Background: Despite the physical and chemical effort to control
Aedes aegypti, the arboviruses transmission in the south of Mexico remains latent. Trying to improve the methods of entomological surveillance routinely used, whether the estimation of resistance to insecticides used for its control, as well as their enzyme mechanisms, were influenced by the phase in which the mosquitoes were collected through three different collection methods was investigated.
Materials and Methods: Mosquito collections from the “5 de Febrero” neighborhood in Tapachula, Mexico were obtained by ovitraps, larvitraps, and a CDC backpack aspirator. Insecticide resistance of F
1 females was determined by WHO diagnostic doses and resistance ratios (RR
50), furthermore, levels of insecticide metabolism enzymes were determined by biochemical assays.
Results: Overall, in mosquitoes collected by ovitraps, larvitraps, and CDC backpack aspirator respectively, the low mortalities obtained with the discriminant dose to Malathion (27.57%, 26.97%, and 26.91%), and to Bendiocarb (50.5%, 45.36%, and 54.97%) suggest resistance. However, LC
50 for Malathion (0.922, 0.934, and 0.915) and for Bendiocarb (0.112, 0.109, and 0.107); and the low resistance ratios (RR
50) for Malathion (3.34, 3.29, and 3.27) and for Bendiocarb (2.15, 2.1, and 2.06) does not suggest resistance. Although a slight numerical variation is observed between the three LC
50 values, the overlap observed between their confidence intervals allows us to assume that there were no differences between the three methods. In general, esterases (determined with three substrates), glutathion S-transferases (GST) and cytochromes P
450 were statistically higher than those of the susceptible strain; and the three enzyme levels were statistically different among the three collection methods (P < 0.01), being those collected with CDC backpack aspirator with the highest levels.
Conclusion: Although using a CDC backpack aspirator demonstrated being the best collection method determining a specific resistance mechanism (as elevation at the enzyme level) in the mosquito adult phase, any collection method is reliable to determine whether a field mosquito population is resistant or susceptible to an insecticide.
Aedes aegypti, is the main vector of dengue, chikungunya and Zika virus in America, this mosquito is distributed in the tropical and subtropical regions of America, South East Asia and Africa. The permanence in these areas has been influenced by improvised urbanization trends and climate variability [1]. Dickens et al. (2018) [2] suggest that human accessibility and biological plasticity of these mosquitoes are critical parameters for their distribution.
The initiative to control this vector in the Americas began in the early 20th century in 1901 by William C. Gorgas, with the elimination of containers considered potential breeding sites for mosquitoes that transmit yellow fever [3]. It is known that by 1945 the insecticide DDT was first used in South America for the eradication of Ae. aegypti in Bolivia [3]; in 1947 the proposal to eradicate Ae. aegypti is accepted and promoted by all PAHO members [4]. By 1967, the campaigns had yielded positive results in 18 countries, confirming the eradication of Ae. aegypti. However, between the 1970s and 1990s the re-emergence of Ae. aegypti was evidenced by the emergence of multiple dengue outbreaks in different countries of South, Central and North America; this was due to the deterioration of control programs [5]. Brady et al. (2012) [6] mentioned that approximately 390 million cases of dengue virus infection occur annually in tropical and subtropical areas around the world, where 824 million people in 128 countries are at risk of infection from living in urban areas. This is why in 2021, the transmission of dengue, chikungunya and Zika is still present in the region of the Americas [7].
Currently, a vaccine “CYD-TDV or Dengvaxia” (Sanofi Pasteur) is designed but not approved for dengue in all countries. It has presented clinical disadvantages, increasing the risk of severe dengue infection in children aged 2 to 5 years and in people infected for the first time after vaccination [8] [9]. That is why Public Health systems continue to bet on vector control programs, focused on the elimination of Ae. aegypti populations through integrated management systems.
The presence of Ae. aegypti in urbanized areas is closely associated with the human habitat, this mosquito lays its eggs in artificial hatcheries close to houses, such as: cisterns, tanks, pools, plastic buckets, tires and pots; inadequate management or accumulation of these makes them potential breeding sites, thus contributing to the abundance of these mosquitoes [10].
In Mexico, actions for the control of Ae. aegypti focuses on the elimination of mosquito breeding sites with the use of larvicides, residual and spatial sprays with adulticides, and with health promotion [11]. Chemical control is subject to high quality standards in the selection, approval and use of insecticides by the National Center for Preventive Programs and Disease Control (CENAPRECE), ensuring the effectiveness of the products as well as of the application techniques by means of biological efficacy tests [12].
