Mosquitos Grow Resistant to Common Insecticide

Growing resistance is threatening global malaria-control efforts.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

By Declan Butler of Nature magazine

Key weapons in the fight against malaria, pyrethroid insecticides, are losing their edge. Over the past decade, billions of dollars have been spent on distributing long-lasting pyrethroid-treated bed nets and on indoor spraying. Focused in Africa, where most malaria deaths occur, these efforts have greatly reduced the disease's toll. But they have also created intense selection pressure for mosquitoes to develop resistance.

"Data are coming in thick and fast indicating increasing levels of resistance, and also of resistance in new places," says Jo Lines, an entomological epidemiologist and head of vector control at the Global Malaria Program of the World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva, Switzerland. The WHO now intends to launch a global strategy to tackle the problem by the end of the year.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Pyrethroids are the mainstay of malaria control because they are safe, cheap, effective and long-lasting. Alternatives such as organophosphates and carbamates are available for indoor spraying, although they cost more and are less effective. But pyrethroids are the only insecticides approved by the WHO for use in bed nets. "We have lots of our eggs in the pyrethroid basket," says Robert Newman, director of the Global Malaria Program.

The international community has been slow to respond to the threat despite warnings, says Janet Hemingway, director of the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, UK, and chief executive of the non-profit Innovative Vector Control Consortium, a public-private venture set up in 2005 to develop new insecticides and monitoring tools. "A number of us had been banging the drums, saying: 'As soon as you scale up you are going to get resistance.'" But Lines says that the malaria-control community felt too many lives were at stake to let the threat of resistance stand in the way of massively scaling up the bed-net and spraying campaigns.

Teasing out the impact of resistance on the success of malaria-control interventions is difficult because so many other factors influence their outcome. More systematic and more sophisticated monitoring of resistance is also vital, says Lines. The best surveillance data (see 'Resistance on the rise'), although useful, do not give a complete picture of where resistance is emerging and how prevalent it is, he says. Malaria-control program often lack insect-resistance monitoring, and detection of all forms of resistance is not easy. Quick, cheap tests can pick out gene mutations that help the mosquitoes' nerve cells withstand pyrethroid attack. But other forms of resistance, which depend on increased levels of mosquito enzymes that can destroy pyrethroids before they reach their target, require more complex tests to detect (H. Ranson et al. Trends Parasitol. 27, 91-98; 2011).

But uncertainties about the extent of resistance or its impact are "no excuse for inaction", says Newman, arguing that the proposed WHO strategy needs to be urgently implemented, and also rolled out preemptively in places where resistance has yet to be detected. The WHO's plan will recommend, for example, that control program rotate insecticides sprayed indoors, using pyrethroids one year and a different class the next. This would be more costly and less effective than relying only on pyrethroids, however, so control program may be reluctant to adopt this measure.

Lines says that new combinations of insecticides also need to be developed, so that mosquitoes resistant to one would be killed by the other. In areas where pyrethroid bed nets are used, a different class of insecticides should be used for wall spraying, he adds.

Ultimately, entirely new classes of insecticides--particularly those that can be applied to bed nets--are needed to alleviate the dependence of malaria-control efforts on pyrethroids. For indoor spraying, some longer-lasting and more cost-effective non-pyrethroid insecticides should be available by next year, Hemingway says, although developing wholly new classes will take five to seven years. Repurposed agricultural insecticides might also act as a stopgap were resistance to pyrethroids to develop rapidly. Research targeting mosquito control is "grossly underfunded" compared with that on malaria drugs and vaccines, she adds, which is why control efforts have had so few options to call on.

This article is reproduced with permission from the magazine Nature. The article was first published on July 5, 2011.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe