Zika virus transmission by Brazilian Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus is virus dose and temperature-dependent

Thais Chouin-Carneiro; Mariana Rocha David; Fernanda de Bruycker Nogueira; Flavia Barreto dos Santos; Ricardo Lourenço-de-Oliveira

doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0008527

Abstract

Background

Zika virus (ZIKV) emerged in the Pacific Ocean and subsequently caused a dramatic Pan‐American epidemic after its first appearance in the Northeast region of Brazil in 2015. The virus is transmitted by Aedes mosquitoes. We evaluated the role of temperature and infectious doses of ZIKV in vector competence of Brazilian populations of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus.

Methodology/Principal findings

Two Ae. aegypti (Rio de Janeiro and Natal) and two Ae. albopictus (Rio de Janeiro and Manaus) populations were orally challenged with five viral doses (10² to 10⁶ PFU / ml) of a ZIKV strain (Asian genotype) isolated in Northeastern Brazil, and incubated for 14 and 21 days in temperatures mimicking the spring-summer (28°C) and winter-autumn (22°C) mean values in Brazil. Detection of viral particles in the body, head and saliva samples was done by plaque assays in cell culture for determining the infection, dissemination and transmission rates, respectively. Compared with 28°C, at 22°C, transmission rates were significantly lower for both Ae. aegypti populations, and Ae. albopictus were not able to transmit the virus. Ae. albopictus showed low transmission rates even when challenged with the highest viral dose, while both Ae. aegypti populations presented higher of infection, dissemination and transmission rates than Ae. albopictus. Ae. aegypti showed higher transmission efficiency when taking virus doses of 10⁵ and 10⁶ PFU/mL following incubation at 28°C; both Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus were unable to transmit ZIKV with virus doses of 10² and 10³ PFU/mL, regardless the incubation temperature.

Conclusions/Significance

The ingested viral dose and incubation temperature were significant predictors of the proportion of mosquito’s biting becoming infectious. Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus have the ability to transmit ZIKV when incubated at 28°C. However Brazilian populations of Ae. aegypti exhibit a much higher transmission potential for ZIKV than Ae. albopictus regardless the combination of infection dose and incubation temperature.

Author summary

Zika virus is an arbovirus that has become endemic in Brazilian territory and in tropical and subtropical countries of the Americas since 2015. The virus is transmitted by Aedes mosquitoes. Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus are widespread in Brazil. To evaluated the influence of temperature and the effect of the infectious dose of ZIKV in vector competence, Brazilian populations of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus were orally exposed to different infectious doses, distributed from 10² to 10⁶ PFU / ml and incubated at 22°C and 28°C. We experimentally demonstrated that both populations of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus have the ability to transmit ZIKV when incubated at 28°C, however the infectious dose strongly influenced the proportion of mosquitoes that were able to transmit the virus. Ae. albopictus populations showed low transmission rates when challenged with the highest viral dose, while Ae. aegypti populations are more susceptible, presenting high rates of infection, dissemination and transmission. When incubated at 22°C, Ae. albopictus populations were not able to transmit the virus. Combined, the results indicate that Brazilian populations of Ae. aegypti exhibit a much higher transmission potential for ZIKV than Ae. albopictus.

Citation: Chouin-Carneiro T, David MR, de Bruycker Nogueira F, dos Santos FB, Lourenço-de-Oliveira R (2020) Zika virus transmission by Brazilian Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus is virus dose and temperature-dependent. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 14(9): e0008527. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008527

Editor: Marcus Vinícius Guimarães Lacerda, Fundacao Oswaldo Cruz, BRAZIL

Received: September 26, 2019; Accepted: June 26, 2020; Published: September 8, 2020

Copyright: © 2020 Chouin-Carneiro et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript.

Funding: This study was supported by Fundação de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro FAPERJ to FBS grant number E-26/202.003/2016, to RLO grant numbers E-26/102.351/2013 and E-26/201.335/2016, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) grant number 302462/2018-0 to FBS, to RLO grant number 309577/2013-6, CAPES-COFECUB to RLO grant number 799/14, National Instituto of Health (NIH) to RLO grant number 1UO1 AI115595-01, Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos (FINEP) to RLO grant number 04.16.0058.02, the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under ZIKAlliance to RLO grant number 734548, TCC was supported by fellowships from Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) and CNPq. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis and decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Zika virus (ZIKV) has recently emerged as a global public health emergency of international concern. ZIKV belongs to the Flavivirus genus, which also includes other important human pathogens such as dengue fever (DENV), yellow fever (YFV), West Nile (WNV), Japanese encephalitis (JEV), and tick borne encephalitis viruses (TBEV) [1]. The viral genome of ZIKV consists of an enveloped non-segmented, single-stranded, positive-sense RNA, which encodes three structural proteins (C, PrM, and E) and seven non-structural proteins (NS1, NS2A, NS2B, NS3, NS4A, NS4B, NS5) [2].