However, in recent years, chemical control of Ae. aegypti is threatened by the emergence of mechanisms of resistance to the main groups of insecticides: carbamates, organophosphates and pyrethroids in the Americas, Asia and Africa [13]. Bisset (2002) [14] suggests that prolonged use, misdosing and inappropriate application of insecticides within these groups has resulted in the selection of one or more resistance mechanisms in mosquitoes, such as mutations at the target site and increased detoxification of insecticides in mosquitoes, regulated primarily by the activity of certain enzymes such as esterases, glutathione S-transferases and cytochromes P450.
The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have established first-line procedures and tools for monitoring insecticide susceptibility in mosquitoes with the use of “tube kit with impregnated paper” [15] and “CDC bottles” [16], as well as biochemical and molecular analyses for the characterization of the enzyme based- and mutations based-mechanisms.
The diversity of collection methods for the colonization of mosquitoes used in tests of susceptibility to insecticides is wide, obtaining biological material in different biological phases: eggs, larvae/pupae and imagos of Ae. aegypti. It seems that the choice of collection method so far has been for its practicality, abundance of collected mosquitoes, time and effort.
Currently in Mexico Ae. aegypti is collected in phase of egg with the use of ovitraps [17], reliable and cost-effective method; other authors who have monitored insecticide resistance in some South American countries such as Ecuador and Colombia obtain their wild strains through larval surveys [18] [19], as recommended by WHO in its Ae aegypti surveillance procedure [20]. The capture of imagoes of field Ae. aegypti has been another option in Venezuela for the colonization of mosquito strains for the estimation of resistance to insecticides [21]. Other authors prefer not to mention the capture technique of field strains of mosquitoes used in estimating resistance to insecticides in Peru [22].
However, it is still unknown whether the physiological stage in which Ae. aegypti is collected to be colonized for these studies influences the estimation of insecticide resistance levels. If so, a sub-or overestimation of the resistance due to the phase in which it is collected could have important implications for the effectiveness of monitoring it and therefore for its control.
Trying to improve the methods of entomological surveillance routinely used by the vector control program, the resistance levels to Malathion and Bendiocarb (two insecticides widely used today in Mexico), and its enzyme mechanisms of Ae. aegypti collected in different stages of life using the ovitrap, larvitrap, and CDC backpack aspirator methods, were evaluated and compared for differences.
2. Materials and Methods2.1. Study Site
Ae. aegypti mosquitoes were collected in the “5 de Febrero” neighborhood located northeast of Tapachula, Chiapas, N14˚55'09.120''W 92˚15'32.82''W (Figure 1), at 160 meters above the sea level, average annual temperature from 24˚C to 35˚C, and rainfall ranging from 2300 to more than 3900 mm per year. This neighborhood has been frequently selected for studies of insecticide resistance
[23] [24], due to the abundant presence and distribution of some species of culicids in the urban area and areas of undisturbed vegetation, and the constant use of adulticides.
2.2. Collection and Mosquito Breeding Sites
Ae. aegypti eggs, larvae/pupae and imagos were collected during five consecutive weeks, using three collection methods: ovitraps, larvitraps and CDC backpack aspirator, respectively. The ovitraps consisted of 1-litre black plastic canisters fitted with filter paper and were used as indicated in the national operational guide [17]. Likewise, modified larvitraps with the capacity to contain 3 liters of water were used for the collection of larvae and pupae of Ae. aegypti [25]. On the other hand, for the collection of imagos of Ae. aegypti intra- and peri-domiciliary aspiration were used with CDC backpack aspirator approximately between 15 and 20 minutes as indicated by the entomological collection guide of the INDRE [26]. The collection was carried out intra and peri domiciliary every 7 days with the due informed consent of the community. The biological material collected was transferred to the insectarium of the Insecticide Resistance Laboratory at the Centro Regional de Investigación en Salud Pública (CRISP) to obtain the F1 mosquito generation under 27˚C - 30˚C, 70% relative humidity, and 12:12 (light: dark) photoperiods. The methodological guide for the installation and maintenance of insectarium of Ae. aegypti (Diptera: culicidae) [27] was used for this purpose.
