarvicides within the country will enhance both the feasibility and sustainability of the scale-up effort.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2025.1609614</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2025.1609614</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Impact of artemether–lumefantrine treatment, circadian rhythm, and serum replacement on the infectiousness of wild Plasmodium falciparum gametocytes to Anopheles gambiae sensu stricto mosquitoes]]></title>
        <pubdate>2025-07-03T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Original Research</category>
        <author>Dorin Joachim Mmasi</author><author>Prisca Kweyamba</author><author>Fatuma Matwewe</author><author>Masudi Suleiman Maasayi</author><author>Nolvin J. Mvungi</author><author>Ummi Abdul Kibondo</author><author>Tibebu Habtewold</author><author>Jennifer C. Stevenson</author><author>Lorenz Martin Hofer</author><author>Sarah Jane Moore</author><author>Mgeni M. Tambwe</author>
        <description><![CDATA[BackgroundIn the era of asymptomatic gametocytemia, carriers are scarce but serve as key reservoirs for Plasmodium falciparum gametocytes. Transmission-blocking interventions (TBIs) are gaining attention, considering factors such as artemether–lumefantrine (AL) treatment, mosquito feeding time (day vs. night), and serum replacement, recognized for their potential in influencing direct membrane feeding assay (DMFA) outcomes and reducing assay precision. This study aimed at optimizing DMFA through assessing the following 1) artemether–lumefantrine treatment 2) mosquito feeding time and 3) serum replacement on gametocyte infectiousness to mosquitoes in a low malaria transmission settingMethodsSix gametocytemic carriers were found to be eligible, from whom 4 mL of venous blood was drawn. This blood was given to female Anopheles gambiae sensu stricto (s.s.) mosquitoes via DMFA under controlled conditions. Oocyst prevalence and intensity were determined on fed mosquitoes: 1) 9 days post-AL treatment, 2) for day feeds versus night feeds, and 3) with and without serum replacement.ResultsMosquito infection rates declined post-AL treatment, with significantly fewer mosquitoes infected [odds ratio (OR) = 0.20, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.13–0.31, p = 0.001] compared to day 0. Feeding during the dark cycle time did not significantly affect mosquito infection rates (OR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.53–1.12, p = 0.175). Lastly, compared to whole blood, serum replacement increased infection rates (OR = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.33–2.25, p = 0.001).ConclusionTo obtain robust results, we confirm that DMFA should be conducted using blood from gametocytemic carriers without a recent history of AL treatment, using serum replacement to enhance infection success. In this setting, assays could be conducted outside of the mosquitoes’ dark cycle without affecting results.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2025.1570480</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2025.1570480</link>
        <title><![CDATA[SC Johnson Guardian™ spatial repellent shows 1-year efficacy against wild pyrethroid-resistant Anopheles arabiensis, with a similar blood-feeding inhibition efficacy to Mosquito Shield™ in a Tanzanian experimental hut trial]]></title>
        <pubdate>2025-06-23T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Original Research</category>
        <author>Johnson Kyeba Swai</author><author>Watson Samuel Ntabaliba</author><author>Emmanuel Mbuba</author><author>Hassan Ahamad Ngoyani</author><author>Noely Otto Makungwa</author><author>Antony Pius Mseka</author><author>John Bradley</author><author>Madeleine Rose Chura</author><author>Thomas Michael Mascari</author><author>Sarah Jane Moore</author>
        <description><![CDATA[BackgroundSpatial repellents (SRs) that passively emanate airborne concentrations of an active ingredient within a space disrupt mosquito behaviors to reduce human-vector contact. A clinical trial of SC Johnson’s Mosquito Shield™ (Mosquito Shield) demonstrated a 33% protective efficacy against malaria in Kenya. Mosquito Shield lasts for 1 month, but a longer duration product is needed for malaria control programs. SC Johnson’s Guardian™ (Guardian) is designed to provide longer continuous protection from disease-transmitting mosquitoes.MethodsWe conducted experimental hut trials to i) evaluate the efficacy of Guardian over 12 months (between May 2022 and May 2023) and ii) assess the potential public health utility of Guardian by comparing it to Mosquito Shield over 1 month (midway through the Guardian evaluation in November 2022) against wild pyrethroid-resistant malaria vector mosquitoes. The primary endpoint was the number of blood-fed Anopheles arabiensis, while secondary endpoints were the proportion of dead An. arabiensis at 24 hours and the proportion of blood-fed mosquitoes. For Guardian, the number of mosquito landings was also evaluated by human landing catch, a method routinely used in community or implementation studies.ResultsOver 12 months of continuous use, Guardian reduced the number of An. arabiensis blood-feeding by 82.7% [95% confidence interval (78.5%–86.1%)] and landing by 65.1% (59.4%– 70.0%). Guardian also induced 20.1% mortality (18.4%–21.8%). Guardian was found to be superior to Mosquito Shield in reducing the number of blood-fed An. arabiensis with similar proportions of blood-fed and dead mosquitoes at 24 hours.ConclusionGuardian was effective in reducing blood-feeding and landing of wild pyrethroid-resistant malaria vectors for 12 months and shows superior protective efficacy compared to Mosquito Shield in reducing the overall number of blood-feeding mosquitoes. Experimental hut studies are suitable for comparative evaluations of new spatial repellent products because they precisely estimate entomological endpoints elicited by spatial repellents known to significantly impact vectorial capacity and disease transmission.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2025.1612068</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2025.1612068</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Corrigendum: PRONet Duo insecticide-treated net incorporated with chlorfenapyr and bifenthrin is superior to Interceptor® G2 nets against pyrethroid-resistant Anopheles gambiae sensu lato: a randomized experimental hut trial in Côte d’Ivoire and Tanzania using non-inferiority design]]></title>
        <pubdate>2025-05-16T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Correction</category>
        <author>Alphonce A. Assenga</author><author>Ludovic P. Ahoua Alou</author><author>Soromane Camara</author><author>Alphonsine A. Koffi</author><author>Raphael N’Guessan</author><author>Dismas S. Kamande</author><author>Safina Ngonyani</author><author>Ummi A. Kibondo</author><author>Olukayode G. Odufuwa</author><author>Watson S. Ntabaliba</author><author>Ruth G. Lekundayo</author><author>Faraji Abilah</author><author>Edith P. Madumla</author><author>Joseph B. Muganga</author><author>Jason Moore</author><author>Sarah J. Moore</author>
        <description></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2025.1571912</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2025.1571912</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Beyond insecticide treated bed nets coverage to heterogeneous human behaviors and spatial realities]]></title>
        <pubdate>2025-05-16T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Original Research</category>
        <author>Merveille Koissi Savi</author><author>Lauren M. Childs</author><author>Christian Borgemeister</author>
        <description><![CDATA[IntroductionInsecticide-treated bed nets (ITNs) are a cost-efficient prevention method used to prevent malaria, yet their use in poorly urbanized and slum areas remains low. For instance, in these areas in Accra, Ghana, less than 2% of children sleep under fully functional ITNs. Thus, the expected drop in malaria prevalence in Accra and the rest of the country is still much below target. This study deconstructs urban malaria dynamics, revealing the complex interplay of ITNs, spatial heterogeneity, and human behaviors.MethodsWe evaluated urban malaria prevention knowledge, developed a metapopulation framework aligned with empirical findings, and incorporated behavior scenarios to understand urban malaria dynamics better.ResultsOur findings revealed that owning an ITN does not ensure its use, especially in densely populated areas. Limited living space and repurposing are identified as key barriers in Accra, Ghana, with healthcare visits emerging as catalysts for ITN use. Mathematical models incorporating spatial and demographic factors emphasize achieving 60% ITN use in each community patch for epidemic elimination. Our model emphasizes that while ITN use is a crucial intervention in malaria control, it alone may not significantly reduce malaria prevalence without considering spatial, demographic, and behavioral factors.DiscussionTo maximize the effectiveness of ITNs and significantly reduce malaria prevalence, decision-making processes must address the underlying reasons for late or nonadoption of the intervention. Therefore, we strongly recommend prioritizing targeted, one-onone sensitization campaigns, ensuring that barriers to ITN adoption are effectively identified and mitigated.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2025.1600850</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2025.1600850</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Mosquito vector diversity and malaria transmission]]></title>
        <pubdate>2025-05-15T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Perspective</category>
        <author>Brandy St. Laurent</author>