ZIKV was first identified in the Zika forest in Uganda in 1947 from monkeys, and later in humans in 1952 [3]. After its first isolation, ZIKV was sporadically detected in Africa and Asia, however the first major outbreak was reported in Yap Island, Micronesia in 2007 [4, 5]. More recently, Zika outbreaks were reported in French Polynesia and other Pacific islands in 2013–2014 [6–8], reaching Latin America in 2013–2015 [9–11]. Zika fever was believed to cause only a mild and self-limiting illness. However, it has emerged as a new public health threat since the outbreak in French Polynesia [12] and the explosive epidemic in Brazil in 2015, when ZIKV infection was responsible for an increase in severe congenital malformations (microcephaly) and neurological complications, mainly Guillain Barré Syndrome (GBS) [13–17]. In Brazil, the virus was detected for the first time in symptomatic patients in March 2015, in the cities of Camaçari, Bahia and in Natal, Rio Grande do Norte [9], both located in northeastern Brazil. By December 2015, all regions of the country had already reported autochthonous transmission, and estimates were that Zika suspected cases ranged from 440,000 to 1,300,000 [18]. ZIKV strains are grouped into two major genotypes: African and Asian [19]; genetic analysis has revealed that the Asian genotype has been responsible for the current global expansion of the virus [5, 20, 21].

ZIKV is transmitted to humans primarily through the bite of an infected Aedes (Stg.) species mosquito, mainly Ae. aegypti and possibly by Ae. albopictus [22]. Both are exotic species in the Americas [22, 23] and took advantage of trade development to spread throughout the tropics from their native area: Ae. aegypti from Africa and Ae. albopictus from Southeast Asia. The vector transmission occurs according to the following steps: a female mosquito may become infected after taking a blood meal on a viremic individual with subsequent virus replication in the epithelium of its midgut, from where the virus may disseminates or not to secondary tissues, including the salivary glands, and finally the viral particles are available in the saliva if the insect is permissive. Then a subsequent injection of infectious saliva into a human host during a bloodmeal the transmission achieved.

Specific factors, including the mosquito and viral genetics, combined to external influences, particularly temperature, determine vector competence (VC) [24, 25]. VC is defined as the intrinsic permissiveness of a vector to infection, replication, and transmission of an agent such as a virus [26, 27].

Here, we investigated vector competence of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus populations orally exposed to different infectious doses of ZIKV and incubated at two distinct temperatures aiming to better understand factors underlying a successful human-mosquito-human ZIKV transmission in Brazil.

Materials and methods

Ethical considerations

Mosquito-rearing protocols were approved by the Institutional Ethical Committee on Animal Use (CEUA-IOC license LW-34/14) at the Oswaldo Cruz Institute, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation. No specific permits were required to collect mosquitoes in the districts in Manaus, Natal and Rio de Janeiro.

Mosquito populations

Four populations of Brazilian Aedes mosquitoes were used: (i) Ae. aegypti from Urca (AA-URC; F1 generation), Rio de Janeiro, coastal Southeast region; (ii) Ae. aegypti (AA) from Natal (AA-NAT; F1 generation), Rio Grande do Norte, coastal Northeast region; (iii) Ae. albopictus from Urca (AB-URC; F1 generation), Rio de Janeiro; (iv) Ae. albopictus from Manaus (AB-MAN; F1 generation), Amazonas, North region. The laboratory F1 mosquitoes generations were obtained from field collected eggs with ovitraps [28] settled around dwellings. After hatching, larvae were split by 150–200 individuals per pan, fed with 1 yeast tablet (LevLife, São Paulo, Brazil) renewed every 3–4 days and dissolved in 1 liter of dechlorinated tap water. Emerging adults were kept in cages at 28°C±1°C with 12:12h light-darkcycle, 80% relative humidity, and were supplied with a 10% sucrose solution.