2.3. Susceptibility Bioassays
The susceptibility studies were undertaken according to the WHO methodology [15] [28]. Whatman #1 filter papers were manually impregnated with the diagnostic doses 0.8% of Malathion (technical grade, 98.5% purity), and 0.1% of Bendiocarb (100% purity), both from Sigma Aldrich. To determine the lethal concentration at 50% (LC50) the following concentrations were used for field mosquitoes: Malathion 1.6%, 1.3%, 1.0%, 1.8%, 0.5%, and for Bendiocarb 0.2%, 0.15%, 0.1%, 0.08%, 0.05%. While for the susceptible New Orleans mosquitoes were used: for Malathion 0.8%, 0.5%, 0.3%, 0.1%, 0.07% and for Bendiocarb 0.1%, 0.08%, 0.05%, 0.03%, 0.01% (Table 1). Sugar fed female mosquitoes 2-3 day old were exposed to the insecticide and after 1 h mosquitoes were passed to the resting tubes during 24 h, then mortality readings were registered. Three replicates with four tubes each were performed for each mosquito population and each insecticide concentration (Table 1). All evaluations were carried out with its respective control tube using olive oil impregnated paper. The WHO criterion was used for susceptibility/resistance diagnosis of mosquito populations: susceptible from 98% to 100% mortality, resistance to be confirmed from 90% to 98% mortality, and resistant mosquitoes < 90% mortality. As to interpret the resistance ratios (RR50): susceptibility (5×), moderately resistant (5× to 10×) and resistant (10×) [15] [29].
Insecticides, concentrations and number of mosquitoes used to determine resistance levels in Ae. aegypti from three collection methods in Tapachula, Chiapas
Insecticide
Group
Strain
n1
DC%2
n3
Concentration Scale %
Malathion (Sigma Alcdrich)
Organophosphate
“5 de Febrero” (three collection methods)
906
0.8
4531
1.6, 1.3, 1.0, 1.8, 0.5
New Orleans (Susceptible)
300
1506
0.8, 0.5, 0.3, 0.1%, 0.07
Bendiocarb (Sigma Aldrich)
Carbamate
“5 de Febrero” (three collection methods)
905
0.1
4516
0.2, 0.15, 0.1, 0.08, 0.05
New Orleans (Susceptible)
301
1508
0.1, 0.08, 0.05, 0.03, 0.01
1. Number of mosquitoes exposed to diagnostic concentration. 2. Diagnostic concentration in percentage (%). 3. Number of mosquitoes exposed to Concentration scale (%).
2.4. Biochemical Tests
The levels of esterases using α- and β-naphtyl acetate, and ρ-nitro phenyl acetate (ρNPA) as substrates, glutathione S-transferases (GST) and cytochromes P450 were performed following the protocol described by Penilla and cols. [30] in Ae. aegypti collected with ovitraps, larvitraps and CDC backpack aspirator. All enzyme levels of the field mosquitoes were compared with that obtained in a laboratory susceptible strain New Orleans.
2.5. Statistical Analysis
Malathion and Bendiocarb LC50 for field mosquito populations were obtained through the cumulative probability analysis under its curve (Probit), analyzing mortality rates in the R 3.5 statistical package. The enzyme levels of field mosquitoes and those of the susceptible strain were compared using a variance analysis (ANOVA) with a Post Hoc to find variability between the mosquito strains and the used collection methods. Statistical analysis and histograms were performed with the IBM SPSS Statistic 21.0.
3. Results3.1. Bioassays of Susceptibility
Field mosquito mortalities to the diagnostic concentration of Malathion and Bendiocarb were lower than the 100% mortality of the susceptible strain. Mortalities for ovitraps, larvitraps and CDC backpack aspirator respectively were 27.57%, 26.97%, and 26.91% for Malathion; and 50.5%, 45.36%, and 54.97% for Bendiocarb (Figure 2), suggesting resistance.
LC50 for ovitraps, larvitraps and CDC backpack aspirator respectively were 0.922, 0.934, and 0.915 for Malathion; and 0.112, 0.109, and 0.107 for Bendiocarb (Figure 3). The RR50 or number of times that LC50 from field mosquitoes were greater than LC50 from the susceptible strain ranged from 1.91 to 2.23 for Malathion and 2.02 to 2.18 for Bendiocarb (Table 2 and Table 3), suggesting susceptibility for both insecticides. It should be noted that, given the nature of the data,
Resistance status of Aedes aegypti adults to insecticide malathion, compared to the reference New Orleans strain.<sup>1</sup>
Strain by collection method
n2
LC50 (95% CI)
LC99 (95% CI)
Slope ± SE
Ji 2
P value
RR50
RR99
“5 de Febrero” (Ovitraps)
1506
0.922 (0.891 - 0.932)
1.458 (1.380 - 1.483)
4.472 ± 0.209
1085.50
<2.2e−16
3.29
1.92
“5 de Febrero” (Larvitraps)
1519
0.934 (0.896 - 0.946)
1.690 (1.332 - 1.509)
3.166 ± 0.140
813.3
<2.2e−16
3.34
2.23
“5 de Febrero” (CDC Backpack Aspirator)
1506
0.915 (0.884 - 0.925)
1.452 (1.374 - 1.477)
4.462 ± 0.209
1081.20
<2.2e−16
3.27
1.91
New Orleans (Susceptible)
1506
0.280 (0.256 - 0.288)
0.759 (0.688 - 0.782)
5.019 ± 0.232
848.84
<2.2e−16
1
1
1. LC50 and LC99, lethal concentration that affects 50% and 99% of the population, respectively; RR50, resistance ratio calculated as the ratio between the LC50 of field mosquitoes and the susceptible strain, as well as for RR99. 2. Number of mosquitoes exposed.