        <description><![CDATA[Malaria is the most important parasitic disease in the world, killing over half a million people a year. Globally, we have made gains toward eliminating this disease but our progress has stalled in the last decade. Much of our control efforts and predictive models are focused to a few well understood systems such as Plasmodium falciparum transmission by species within the Anopheles gambiae complex. However, in many areas of the world, variation in the diversity of mosquito vectors significantly shape malaria transmission dynamics, seasonal persistence, and geographic range. This perspectives piece will focus on vectors of human malaria parasites and the impact of vector diversity on disease transmission by exploring how: 1) Anopheles species richness and abundance influence daily malaria transmission, and how differences in host feeding behavior and vector competence within a species-rich vector community influence local transmission, 2) diverse species contribute to persistence of malaria across seasons and spread through different ecotypes, and 3) species-specific parasite-vector interactions determine the genotypes of the malaria parasite that are successfully transmitted and shape parasite population structure. Finally, we will discuss future areas of research that should be prioritized toward understanding a more complete picture of malaria transmission dynamics in the context of diverse vector species.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2025.1478249</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2025.1478249</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Evaluating insecticide susceptibility in major African malaria vectors: a meta-analysis and systematic review]]></title>
        <pubdate>2025-04-08T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Systematic Review</category>
        <author>Awoke Minwuyelet</author><author>Delenasaw Yewhalaw</author><author>Andrea Sciarretta</author><author>Getnet Atenafu</author>
        <description><![CDATA[BackgroundAfrica is still home to the highest number of malaria cases and deaths. To reduce the burden of malaria in Africa, different classes of insecticides have been used since the eradication era. However, the effectiveness of insecticides is reduced periodically. This study aimed to assess the susceptibility status of major African malaria vectors to different insecticides commonly used for public health.MethodsTo conduct this review, we used open-access global databases, i.e., PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Sciences, and Pro-Quest, to extract relevant articles published between January 2002 and 28 December 2023. Primary articles were searched using keywords such as “insecticide susceptibility status”, ‘insecticide resistance”,” malaria vectors”, “Africa”, and “Anopheles”. Articles published in English that met the inclusion criteria were included in this review. Data were extracted from the included article texts, tables, figures, and supplementary information. The validity of all included articles was checked before inclusion by critical evaluation using standardized methods. Finally, the results of the original articles are presented in tables, graphs, and maps.ResultsIn total, 61 relevant articles were retrieved and extracted from 1,794 accessed articles. Of these, most articles documented resistance in Anopheles gambiae s.l. and An. funestus to organochlorines, i.e., DDT (4%); cyclodins, i.e., dieldrin (4%); pyrethroids, including lambda-cyhalothrin (0.05%), cyfluthrin (0.15%), permethrin (0.75%), and deltamethrin (0.05%); and carbamate, i.e., propoxur (0.1%), across Africa. These mosquito species have also developed knockdown resistance to different insecticide classes (pyrethroids and organochlorines) in Africa. However, the resistance of these malaria vectors varied in different areas of the continent and in different localities within the same country. The highest levels of insecticide resistance in Anopheles mosquitoes across Africa were recorded between 2011 and 2015. However, currently, mosquito populations are susceptible to candidate insecticides such as chlothianidin (neoncotinoid), chlorfenapyr (pyrole), and brofanilide (meta-diamide), which are newly introduced insecticides for vector control interventions.ConclusionThis review revealed that the major African malaria vectors have developed resistance to most insecticides used for public health. However, they were susceptible to a few existing insecticides (pirimiphos-methyl) and new candidate insecticides such as clothianidin, chlorfenapyr, and brofanilide. This warrants the development and implementation of insecticide resistance monitoring and management strategies for malaria control and elimination programs in malaria endemic countries of Africa to extend the effective lifespan of insecticides to which populations of the major African malaria vectors are susceptible and to reduce the resistance frequency. We also recommend the use of integrated vector management to complement the chemical insecticide vector control interventions in the containment of major African malaria vectors.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2025.1489687</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2025.1489687</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Adult-capture assays as a tool to measure insecticide resistance in Anopheles malaria vectors: a modeling comparison with larval-capture assays]]></title>
        <pubdate>2025-03-24T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Original Research</category>
        <author>Inga Holmdahl</author><author>Caroline O. Buckee</author><author>Lauren M. Childs</author>