Viral strain

Mosquitoes were challenged with ZIKV strain of the American lineage (BRPE243/2015; GenBank KX197192), previously isolated from a patient’s blood in Pernambuco, located in the Northeast region of Brazil, during the 2015 outbreak [29]). Viral titers were quantified via plaque-forming assay prior to experimental infection. ZIKV stock was produced in Vero cells (amplification step <5) maintained with Earle’s 199 medium (Sigma Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) supplemented with 5% fetal bovine serum (FBS), under an atmosphere containing 5% CO₂, and incubated at 37°C. Viral titers were quantified via plaque-forming assay in Vero cells prior to experimental infection. ZIKV was initially amplified to a viral concentration of 10⁶ PFU/mL and later passed through a ten-fold serial dilution, producing five different viral doses, from 10² to 10⁶ PFU/mL.

Experimental ZIKV infection

Female mosquitoes at five to seven days post-emergence were isolated in feeding boxes and starved for 24 h. They were fed using an artificial feeding apparatus (Hemotek, Great Harwood, UK) with a mixture containing two parts washed erythrocytes and one part viral suspension supplemented with adenosine triphosphate (ATP) at a final concentration of 5mM. In the experimental design, for each population, 3–4 boxes of 60 mosquitoes each, per challenge dose, were exposed to the infectious blood meal, containing a total of 5 different virus doses:10²,10^3, 10^4, 10⁵ and 10⁶ PFU/mL. After the infectious blood meal, only fully engorged females were transferred into new containers. Half of the exposed mosquitoes were incubated at two constant incubation temperatures 28°C and 22°C,and kept at 80% of humidity under a 12:12h light-dark cycle with free access to a 10% sucrose solution.

Mosquito infection, dissemination, and transmission potential

Mosquitoes were randomly picked at 14 and 21 days post-infection (dpi). For each population, batches of 30 mosquitoes were analyzed to estimate VC parameters. Head and body (thorax and abdomen) were individually ground in 300 μL of medium supplemented with 4% fetal bovine serum (FBS) and centrifuged at 10,000 g for 5 min at 4°C before titration. Saliva was collected from individual mosquitoes as described previously [30]. Briefly, legs and wings of each mosquito were removed followed by insertion of the proboscis into a 20 μL tip containing 5 μL FBS for 45 min. The FBS containing saliva was expelled into 45 μL serum free media, and stored at -80°C, further analysis.

Samples of body and head homogenates and saliva were serially diluted and inoculated onto monolayers of Vero cells in 96-well plates. After 1 h incubation of homogenates at 37°C, 150 μL of 2.4% CMC (carboxymethyl cellulose) in Earle’s 199 medium was added per well. Cells were incubated for 7 days at 37°C then fixed with a crystal violet solution (0.2% in 10% formaldehyde and 20% ethanol). Presence of viral particles was assessed by the detection of cytopathic effect on the cells.

Infection rate (IR) was measured as the percentage of mosquitoes with infected body (thorax and abdomen) among the total number of mosquitoes analyzed. Disseminated infection rate (DIR) was estimated as the percentage of mosquitoes with infected heads (i.e., the virus had successfully crossed the midgut barrier to reach the mosquito hemocele) among the previously detected infected mosquitoes (i.e; abdomen/thorax positive). Transmission rate (TR) represents the percentage of mosquitoes with infectious saliva among mosquitoes with disseminated infection. Transmission efficiency (TE) was calculated as the overall proportion of females with infectious saliva among the total number of mosquitoes engorged with the infectious meal.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was conducted in R environment [31]. First, overall IR, DR, TR and TE (i.e. regardless incubation temperature, virus dose and dpi) for Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus were compared using Pearson's Chi-squared Test for Count Data. Backward stepwise logistic regression analysis was performed to identify significant effects of mosquito population, virus titer (10² to 10⁶ PFU/ml), incubation temperature (22 or 28°C), days post infection (14 or 21 dpi) (independent variables) and their interactions on mosquito infection (dependent variable). The influence of the same variables on virus dissemination in those mosquitoes with infected bodies (i.e. dissemination) and the presence of ZIKV in the saliva of mosquitoes with disseminated infection (i.e. transmission) and in the total of tested specimens (i.e. transmission efficacy) were analyzed following the same procedure. The strength of association between each independent variable and ZIKV infection/dissemination/transmission was expressed by the Odds Ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI).

Results

To evaluate the effect of different components in Aedes vector competence, two Aedes aegypti populations (referred to as URC_AA and NAT_AA) and two Aedes albopictus populations (referred to as URC_AB and MAN_AB) from Brazil were exposed to a ZIKV infectious blood meal (titers ranging from 10² to 10⁶ PFU/ml) and incubated at 22°C or 28°C. Mosquito´s body (for infection rate, IR), head (for dissemination infection rate, DR) and saliva (for transmission rate and transmission efficacy, TR and TE, respectively) were examined at 14 and 21 dpi. Since these time points exhibited low or no differences in ZIKV-positivity rates for IR, DR, TR and TE, 14 and 21 dpi data were combined in tables and graphic representations (Fig 1A–1D) to facilitate results interpretation. Raw data can be found in S1 Table.

Download:

Fig 1.

Viral infection (A), dissemination (B) and transmission (C,D) after challenge Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus from Brazil with five different virus dose of ZIKV, from 10² to 10⁶ PFU/mL, and incubated at 22°C and 28°C.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008527.g001

ZIKV infection patterns were remarkable distinct between mosquito species, with overall IR, DR, TR and TE (i.e. regardless incubation temperature, virus titer and dpi) significantly higher for Ae. aegypti than for Ae. albopictus (Pearson's Chi-squared Test for Count Data for IR: χ² = 295.27, df = 1, p-value < 0.01; DR: χ² = 44.15, df = 1, p-value < 0.01; TR: χ² = 19.75, df = 1, p-value < 0.01; TE: χ² = 19.75, df = 1, p-value < 0.01) (Fig 1A–1D). Therefore, we chose to fit logistic models separately for Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus. Interactions between independent variables were not considered in the logistic regression analysis for Ae. aegypti TR and TE due to complete separation, as mosquitoes exhibiting virus in the saliva became relatively infrequent when data is divided in many subgroups. It was not possible to fit logistic regression models to Ae. albopictus TR and TE since only five specimens were found with positive saliva.

ZIKV infection, dissemination and transmission in Ae. aegypti

We first analyzed the effects of mosquito population, virus titer, incubation temperature and dpi, as well as interactions among all factors, on Ae. aegypti ZIKV infection. The virus titer significantly impacted the ZIKV infection (logistic regression OR = 2.40, OR 95% CI: 1.19–4.87, z = 2.43, p-value = 0.01), with no positive mosquito feed with 10² PFU/ml of virus for both populations. At 10³ PFU/ml, infection was only detected when mosquitoes were incubated at 28°C. The highest IRs were reported at 10⁶ PFU/ml of ZIKV: 96.7 and 95% for NAT_AA and URC_AA populations, respectively (Fig 1A, Table 1). We also found a significant correlation between IR and temperature (logistic regression OR for 28°C = 7.20, OR 95% CI: 4.48–11.59, z = 8.14, p-value < 0.01). For NAT_AA, IRs ranged from 35% (10⁴ PFU/ml) to 70% (10⁶ PFU/ml) at 22°C and from 40% (10³ PFU/ml) to 96.7% (10⁶ PFU/ml) at 28°C. Regarding URC_AA, IRs ranged from 38.3% (10⁴ PFU/ml) to 73.3% (10⁶ PFU/ml) at 22°C and from 26.7% (10³ PFU/ml) to 95% (10⁶ PFU/ml) at 28°C (Fig 1A, Table 1). The variable population was included in the final logistic regression model, but no significant difference was detected: NAT_AA and URC_AA exhibited similar IRs (46 and 43.3% regardless virus titer, temperature and dpi, respectively; S2A Table). In the same way, no statistically significant differences were detected between 14 and 21 dpi, with a slight increase in the IR from 41.7 to 47.7%, respectively (S2A Table). Finally, the IR was significantly associated with the interaction between population and temperature (logistic regression OR population:temperature = 0.52; OR 95% CI: 0.27–0.97; z = -2.04, p-value = 0.04). This suggests that Ae. aegypti populations might vary in their response to different incubation conditions: at 22°C, IR for NAT_AA and URC_AA were very similar regardless virus titers in the infectious blood meal, while, at 28°C, IR for NAT_AA were always higher than URC_AA, except when fed with 10⁶ PFU/ml of ZIKV (Fig 1A, Table 1).