Resistance status of Aedes aegypti adults to insecticide bendiocarb, compared to the reference New Orleans strain.<sup>1</sup>
Strain by collection method
n2
LC50 (95% CI)
LC99 (95% CI)
Slope ± SE
Xchi2
P value
RR50
RR99
“5 de Febrero” (Ovitraps)
1504
0.112 (0.106 - 0.114)
0.246 (0.227 - 0.252)
17.931± 0.834
604.93
<2.2e−16
2.15
2.18
“5 de Febrero” (Larvitraps)
1506
0.109 (0.103 - 0.111)
0.240 (0.221 - 0.246)
18.389 ± 0.856
614
<2.2e−16
2.1
2.12
“5 de Febrero” (CDC Backpack Aspirator)
1506
0.107 (0.101 - 0.109)
0.227 (0.210 - 0.233)
20.020± 0.918
676.61
<2.2e−16
2.06
2.02
New Orleans (Susceptible)
1508
0.052 (0.049 - 0.053)
0.113 (0.105 - 0.115)
39.700 ± 1.613
932.28
<2.2e−16
1
1
1. LC50 and LC99, lethal concentration that affects 50% and 99% of the population, respectively; RR50, resistance ratio calculated as the ratio between the LC50 of field mosquitoes and the susceptible strain, as well as for RR99. 2. Number of mosquitoes exposed.
they were not statistically analyzed to determine possible differences between the LC50 values obtained between the collection methods for each insecticide. Therefore, although a slight numerical variation is observed between the three LC50 values (see Figure 3), the overlap observed between their confidence intervals allows us to assume that there were no differences between the three methods.
3.2. Biochemical Tests
α-β- and ρNPA-esterases: The three enzyme levels from the mosquito population were significantly different (P < 0.01) between collection methods, except for β-esterases in larvitraps vs ovitraps, and for α-esterases and ρNPA-esterases in CDC backpack aspirator vs larvitraps. In general, the three enzyme levels were statistically higher when compared with the susceptible strain levels (Figure 4). But when separated by collection method and type of esterases, mosquitoes collected with ovitraps and larvitraps were not significantly different in their ρNPA-esterase levels when compared to those of the susceptible strain. Concentration ratios (CR) of α-β- and ρNPA-esterases higher than those of the susceptible
strain were 2.0, 1.4 and 0.8 times for ovitraps; 2.51, 1.4, 1.4 times for larvitraps; and 2.63, 1.98 and 1.43 times for CDC backpack aspirator (Table 4). Glutathione S-transferase: GST levels of field mosquitoes were significantly different (P < 0.01) among collection methods, and against the susceptible strain (Figure 4). Mosquitoes from ovitraps, larvitraps, and CDC backpack aspirator had CR: 1.8, 2.2, and 2.9 times respectively higher than the susceptible strain (Table 4), with those collected with CDC backpack with statistically differences (P < 0.01). Cytochrome P450: field mosquito levels collected with ovitraps, larvitraps, and CDC backpack had CR of 2.12, 2.29, and 2.67, respectively higher than the susceptible strain (Figure 4 and Table 4). With statistical differences only between mosquitoes collected with CDC backpack aspirator vs ovitrap, and CDC backpack vs the susceptible strain (P < 0.01).