        <description><![CDATA[Systematic, long-term, and spatially representative monitoring of insecticide resistance in mosquito populations is urgently needed to quantify its impact on malaria transmission, and to combat failing interventions when resistance emerges. Resistance assays on wild-caught adult mosquitoes (known as adult-capture) offer an alternative to the current protocols, which recommend larval capture. Adult-capture assays can be done in a shorter time frame, in more locations, and in the absence of an insectary. However, unlike insectary-raised mosquitoes, a group of adults captured in the wild represents different ages and may have previous exposure to insecticides. Since age and prior exposure are critically important in determining the likelihood of death during the assay, taking these factors into account is important for assessing the relative utility of the assay. Currently such quantitative assessments are lacking. We developed a discrete-time deterministic model to simulate the mosquito life cycle, including insecticide exposure due to insecticide-treated bed nets. We incorporated non-lethal effects of insecticide exposure demonstrated in laboratory experiments and the impact of multiple exposure to insecticides on mosquito death rates during the assay. We then sampled from this population using both larval-captured and adult-captured mosquito collection and simulated insecticide resistance assays. To quantify possible biases in adult-capture assays, we compared the results of these assays to the true resistance allele frequency in the population. In simulated samples of 100 test mosquitoes, reflecting WHO-recommended sample sizes, we found that adult-capture samples had a 94% positive predictive value (PPV) for resistance at the WHO’s 10% resistance cutoff, and a 97% negative predictive value (NPV), compared to 98% PPV and 19% NPV for larval-captured samples. Bias in the adult-capture assays was primarily dependent on the level of insecticide resistance rather than coverage of bed nets or exposure heterogeneity. Using adult-captured mosquitoes for resistance assays may have advantages over larval-capture collection in many settings, and in our model does not appear to be significantly less accurate than larval-capture, especially when used to categorize resistance under the binary WHO criteria. These results suggest that adult-captured assays could be deployed for resistance monitoring programs at a more widespread scale.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2025.1540884</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2025.1540884</link>
        <title><![CDATA[PRONet Duo insecticide-treated net incorporated with chlorfenapyr and bifenthrin is superior to Interceptor® G2 nets against pyrethroid-resistant Anopheles gambiae sensu lato: a randomized experimental hut trial in Côte d’Ivoire and Tanzania using non-inferiority design]]></title>
        <pubdate>2025-03-14T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Original Research</category>
        <author>Alphonce A. Assenga</author><author>Ludovic P. Ahoua Alou</author><author>Soromane Camara</author><author>Alphonsine A. Koffi</author><author>Raphael N’Guessan</author><author>Dismas S. Kamande</author><author>Safina Ngonyani</author><author>Ummi A. Kibondo</author><author>Olukayode G. Odufuwa</author><author>Watson S. Ntabaliba</author><author>Ruth G. Lekundayo</author><author>Faraji Abilah</author><author>Edith P. Madumla</author><author>Joseph B. Muganga</author><author>Jason Moore</author><author>Sarah J. Moore</author>
        <description><![CDATA[BackgroundThe widespread development of pyrethroid-resistant Anopheles populations, has reduced the efficacy of pyrethroid insecticide-treated nets (ITNs), hindering malaria control efforts. This study tested PRONet Duo, a new ITN with two active ingredients-bifenthrin and chlorfenapyr. Bifenthrin is a fluorinated pyrethroid that is highly stable and more slowly detoxified by pyrethroid-resistant mosquitoes. Chlorfenapyr disrupts cellular energy production. The efficacy of PRONet Duo was compared to Interceptor® G2, an alpha-cypermethrin and chlorfenapyr ITN with proven efficacy in malaria reduction.MethodsThe study was conducted in two identical 9x9 Latin square experimental hut trials against wild free-flying Anopheles gambiae sensu lato in M’Bé, Côte d’Ivoire, and Lupiro, Tanzania using 18 experimental huts over 108 nights. The primary endpoint was the proportion of 72-hour mosquito mortality (M72) and the secondary endpoint was the proportion of mosquito blood-feeding. The study was done following World Health Organization guidelines. Data were analyzed using mixed-effect linear regression with a 7% margin of non-inferiority. Data were classified as non-inferior using delta and superior using the line of no difference.ResultsPRONet Duo demonstrated a non-inferior and superior mosquito mortality compared to Interceptor® G2 in both study sites. In Côte d’Ivoire, the M72 of PRONet Duo was 84% [81,88], higher than that of Interceptor® G2 (72% [68,76], OR: 1.54 [1.27,1.88]) and it was superior to MAGNet® (30% [27,34], OR: 13.74 [11.35,16.63], p<0.0001). In Tanzania, M72 of PRONet Duo was 68% [62,73], higher than that induced by Interceptor® G2 (44% [40,49], Odds Ratio (OR): 2.77 [2.31, 3.33]), and MAGNet® (36% [32,41], OR:4.82 [4.06,5.72] p<0.0001). PRONet Duo also induced non-inferior and superior prevention of blood-feeding compared to Interceptor® G2, with less than 11% feeding success observed in either trial site.ConclusionPRONet Duo ITNs are non-inferior and superior to the first-in-class Interceptor® G2 in terms of mosquito mortality and prevention of blood-feeding demonstrating the added benefit of bifenthrin for insecticide resistance management. Both chlorfenapyr nets offered superior mortality compared to the pyrethroid-only ITN. PRONet Duo offers an additional highly effective ITN for control of pyrethroid-resistant mosquitoes in malaria endemic regions.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2025.1540184</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2025.1540184</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Community perceptions and acceptability of insecticide-treated screens for mosquito proofing of unimproved houses in Chalinze district, Tanzania: a mixed-methods study]]></title>