Download:

Table 1. Aedes aegypti infection, dissemination, transmission and transmission efficacy according to mosquito population, ZIKV titer and incubation temperature.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008527.t001

After, we analyzed the effects of the same variables on the probability of infected Ae. aegypti mosquitoes presenting disseminated ZIKV infection. Virus titer in the infectious meal and temperature were significantly correlated with the DR (logistic regression OR for virus titer = 3.84; OR 95% CI: 2.99–4.93; z = 10.52, p-value < 0.01; OR for 28°C = 4.47; OR 95% CI: 2.44–8.20; z = 4.84, p-value < 0.01). When taking 10³PFU/ml of ZIKV, viral dissemination was registered only for NAT_AA population incubated at 28°C. From 10⁴ PFU/ml onwards, DR was always higher at 28°C and increased with virus titer for both populations, reaching up to 89.6% for NAT_AA (Fig 1B, Table 1). Although populations exhibited similar overall DRs (58.3 and 60.4% for NAT_AA and URC_AA, respectively, disregarding the different incubation temperatures and virus titers in the infectious meal, S2B Table), they behaved differently when maintained at 22 or 28°C (logistic regression OR population:temperature = 0.43; OR 95% CI: 0.19–0.98; z = -1.10, p-value = 0.045). DRs for URC_AA samples were more homogeneous between 22 and 28°C than the NAT_AA samples under the same incubation conditions (Fig 1B, Table 1). The dpi (14 and 21 days) did not influence dissemination.

Considering the TR, the variables "virus titer" and "temperature" were included in the final logistic regression model, both being significant (logistic regression OR for 28°C = 6.15; OR 95% CI: 3.45–10.95; z = 6.17, p-value < 0.01). Overall, TRs were similar for NAT_AA and URC_AA populations (49.1 and 47.1%, respectively) and 14 and 21 dpi (46.4 and 49.4%, respectively) (S2C Table). ZIKV transmission was possible from the ingestion of blood holding at least 10⁵ PFU/ml of virus particles at both incubation temperatures, except for the NAT_AA incubated at 28°C, which exhibited saliva-positive mosquitoes that had taken meals containing from 10⁴ PFU/ml of ZIKV onwards. At 22°C, TR ranged from 10.5% (NAT_AA at 10⁵ PFU/ml of ZIKV) and 43.7% (URC_AA at 10⁶ PFU/ml of ZIKV), while it was between 19% (NAT_AA at 10⁴ PFU/ml of ZIKV) and 80.8% (NAT_AA at 10⁶ PFU/ml of ZIKV) at 28°C (Fig 1C, Table 1). Epidemiologically, the percentage of mosquitoes that are able to deliver infectious virus in their saliva among all specimens exposed to an infectious blood meal (i.e. the vector competence) is the most important phenotype and can be adequately measured by the TE. We found a significant association between TE and virus titer, temperature and dpi for Ae. aegypti (logistic regression OR for virus titer = 6.97, OR 95% CI: 5.02–9.69, z = 11.576; p-value < 0.01; OR for 28°C = 15.27, OR 95% CI: 7.27–32.07, z = 7.20; p-value < 0.01; OR for 21dpi = 1.09, OR 95% CI: 1.02–1.16, z = 2.57; p-value = 0.01). There was a remarkable increase in ZIKV saliva-positive mosquitoes with virus titer in the infectious meal, i.e. from 6.7% (NAT_AA, 28°C) at 10⁴ PFU/ml to 70% (NAT_AA, 28°C) at 10⁶ PFU/ml of virus. TE was also higher for both Ae. aegypti populations incubated at 28°C than at 22°C at all virus titers (Fig 1D, Table 1). Finally, we registered a slightly increase in the TE with the time post infection, as 10.8% of Ae. aegypti were saliva-positive for ZIKV after 14 dpi against 14.7% at 21 dpi (combining populations, incubation temperatures and virus doses, S2D Table).

