Detection of knockdown resistance (kdr) mutations in Anopheles gambiae: a comparison of two new high-throughput assays with existing methods.
BACKGROUND
Knockdown resistance (kdr) is a well-characterized mechanism of resistance to pyrethroid insecticides in many insect species and is caused by point mutations of the pyrethroid target site the para-type sodium channel. The presence of kdr mutations in Anopheles gambiae, the most important malaria vector in Africa, has been monitored using a variety of molecular techniques. However, there are few reports comparing the performance of these different assays. In this study, two new high-throughput assays were developed and compared with four established techniques.


METHODS
Fluorescence-based assays based on 1) TaqMan probes and 2) high resolution melt (HRM) analysis were developed to detect kdr alleles in An. gambiae. Four previously reported techniques for kdr detection, Allele Specific Polymerase Chain Reaction (AS-PCR), Heated Oligonucleotide Ligation Assay (HOLA), Sequence Specific Oligonucleotide Probe - Enzyme-Linked ImmunoSorbent Assay (SSOP-ELISA) and PCR-Dot Blot were also optimized. The sensitivity and specificity of all six assays was then compared in a blind genotyping trial of 96 single insect samples that included a variety of kdr genotypes and African Anopheline species. The relative merits of each assay was assessed based on the performance in the genotyping trial, the length/difficulty of each protocol, cost (both capital outlay and consumable cost), and safety (requirement for hazardous chemicals).


RESULTS
The real-time TaqMan assay was both the most sensitive (with the lowest number of failed reactions) and the most specific (with the lowest number of incorrect scores). Adapting the TaqMan assay to use a PCR machine and endpoint measurement with a fluorimeter showed a slight reduction in sensitivity and specificity. HRM initially gave promising results but was more sensitive to both DNA quality and quantity and consequently showed a higher rate of failure and incorrect scores. The sensitivity and specificity of AS-PCR, SSOP-ELISA, PCR Dot Blot and HOLA was fairly similar with a small number of failures and incorrect scores.


CONCLUSIONS
The results of blind genotyping trials of each assay indicate that where maximum sensitivity and specificity are required the TaqMan real-time assay is the preferred method. However, the cost of this assay, particularly in terms of initial capital outlay, is higher than that of some of the other methods. TaqMan assays using a PCR machine and fluorimeter are nearly as sensitive as real-time assays and provide a cost saving in capital expenditure. If price is a primary factor in assay choice then the AS-PCR, SSOP-ELISA, and HOLA are all reasonable alternatives with the SSOP-ELISA approach having the highest throughput.
Bass
Chris
C
Department of Biological Chemistry, Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, UK. chris.bass@bbsrc.ac.uk
Nikou
Dimitra
D
Donnelly
Martin J
MJ
Williamson
Martin S
MS
Ranson
Hilary
H
Ball
Amanda
A
Vontas
John
J
Field
Linda M
LM
D000818:Animals; D000852:Anopheles / Q000187:drug effects / Q000235:genetics*; D005453:Fluorescence; D019476:Insect Proteins / Q000235:genetics; D007303:Insect Vectors / Q000187:drug effects / Q000235:genetics*; D007305:Insecticide Resistance; D017354:Point Mutation; D016133:Polymerase Chain Reaction / Q000191:economics / Q000379:methods; D011722:Pyrethrins / Q000494:pharmacology; D015222:Sodium Channels / Q000235:genetics; D044366:Transition Temperature
D019476:Insect Proteins; D011722:Pyrethrins; D015222:Sodium Channels
Nature. 1951 Aug 4;168(4266):193-5
14875041
Emerg Infect Dis. 2007 Feb;13(2):199-206
17479880
Med Vet Entomol. 2004 Dec;18(4):372-7
15642004
Bull Entomol Res. 2000 Apr;90(2):125-32
10948372
Insect Mol Biol. 2000 Oct;9(5):491-7
11029667
Insect Mol Biol. 2001 Feb;10(1):9-18
11240632
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2002 Jul;67(1):24-7
12363059
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2003 Apr;68(4 Suppl):23-9
12749482
Insect Mol Biol. 2003 Jun;12(3):241-5
12752657
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2004 Jun;70(6):591-6
15210997
Clin Chem. 2004 Jul;50(7):1156-64
15229148
J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2004 Jun;20(2):195-6
15264630
Genetics. 1984 Aug;107(4):611-34
6430749
Annu Rev Entomol. 1989;34:77-96
2539040
Trends Pharmacol Sci. 1992 Jun;13(6):236-41
1321523
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1992 Dec;47(6):893-901
1471745
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1993 Oct;49(4):520-9
8214283
Med Vet Entomol. 1994 Jan;8(1):71-5
8161849
Lancet. 1995 Feb 25;345(8948):479-83
7861874
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1995 May;52(5):377-82
7771600
Trop Med Int Health. 1996 Apr;1(2):147-54
8665378
Mol Gen Genet. 1996 Aug 27;252(1-2):51-60
8804403
Genome Res. 1997 Apr;7(4):389-98
9110178
Nucleic Acids Res. 1997 Jul 1;25(13):2657-60
9185578
Insect Mol Biol. 1998 May;7(2):179-84
9535162
Genet Anal. 1999 Feb;14(5-6):143-9
10084106
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2005 Feb;72(2):155-62
15741552
Malar J. 2005;4:16
15766386
Acta Trop. 2005 Sep;95(3):204-9
16023989
Malar J. 2006;5:16
16504072
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2006 Apr;74(4):658-62
16607001
Med Vet Entomol. 2006 Mar;20(1):27-32
16608487
J Med Entomol. 2006 Mar;43(2):238-47
16619605
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2006 May;74(5):795-7
16687682
Malar J. 2006;5:56
16820067
BMC Cancer. 2006;6:295
17184525
Trop Med Int Health. 2004 Dec;9(12):1267-73
15598258