        <pubdate>2025-03-12T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Original Research</category>
        <author>Fadhila Kihwele</author><author>Olukayode G. Odufuwa</author><author>Joseph B. Muganga</author><author>Emmanuel Mbuba</author><author>Rose Philipo</author><author>Jason Moore</author><author>Ole Skovmand</author><author>Rune Bosselmann</author><author>John Bradley</author><author>Sarah Moore</author><author>Zawadi Mageni Mboma</author>
        <description><![CDATA[BackgroundUnimproved housing is a risk factor for malaria. Therefore, netting incorporated with deltamethrin and piperonyl butoxide, supplied as a roll to screen opened eaves, windows, and holes in the walls of unimproved houses, could offer protection by killing and/or reducing the entry of mosquitoes into a house. This study assessed the community perceptions and the acceptability of insecticide-treated screens (ITS), previously described as insecticide-treated eave nets (ITENs) and insecticide-treated window screens (ITWS).MethodologyA mixed-methods approach was implemented in three villages of the Chalinze District in Tanzania. This approach comprised in-depth interviews (IDIs) of the local carpenters who installed the ITS, focus group discussions (FGDs) with community members in both the ITS and control arms, and the administration of a structured questionnaire to members in the ITS arm. Data collection was conducted at 6 and 12 months post-installation. A thematic framework approach was used to identify and extract relevant themes from the qualitative data, including but not limited to community perceptions, acceptability, and adverse events, which were quantified using quantitative data. Furthermore, a separate structured questionnaire was administered during ITS installation to collect information on the time required for installation and the amount of netting used per house (214) in order to assess the cost implications of rolling out ITS in the community.ResultsThe ITS were perceived to reduce the entry of mosquitoes, other insects, and crawling animals such as snakes and lizards into houses. This intervention was accepted in the community, whereby the majority (95%) of participants expressed willingness to purchase the netting if sold at an affordable price of 1,000–6,000 Tanzanian shillings (USD ≤2.50) per square meter. The average time for ITS installation was 1 h per house, using an average of 29.5 running meters of fabric netting from rolls with a width of 1.5 m. The average material cost of the ITS was USD 1.25 per kilogram in transport. In this study, the average installation cost per house was USD 6.6 using standard Tanzanian salary rates, half the annual cost of insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) for a five-person household.ConclusionInsecticide-treated screening for unimproved houses is a promising, adaptable, and acceptable tool to supplement the existing vector control tools. The community perceived the use of ITS as a feasible intervention. This study highlights the importance of intensive community engagement during the development of a novel intervention to promptly address concerns and improve its acceptability.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2024.1507392</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2024.1507392</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Comparative efficacy of Vector Guard® to Olyset® Plus insecticide-treated nets against strongly pyrethroid-resistant Anopheles arabiensis in experimental huts in Tanzania]]></title>
        <pubdate>2024-12-24T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Brief Research Report</category>
        <author>Jane Johnson Machange</author><author>Emmanuel Mbuba</author><author>Seth R. Irish</author><author>Johnson Kyeba Swai</author><author>Watson Ntabaliba</author><author>Noely Otto Makungwa</author><author>Safina Ngonyani</author><author>Ahmadi Bakari Mpelepele</author><author>Ummi Abdul Kibondo</author><author>Olukayode G. Odufuwa</author><author>Sarah Jane Moore</author>