4. Discussion
The management of resistance to insecticides is an important component in any vector control program [31], since it depends on this to identify that a possible failure in mosquito control is due to the insecticide in use [32] and, therefore, the recommendation for the alternative insecticide can be made based on the
Mean of the enzymatic activity of Aedes aegypti collected with three collection methods, represented in number of times greater (CR) than the enzymatic activity of the susceptible strain New Orleans
Collection method
α naftil acetato (nmol/mg prot)
±SE
CR1
β naftil acetato (nmol/mg prot)
±SE
CR1
ρNPA2 (mmol Act/min/mg prot)
±SE
CR1
GST3 (mmol)
±SE
CR1
Cytochrome P450 (pmol)
±SE
CR1
Ovitraps
0.00070
0.000032
2.0
0.00059
0.000026
1.4
0.58
0.024
0.8
3.23
0.21
1.8
0.0013
0.0013
2.1
Larvitraps
0.00088
0.000032
2.5
0.00058
0.000031
1.4
0.94
0.027
1.4
3.90
0.24
2.2
0.0014
0.0014
2.3
CDC Backpack Aspirator
0.00093
0.000038
2.6
0.00084
0.000043
2.0
0.99
0.039
1.4
5.31
0.28
2.9
0.0016
0.0001
2.6
New Orleans
0.00035
0.000020
1.0
0.00043
0.000031
1.0
0.69
0.075
1.0
1.81
0.06
1.0
0.0006
0.0001
1.0
1. Concentration ratio (CR). 2. para-nitrophenyl acetate. 3. Glutation S-transferase.
evidence. However, for the implementation of an insecticide resistance monitoring system, it is also necessary to have an entomological surveillance system, whose objective is not only to measure changes in the vector population, but also to provide viable and abundant biological material for the laboratory studies. Here, the resistance to Malathion and Bendiocarb were determined in a population of Ae. aegypti from a neighborhood with a high story of insecticide usage, and whether the type of collection method used influenced somehow with the levels of insecticide resistance estimated was investigated. The WHO recommends the use of biological material collected by larval surveys for biological testing in the monitoring of insecticide resistance [20], because this method provides a greater number of specimens for colonization, but with greater effort, number of staff and extensive collection coverage. In other studies, the material is collected by ovitraps [22] [23] [33] [34], one of the more versatile and reliable collection method known. However, we should not neglect the economic investment needed for its manufacture and the use of filter paper or pellon fabric, and some more tools mentioned in the methodological guide for entomological surveillance with ovitraps (CENAPRECE) [17]. On the other hand, the collection of mosquitoes with the use of equipment such as BG-Sentinel or CDC backpack aspirator becomes a much more intrusive method than the previous ones, requiring more investment of time, equipment and trained personnel, which indicates greater economic investment [35].
As mentioned above, the WHO recommends, but does not impose the method of collection, nor the stage at which mosquitoes should be collected for the biological testing. Therefore, the implementation of another collection method such as the use of larvitraps (method to collect larvae and pupae of mosquitoes), can be another option and in turn can serve to systematize the larval research. Moreover, when this collection method has proved to be effective [36] even significantly more effective in the collection of Ae. aegypti compared to the use of ovitraps [25] [37].
No evaluations of comparing insecticide resistance in a population of Ae. aegypti mosquitoes from different collection methods has been reported. The results of the present study show that resistance obtained by LC50 of mosquitoes exposed to Malathion and Bendiocarb were not different among the collection methods. Contrary to the biochemical assays results, where the highest levels of most of the enzymes were recorded in mosquitoes collected with CDC backpack aspirator, with statistical differences for β-esterases and GST (P < 0.01). The high levels of α- and β-esterases, GSTs, and cytochromes P450 found in mosquitoes from larvitraps, ovitraps, and CDC backpack aspirator compared to those observed in the susceptible strain evidence the relationship with Malathion and Bendiocarb resistance obtained with the WHO diagnostic doses. High levels of esterases are involved with resistance to organophosphates, carbamates and pyrethroids [38] [39], corroborating that the biochemical assays are more sensitive in detecting variations at the enzyme level [30] vs the results obtained by WHO tube bioassays. On the other hand, in Mexico, insecticide resistance in Ae. aegypti has been widely described for different populations [23] [24] [33] [38] of this vector, a situation that has been reported as a serious problem for its control measures and strategies [32]. There are already records of the resistance to organophosphates and carbamates in mosquitoes collected using ovitraps and evaluated for insecticide resistance with the CDC method. López et al. (2016) [23] reported mortalities minor of 80% for Malathion and between 88% and 91% for Bendiocarb. Our results confirm the resistance to Malathion and Bendiocarb in Ae. aegypti adults diagnosed with the WHO diagnostic dose with the WHO tubes. This suggests that regardless of the type of bioassay, when using both CDC and WHO diagnostic concentrations, the findings of resistance levels are similar. Moreover, when calculating LC50 to obtain the RR, there was no resistance. The susceptible strain used in this study may be in a lower range of susceptibility than the susceptible strain or strains of Ae. aegypti used for the calculation of the diagnostic concentration by the WHO. However, calculating lethal concentrations with the CDC method and with these same insecticides, we have found resistance ratios in the same ranges, comparing the same susceptible and field strains.
5. Conclusion
Resistance levels in Ae. aegypti from “5 de Febrero”, were higher compared to the susceptible strain New Orleans using both the WHO diagnostic concentration and the RR50, but only results from the former method determined the mosquito population as resistant. Insecticide resistance levels to Malathion and Bendiocarb were not different between collection methods. While differences in levels of esterases, GSTs and cytochromes P450 were statistically significant among mosquitoes from different collection methods, and most were also higher compared to the levels of the susceptible strain, indicating that more than one resistance mechanism based on the metabolism of the insecticides is involved. These could be explaining the low mortalities found using the WHO diagnostic doses, so enzymes could play an important role in the resistance to Malathion and Bendiocarb in this mosquito population; however metabolism studies are required for confirmation. We are now certain that the collection method used to obtain F1 generation mosquito colonies for insecticide susceptibility bioassays does not influence the results, and choosing any of them rather depends on the different situations of economy, logistics, operating personnel and objectives of those interested in carrying out these studies.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.
Cite this paper
Quezada-Yaguachi, W.E., Rodriguez, A.D., Solís-Santoyo, F., López-Solís, A.D., Black IV, W.C. Saavedra- Rodriguez, K., Morales-Viteri, D. and Penilla- Navarro, R.P. (2022) Comparison of Insecticide Resistance and Its Enzyme Mechanisms among Aedes aegypti Collected with Three Methods in a Dengue-Endemic City in Southern Mexico. Advances in Entomology, 10, 252-266. https://doi.org/10.4236/ae.2022.103018
NOTESReferencesKraemer, M.U.G., Sinka, M.E., Duda, K.A., Mylne, A.Q.N., Shearer, F.M., Barker, C.M., Moore, C.G., Carvalho, R.G., Coelho, G.E., Van Bortel, W., Hendrickx, G., Schaffner, F., Elyazar, I.R., Teng, H.J., Brady, O.J., Messina, J.P., Pigott, D.M., Scott, T.W., Smith, D.L., Hay, S.I., et al. (2015) The Global Distribution of the Arbovirus Vectors Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus. ELife, 4, e08347. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08347Dickens, B.L., Sun, H., Jit, M., Cook, A.R. and Carrasco, L.R. (2018) Determining Environmental and Anthropogenic Factors Which Explain the Global Distribution of Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus. BMJ Global Health, 3, e000801. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000801Penilla, R.P., Rodriguez, A.D., Hemingway, J., Torres, J.L., Arredondo-Jimenez, J.I. and Rodriguez, M.H. (1998) Resistance Management Strategies in Malaria Vector Mosquito Control. Baseline Data for a Large-Scale Field Trial against Anopheles albimanus in Mexico. Medical and Veterinary Entomology, 12, 217-233. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2915.1998.00123.xDusfour, I., Vontas, J., David, J.P., Weetman, D., Fonseca, D.M., Corbel, V., Raghavendra, K., Coulibaly, M.B., Martins, A.J., Kasai, S. and Chandre, F. (2019) Management of Insecticide Resistance in the Major Aedes Vectors of Arboviruses: Advances and Challenges. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 13, e0007615. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0007615Vazquez-Prokopec, G.M., Medina-Barreiro, A., Che-Mendoza, A., Dzul-Manzanilla, F., Correa-Morales, F., Guillermo-May, G., Bibiano-Marín, W., Uc-Puc, V., Geded-Moreno, E., Vadillo-Sánchez, J., Palacio-Vargas, J., Ritchie, S. A., Lenhart, A. and Manrique-Saide, P. (2017) Deltamethrin Resistance in Aedes aegypti Results in Treatment Failure in Merida, Mexico. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 11, e0005656. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0005656Deming, R., Manrique-Saide, P., Medina Barreiro, A., Cardena, E.U.K., Che-Mendoza, A., Jones, B., Liebman, K., Vizcaino, L., Vazquez-Prokopec, G. and Lenhart, A. (2016) Spatial Variation of Insecticide Resistance in the Dengue Vector Aedes aegypti Presents Unique Vector Control Challenges. Parasites and Vectors, 9, Article No. 67. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-016-1346-3Polson, K.A., Rawlins, S.C., Brogdon, W.G. and Chadee, D.D. (2010) Organophosphate Resistance in Trinidad and Tobago Strains of Aedes aegypti. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, 26, 403-410. https://doi.org/10.2987/10-6019.1World Health Organization/Pan American Health Organization (2019) Documento técnico para la implementación de intervenciones basado en escenarios operativos genéricos para el control del Aedes aegypti. World Health Organization, Geneva, 58. http://iris.paho.orgValdéz Miró, V., Reyes Arencibia, M., Bandomo Abreu, N., Leyva Silva, M. and Marquetti Fernández, M.C. (2018) Evaluación de las larvitrampas como método de vigilancia de Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) y otros culícidos. Revista Cubana de Medicina Tropical, 70, 1-10. http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0375-07602018000300002Silva, V.C., Serra-Freire, N.M., Silva, J.D.S., Scherer, P.O., Rodrigues, I., Cunha, S.P. and Alencar, J. (2009) Estudo comparativo entre larvitrampas e ovitrampas para avaliacao da presenca de Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) em Campo Grande, Estado do Rio de Janeiro. Revista Da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical, 42, 730-731. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0037-86822009000600023Flores, A.E., Grajales Salomón, J., Fernandez Salas, I., Ponce Garcia, G., Loaiza Becerra, M.H., Lozano, S., Brogdon, W.G., Black IV, W.C. and Beaty, B. (2006) Mechanisms of Insecticide Resistance in Field Populations of Aedes aegypti (L.) from Mechanisms of Insecticide Resistance in Field Populations. American Mosquito Control Association, 22, 672-677. https://doi.org/10.2987/8756-971X(2006)22[672:MOIRIF]2.0.CO;2Nunes, R.F.F., De Souza, M.A., Costa de Oliveira, J., Granjeiro, R.F.O., Marinho, M.J.D.M. and Pereira, W.O. (2015) Caracterizacao de perfis enzimáticos de cepas do Aedes aegypti do Estado do Rio Grande do Norte, Brasil. Universidade Do Estado Do Rio Grande Do Norte. R. Atirador Miguel Antonio Da Silva Neto, 285-292.Cáceres, L., Rovira, J., García, A., Torres, R. and De la Cruz, M. (2012) Determinación del estado de la susceptibilidad a insecticidas organofosforados, carbamato y piretroides en poblaciones de Aedes aegypti Linneaus, 1762 (Díptera: Culicidae) de Panamá. Biomédica, 33, 70-81. https://doi.org/10.7705/biomedica.v33i0.703World Health Organization (2006) Guidelines for Testing Mosquito Adulticides for Indoor Residual Spraying and Treatment of Mosquito Nets. World Health Organization, Geneva. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/69296Centro Nacional de Programas Preventivos y Control de Enfermedades (2020) Guía metodológica para la instalación y mantenimiento del insectario. Secretaria de Salud Pública de México. https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/598095/Guia_Metodologica_para_la_Instalacion_y_Mantenimiento_del__Insectario_compressed.pdfInstituto de Diagnóstico y Referencia Epidemiológicos (2009) Guia de colecta entomologica. Secretaria de Salud Pública de México.http://www.cenaprece.salud.gob.mx/programas/interior/vectores/descargas/pdf/guia_colecta_entomologica_InDRE.pdfQuezada-Yaguachi, W.E., Rodriguez, A.D., Solís-Santoyo, F., Lopez-Solis, A.D., Black IV, W., Saavedra-Rodriguez, K., Morales-Viteri, D. and Penilla-Navarro, P. (2022) Comparative Evaluation of the Regular Ovitrap vs an Innovated Larvitrap for Aedes Entomological Surveillance in Tapachula. Advances in Entomology, 10, 77-84. https://doi.org/10.4236/ae.2022.101006Solis-Santoyo, F., Rodriguez, A.D., Penilla-Navarro, R.P., Sanchez, D., Castillo-Vera, A., Lopez-Solis, A.D., Vazquez-Lopez, E.D., Lozano, S., Black, W.C. and Saavedra-Rodriguez, K. (2021) Insecticide Resistance in Aedes aegypti from Tapachula, Mexico: Spatial Variation and Response to Historical Insecticide Use. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 15, e0009746. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0009746López-Solís, A.D., Castillo-Vera, A., Cisneros, J., Solís-Santoyo, F., Penilla-Navarro, R.P., Black, W.C., Luis Torres-Estrada, J. and Rodríguez, A.D. (2020) Resistencia a insecticidas en Aedes aegypti y Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) de Tapachula, Chiapas, México. Salud Publica de Mexico, 62, 439-446. https://doi.org/10.21149/10131Bisset, J.A., Rodriguez, M.M., Fernández, D. and Palomino, M. (2007) Resistencia a insecticidas y mecanismos de resistencia en Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) de 2 provincias del Perú. Revista Cubana de Medicina Tropical, 59, 202-208.Molina, D. and Figueroa, L.E. (2009) Resistencia metabólica a insecticidas organofosforados en Anopheles aquasalis Curry 1932, municipio Libertador, estado Sucre, Venezuela. Biomedica, 29, 604-615. https://doi.org/10.7705/biomedica.v29i4.138World Health Organization (2016) Entomological Surveillance for Aedes spp. in the Context of Zika Virus. World Health Organization, Geneva, 1-10. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/204624Ocampo, C.B., Salazar-Terreros, M.J., Mina, N.J., McAllister, J. and Brogdon, W. (2011) Insecticide Resistance Status of Aedes aegypti in 10 Localities in Colombia. Acta Tropica, 118, 37-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actatropica.2011.01.007Morales, D., Ponce, P., Cevallos, V., Espinosa, P., Vaca, D. and Quezada, W. (2019) Resistance Status of Aedes aegypti to Deltamethrin, Malathion, and Temephos in Ecuador. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, 35, 113-122. https://doi.org/10.2987/19-6831.1Centro Nacional de Programas Preventivos y Control de Enfermedades (2020) Guía metodológica para la vigilancia entomológica con ovitrampas. Segunda Edition, Secretaria de Salud Pública de México. https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/598092/Guia_Metodologica_para_Vigilancia_Entomologica_con_Ovitrampas_compressed.pdfBrogdon, W.G. and Chan, A. (2010) Guideline for Evaluating Insecticide Resistance in Vectors Using the CDC Bottle Bioassay. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, 1-28. http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/resources/pdf/fsp/ir_manual/ir_cdc_bioassay_es.pdfWorld Health Organization (2018) Test Procedures for Insecticide Resistance Monitoring in Malaria Vector Mosquitoes. Segunda edición, World Health Organization, Geneva. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/250677/9789241511575-eng.pdfBisset J.A. ,et al. (2002)Uso correcto de insecticidas: Control de la resistencia Revista Cubana de Medicina Tropical 1, 2-9.Moyes, C.L., Vontas, J., Martins, A.J., Ng, L.C., Koou, S.Y., Dusfour, I., Raghavendra, K., Pinto, J., Corbel, V., David, J.P. and Weetman, D. (2017) Contemporary Status of Insecticide Resistance in the Major Aedes Vectors of Arboviruses Infecting Humans. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 15, e0009084. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0009084Centro Nacional de Programas Preventivos y Control de Enfermedades (2020) Guía para la Determinacion de la Susceptibilidad/Resistencia y Eficacia Biológica a insecticidas. Segunda edición, Secretaria de Salud Pública de México. https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/598093/Guia_para_la_Determinaci_n_de_la_SusceptibilidadResistencia_y_Eficacia_..._compr.pdfSecretaria de Salud de México (SSA) (2001) Programa de Acción: Enfermedades transmitidas por Vector. Primera edición, Secretaría de Salud de México. https://www.academia.edu/24368617/Programa_de_Acci%C3%B3n_Enfermedades_Transmitidas_por_VectorStein, M., Inés Oria, G. and Almirón, W.R. (2002) Main Breeding-Containers for Aedes aegypti and Associated Culicids, Argentina. Revista de Saude Publica, 36, 627-630. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-89102002000600013Aguiar, M., Stollenwerk, N. and Halstead, S.B. (2016) The Impact of the Newly Licensed Dengue Vaccine in Endemic Countries. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 10, e0005179. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0005179World Health Organization (2016) Dengue Vaccine. WHO Position Paper. Weekly Epidemiological Record, 30, 349-364. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/360069World Health Organization/Pan American Health Organization (2021) Actualización Epidemiológica. Arvobirosis en el contexto de COVID-19. World Health Organization, Geneva, 1-12. https://www.paho.org/data/index.php/esBrady, O.J., Gething, P.W., Bhatt, S., Messina, J.P., Brownstein, J.S., Hoen, A.G., Moyes, C.L., Farlow, A.W., Scott, T.W. and Hay, S.I. (2012) Refining the Global Spatial Limits of Dengue Virus Transmission by Evidence-Based Consensus. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 6, e1760.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0001760Dick, O.B., San Martín, J.L., Montoya, R.H., Del Diego, J., Zambrano, B. and Dayan, G.H. (2012) Review: The History of Dengue Outbreaks in the Americas. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 87, 584-593. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.2012.11-0770Slosek, J. (1986) Aedes aegypti Mosquitoes in the Americas: A Review of Their Interactions with the Human Population. Social Science and Medicine, 23, 249-257. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(86)90345-XSevero, O.P. (1955) Eradication of the Aedes aegypti Mosquito from the Americas. Yellow Fever, a Symposium in Commemoration of Carlos Juan Finlay, The Jefferson Medical College of Philadelphia, 22-23 September 1995, Paper 6. http://jdc.jefferson.edu/yellow_fever_symposium