        <description><![CDATA[IntroductionThe resistance of malaria vectors to pyrethroids has compromised the efficacy of pyrethroid insecticide-treated nets (ITNs). In response, ITNs with pyrethroids and piperonyl butoxide (PBO) synergists were developed to overcome metabolic pyrethroid resistance mechanisms. One such net is Vector Guard®. To demonstrate its potential efficacy for public health use, a comparative efficacy study was conducted to evaluate Vector Guard® relative to Olyset® Plus (a pyrethroid–PBO ITN proven to reduce malaria transmission more effectively than pyrethroid ITNs) and Royal® Sentry 2.0 (a pyrethroid-only ITN included to demonstrate the added benefit of PBO) in experimental huts in Tanzania.MethodsAn experimental hut trial using two blocks of a 7 × 7 Latin square design was conducted over seven rounds (49 experimental nights). Treatments were rotated at the end of each round, and volunteers were rotated nightly within one block. Both unwashed and 20× washed nets of each type were evaluated, alongside an untreated net used as a negative control. The primary endpoint was the proportion of Anopheles arabiensis that died within 24 h, and the secondary endpoint was the proportion of blood feeding. Data were analyzed using binomial logistic regression with fixed effects using a 7% non-inferiority margin.ResultsThe pooled results showed that Vector Guard® was non-inferior and was superior to Olyset® Plus, with higher mortality for Vector Guard® [28% vs. 18%; odds ratio (OR) = 1.93, 95%CI = 1.81–2.06]. Both pyrethroid–PBO nets were superior to Royal Sentry® 2.0 (p < 0.001) in terms of mosquito mortality. For the secondary blood feeding endpoint, Vector Guard® was also found to be non-inferior to Olyset® Plus (0.6% vs. 0.2%; OR = 2.37, 95%CI = 1.77–3.17). Vector Guard® showed similar efficacy to Royal Sentry® 2.0 in reducing the proportion of mosquito blood feeding (0.6% vs. 0.6%; OR = 0.85, 95%CI = 0.68–1.07, p = 0.161).ConclusionVector Guard® demonstrated superior mosquito mortality compared with both Olyset® Plus and Royal Sentry® 2.0, indicating that Vector Guard® is another promising pyrethroid–PBO ITN for the control of resistant malaria vectors. The addition of Vector Guard® to the class of pyrethroid–PBO ITNs will enable malaria control programs to select cost-effective ITNs, improving access to effective protection from malaria transmitted by resistant vectors.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2024.1481816</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2024.1481816</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Plasticity in malaria parasite development: mosquito resources influence vector-to-host transmission potential]]></title>
        <pubdate>2024-11-01T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Original Research</category>
        <author>Catherine E. Oke</author><author>Aidan J. O’Donnell</author><author>Petra Schneider</author><author>Sarah E. Reece</author>
        <description><![CDATA[Parasites rely on exploiting resources from their hosts and vectors for survival and transmission. This includes nutritional resources, which vary in availability between different hosts and changes during infections. For malaria (Plasmodium) parasites, sexual reproduction (sporogony) and subsequent development of oocysts, which produce sporozoites infectious to the vertebrate host, occurs in the mosquito vector. Mosquitoes in the field exhibit diversity in the amount and type of food they acquire, directly impacting the nutrients available for the replication and development of parasites. While the rate of parasite transmission from vector to host is influenced by the nutritional state of mosquitoes, whether this is due to resource limitation mediating parasite development and productivity is poorly understood. We use the rodent model parasite P. chabaudi and the vector Anopheles stephensi to ask how variation in the amount of sugar and blood provided to malaria-infected mosquitoes affects the potential for parasites to transmit from vector to host. We show that parasites in well-resourced mosquitoes reach a larger oocyst size earlier in development, suggesting faster growth, and have a 1.7-fold higher sporozoite burden than parasites whose vectors only receive sugar. However, this increase in productivity is only partly explained by oocyst development, suggesting that resource availability also impacts the ability of sporozoites to reach the salivary glands. This challenges the assumption of a simple relationship between the number or size of oocysts and onward transmission potential. Furthermore, our findings suggest malaria parasites may actively adjust oocyst growth rate to best exploit nutritional resources; while parasites in low-resourced mosquitoes exhibited a reduction in oocyst burden during sporogony, the remaining oocysts developed more rapidly in the later stages of oocyst development, catching up to reach a similar size to those in well-resourced mosquitoes. Understanding the impacts of resource availability for malaria transmission is urgent given that parasites encounter increasingly variable vectors as consequences of climate change and vector control tools.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2024.1392060</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2024.1392060</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Limited impact of within-vector ecology on the evolution of malaria parasite transmission investment]]></title>
        <pubdate>2024-06-21T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Original Research</category>
        <author>Amber Gigi Hoi</author><author>Megan A. Greischar</author><author>Nicole Mideo</author>
        <description><![CDATA[Malaria parasites spend part of their life in a vertebrate host and the rest in an arthropod vector and must successfully navigate both environments to gain fitness. In vertebrate hosts, malaria parasites infect red blood cells and can either replicate asexually or develop into the sexual form required for transmission to the vector. Despite the clear fitness benefits of onward transmission, only a small proportion of malaria parasites convert to sexual development. Mathematical models seeking to test the plausibility of various hypotheses to explain these low “conversion rates” have focused almost exclusively on the vertebrate/host half of the parasite life cycle. Here, we examined how processes occurring in the vector, including density-dependent parasite development and parasite-induced vector mortality, influence the evolution of parasite conversion rate in the host by developing a multi-scale model of within-host infection dynamics and parasite within-vector developmental processes for rodent malaria. We found that, regardless of model specifications (e.g., definitions of fitness, magnitude of parasite-induced vector mortality), considering processes within the vector had only a weak influence on the optimal conversion rate, but substantially diminished the fitness returns for all strategies and resulted in a sharper declines off the optima. Our approach allowed us to derive new metrics of parasite fitness (which we call “infectivity functions”) that link within-host gametocyte density to the probability of transmission to new hosts after passing through the vector, and that prevent overestimation of parasite transmission potential.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2024.1337572</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2024.1337572</link>
        <title><![CDATA[A descriptive review of next-generation insecticide-treated bed nets for malaria control]]></title>
        <pubdate>2024-05-28T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Mini Review</category>
        <author>Antonia L. Böhmert</author><author>Rhiannon A. E. Logan</author><author>Natalie M. Portwood</author><author>Juliane Hartke</author><author>Victoria A. Ingham</author>
        <description><![CDATA[To date, insecticide-treated bed nets are the most effective tool in preventing malaria-related morbidity and mortality. All distributed bed nets contain pyrethroid insecticides; however, widespread resistance to this class in the malaria vectors, Anopheles spp., has led to the development of dual active ingredient bed nets, termed ‘next-generation bed nets’. These nets combine pyrethroids with a second chemistry, aimed at countering pyrethroid resistance. The World Health Organization (WHO) recently issued recommendations for three classes of next-generation bed nets. In this review, we report on key indicators across Africa for each net type. The results underscore a substantial variation in key indicators across Africa when comparing next-generation bed nets to traditional pyrethroid-only nets. Nevertheless, dual active ingredient bed nets generally outperform pyrethroid-only nets in a various settings. The results show that new nets are a formidable tool in malaria control, with superior performance compared to traditional pyrethroid-only nets. The variability in outcomes across Africa underscores the need for a region-specific approach, fostering a targeted and adaptive strategy for the deployment of these next-generation interventions.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2024.1347790</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2024.1347790</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Alternative splicing and its regulation in the malaria vector Anopheles gambiae]]></title>
        <pubdate>2024-04-26T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Original Research</category>
        <author>Bárbara Díaz-Terenti</author><author>José Luis Ruiz</author><author>Elena Gómez-Díaz</author>
        <description><![CDATA[IntroductionAlternative splicing (AS) is a highly conserved mechanism that allows for the expansion of the coding capacity of the genome, through modifications of the way that multiple isoforms are expressed or used to generate different phenotypes. Despite its importance in physiology and disease, genome-wide studies of AS are lacking in most insects, including mosquitoes. Even for model organisms, chromatin associated processes involved in the regulation AS are poorly known.MethodsIn this study, we investigated AS in the mosquito Anopheles gambiae in the context of tissue-specific gene expression and mosquito responses to a Plasmodium falciparum infection, as well as the relationship between patterns of differential isoform expression and usage with chromatin accessibility changes.  For this, we combined RNA-seq and ATAC-seq data from A. gambiae midguts and salivary glands, infected and non-infected.ResultsWe report differences between tissues in the expression of 392 isoforms and in the use of 247 isoforms. Secondly, we find a clear and significant association between chromatin accessibility states and tissue-specific patterns of AS. The analysis of differential accessible regions located at splicing sites led to the identification of several motifs resembling the binding sites of Drosophila transcription factors. Finally, the genome-wide analysis of tissue-dependent enhancer activity revealed that approximately 20% of A. gambiae transcriptional enhancers annotate to a differentially expressed or used isoform, and that their activation status is linked to AS differences between tissues.ConclusionThis research elucidates the role of AS in mosquito vector gene expression and identifies regulatory regions potentially involved in AS regulation, which could be important in the development of novel strategies for vector control.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2024.1338648</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2024.1338648</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Global malaria predictors at a localized scale]]></title>
        <pubdate>2024-03-13T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Original Research</category>
        <author>Eloise B. Skinner</author><author>Marissa L. Childs</author><author>Matthew B. Thomas</author><author>Jackie Cook</author><author>Eleanore D. Sternberg</author><author>Alphonsine A. Koffi</author><author>Raphael N’Guessan</author><author>Rosine Z. Wolie</author><author>Welbeck A. Oumbouke</author><author>Ludovic P. Ahoua Alou</author><author>Serge Brice</author><author>Erin A. Mordecai</author>
        <description><![CDATA[Malaria is a life-threatening disease caused by Plasmodium parasites transmitted by Anopheles mosquitoes. In 2022, more than 249 million cases of malaria were reported worldwide, with an estimated 608,000 deaths. While malaria incidence has decreased globally in recent decades, some public health gains have plateaued, and many endemic hotspots still face high transmission rates. Understanding local drivers of malaria transmission is crucial but challenging due to the complex interactions between climate, entomological and human variables, and land use. This study focuses on highly climatically suitable and endemic areas in Côte d’Ivoire to assess the explanatory power of coarse climatic predictors of malaria transmission at a fine scale. Using data from 40 villages participating in a randomized controlled trial of a household malaria intervention, the study examines the effects of climate variation over time on malaria transmission. Through panel regressions and statistical modeling, the study investigates which variable (temperature, precipitation, or entomological inoculation rate) and its form (linear or unimodal) best explains seasonal malaria transmission and the factors predicting spatial variation in transmission. The results highlight the importance of temperature and rainfall, with quadratic temperature and all precipitation models performing well, but the causal influence of each driver remains unclear due to their strong correlation. Further, an independent, mechanistic temperature-dependent R0 model based on laboratory data, which predicts that malaria transmission peaks at 25°C and declines at lower and higher temperatures, aligns well with observed malaria incidence rates, emphasizing the significance and predictability of temperature suitability across scales. By contrast, entomological variables, such as entomological inoculation rate, were not strong predictors of human incidence in this context. Finally, the study explores the predictors of spatial variation in malaria, considering land use, intervention, and entomological variables. The findings contribute to a better understanding of malaria transmission dynamics at local scales, aiding in the development of effective control strategies in endemic regions.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2023.1073761</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmala.2023.1073761</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Using fruit flies to delve into mosquito insecticide resistance]]></title>
        <pubdate>2023-06-20T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Mini Review</category>
        <author>Kaniz Fatima Binte Hossain</author><author>Divya Vimal</author><author>Edward Owusu-Ansah</author>
        <description><![CDATA[With more than 3,000 species and an almost ubiquitous presence, the economic importance of mosquitoes cannot be overemphasized. Anopheles mosquitoes are vectors for infectious diseases such as malaria – an endemic disease in tropical and sub-tropical regions of the world that infects more than 200 million people worldwide and causes over 400,000 deaths annually, with most casualties being infants or inhabitants of sub-Saharan Africa. The Aedes aegytpi and Culex quinquefasciatus species of mosquitoes are also vectors for arboviruses such as chikungunya virus, dengue virus, western equine encephalitis virus, and Zika virus. Consequently, insecticides are frequently used to stem the population of mosquitoes. Nevertheless, mosquito insecticide resistance has emerged as a major problem that has contributed to numerous failed eradication campaigns for the aforementioned diseases. In this mini-review, we expound on how fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) could be a complementary model system for studying mosquito insecticide resistance, with the ultimate goal of confirming any promising leads in mosquitoes.]]></description>
      </item>
      </channel>
    </rss>