ZIKV infection, dissemination and transmission in Ae. albopictus

We analyzed the effects of mosquito population, virus titer, incubation temperature and dpi, as well as interactions among all factors, on Ae. albopictus ZIKV IR. Among all tested variables, virus titer in the infectious meal (logistic regression OR = 7.61; OR 95% CI: 5.42–10.67, z = 11.74, p-value < 0.01) and incubation temperature were those significantly impacting IR (OR = 4.21; OR 95% CI: 2.04–7.04, z = 11.74, p-value < 0.01). Ae. albopictus only became infected when taking 10⁵ and 10⁶ PFU/ml of ZIKV regardless the incubation temperature (S3A Table). At 22°C, IRs ranged from 8.3% (MAN_AB, 10⁵ PFU/ml) to 40% (URC_AB, 10⁶ PFU/ml), while at 28°C they varied between 20% (URC_AB, 10⁵ PFU/ml) and 61.7% (MAN_AB, 10⁶ PFU/ml) (Fig 1A, Table 2). Virus titer and temperature also significantly impacted ZIKV dissemination (logistic regression OR for virus titer = 5.52, OR 95% CI: 1.81–16.80, z = 3.01, p-value < 0.01; OR for 28°C = 2.34, OR 95% CI: 1.05–5.24, z = 2.07, p-value = 0.04) (S3B Table). At 22°C, dissemination was only possible at 10⁶ PFU/ml of virus with DRs between 21.2 and 29.2% for MAN_AB and URC_AB, respectively. At 28°C, Ae. albopictus DRs were 8.3 and 39.4% (URC_AB) and 18.7 and 43.2% (MAN_AB) at 10⁵ and 10⁶ PFU/ml, respectively (Fig 1B, Table 2). Regarding transmission, ZIKV was detected in the saliva of five Ae. albopictus females, three from the MAN_AB and two from the URC_AB, all of them at 10⁶ PFU/ml of virus at 28°C. Under these conditions, TR and TE were 15.4 and 3.3%, respectively, for the MAN_AB and 18.7 and 5%, respectively, for the URC_AB (Fig 1C and 1D, Tables 2 and S3C and S3D).

Download:

Table 2. Aedes albopictus infection, dissemination, transmission and transmission efficacy according to mosquito population, ZIKV titer and incubation temperature.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008527.t002

Discussion

In this study, we provide evidence that the transmission potential of ZIKV by Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus depends on a complex interaction between mosquito vector population, temperature and viral infectious dose in the blood meal. Generally high viral doses are used in experimental studies, which probably do not occur in nature, as ZIKV blood viremia has been shown to be on average lower than observed in other arbovirus systems [5, 32]. Understanding mosquito infectivity at different viremia levels is important in assessing the role of virus titer capable of successfully sustaining human-to-mosquito ZIKV transmission. In addition, further investigations of genetic and environmental contributions are needed, such as the interactions between mosquito population, viral strain and temperature on the viral transmission potential, which is still poorly explored for ZIKV.

Our results indicated that the viremia in the blood meal had an effect on probability of Aedes mosquitoes becoming infected, disseminating infection and subsequently expectorating viral particles. Comparatively, at a temperature of 28°C, the lowest dose of virus in artificial blood meals required for viral infection and dissemination in Ae. albopictus was 10⁵ PFU/mL. However, in Ae. aegypti, smaller virus doses were required for virus infection: 10³ PFU/mL for Natal population and 10⁴ PFU/mL for Rio de Janeiro population, while for the virus dissemination was necessary a virus titer of 10⁴ PFU/mL for both populations. It is worth noting that Ae. aegypti population from Natal when challenged with the different virus doses showed higher IR, DIR and TR when compared to the Ae. aegypti population from Rio de Janeiro, at both temperatures. Maybe, this outcome is due to a close interaction between the vector population and the viral genotype, both originating from Northeastern Brazil. These variations demonstrate the importance of considering genetic variation of populations when assessing vector competence.

Roundy et al 2017 [33] revealed variation in vector competence of Ae. aegypti from Salvador/Brazil when orally exposed to ZIKV strain from Mexico (Asian genotype) with different virus doses (10⁴,10⁵ e 10⁶ FFU/mL) at 27° ± 1°C. According to these authors, high infection and dissemination only occurred after the challenged Aedes population from Salvador took artificial blood meals with a concentration of 10⁶ FFU/mL and showed no dissemination with a concentration of 10⁴ FFU/mL at 14 dpi. Ciota et al 2017 [34] suggested that the minimum infective dose of ZIKV to Aedes is 10^4.2 PFU/mL at 27°C, while infection was detected in the two Ae. aegypti populations we orally challenged with 10² and 10³ PFU/mL and incubated at a temperature of only 1°C less (27°C). Our findings show that rates of infection and dissemination in Ae.aegypti were significantly reduced when artificial blood meal titers were less than 10⁴ PFU/mL.

Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus were unable to transmit ZIKV with a virus doses of 10² and 10³ PFU/mL despite the incubation temperature (22°C and 28°C). Ae. aegypti showed higher TE when taking a virus doses of 10⁵ and 10⁶ PFU/mL at 28°C, while both Ae. albopictus populations presented a null transmission efficiency of the ZIKV incubated at 22°C and significantly low TE even at 28°C, even taking a blood containing the highest viral titers, such as 10⁵ and 10 ⁶ PFU/mL. Azar et al., 2017 [35] showed that vector competence in Ae. albopictus is potentially dependent on geographic origin of both the mosquito population and the viral strain. An Ae. albopictus population from Salvador, northeast Brazil, tested by these authors shed no virus into saliva in 14 days of extrinsic incubation at 27 ± 1°C even when orally exposed to high titers (6 or 7 log10 FFU/mL) of two American strains of ZIKV.

The statistical differences in infection and transmission rates among these species suggest the presence of a midgut barrier to dissemination and, more significantly, a strong salivary gland barrier in Ae. albopictus. Overcoming such barriers occurred only after the challenged Ae. albopictus population took artificial blood meals with a concentration of 10⁵ PFU/mL at 28°C.

However, it is important to mention that despite the limited vector capacity showed by Ae. albopictus, at least for the ZIKV strain circulating in Brazil, adaptive mutations may occur over time leading to an increase in ZIKV transmission efficiency, as described for CHIKV[36]. This finding highlights the need to consider the complex interplay between genetic and environmental variabilities for better understanding of pathogen-host interactions.

We also show that the effects of variation in virus dose on vector competence is strongly driven by temperature. In other arbovirus systems, studies have already demonstrated that temperature may alter interactions between the virus genotype and the mosquito genotype, affecting significantly the vector competence [37–44]. Interestingly, we found that the relationship between IR, DIR and TR changed depending on the temperature of incubation. For ZIKV, we demonstrated that Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus populations from Brazil presented higher TRs at 28°C than at 22°C with the same virus doses, indicating that virus transmission was significantly determined by incubation temperature. According to Tesla et al. 2018 low temperatures restrict midgut escape and dissemination, resulting in a lower proportion of the mosquito population that become infectious. Warmer temperatures, on the other hand, were very permissive for ZIKV infection with ZIKV transmission optimized at a mean temperature of approximately 29°C. Daily temperature fluctuations that occur under natural environmental conditions have been shown to influence the vector competence in dengue viruses [45]. Although the effect of temperature on vector competence has been assessed using constant temperatures, our results indicate that seasonal temperature variation in Brazil would likely affect ZIKV replication within Aedes populations.

Notably, Aedes aegypti populations used in this study efficiently transmitted ZIKV after orally challenged with a virus dose of 10⁶ PFU/mL and incubated at 28°C, showing high rates of infection, dissemination and transmission, according with Fernandes et al. 2016 that described high vector competence in several Brazilian populations of Ae. aegypti strains challenged with three strains of ZIKV also isolated in Brazil [46, 47]. There is a strong evidence that vector competence can vary across mosquito populations due the specific combination of mosquito and ZIKV, dengue and chikungunya virus genotypes [24, 25, 33, 39, 48–50]. We hypothesized that higher transmission rates could be due to the fact that we paired ZIKV belong to the American lineage that was previously isolated from human from the city of Recife, northeast Brazil [29] and Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus population collected in the same country.

In conclusion, we experimentally demonstrated that the tested Brazilian populations of Ae. aegypti exhibit a higher transmission potential for ZIKV than Ae. albopictus, but the virus dose and temperature were significant predictors of the proportion of mosquito whose bites became infectious. Combined, our results indirectly reinforce the main role of Ae. aegypti in ZIKV transmission in Brazil.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Infection, dissemination, transmission and transmission efficacy for Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus according to mosquito population, ZIKV dose, incubation temperature and days post infection.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008527.s001

(DOC)

S2 Table.

Backward stepwise logistic regression analysis to evaluate the influence of mosquito population, incubation temperature, virus titer and days post infection on Aedes aegypti ZIKV infection (A), dissemination (B), transmission (C) and transmission efficacy (D) rates.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008527.s002

(DOC)

S3 Table.

Backward stepwise logistic regression analysis to evaluate the influence of mosquito population, incubation temperature, virus titer and days post infection on Aedes albopictus ZIKV infection (A), dissemination (B), transmission (C) and transmission efficacy (D) rates.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008527.s003

(DOC)

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to all staff at Laboratório de Mosquitos Transmissores de Hematozoários for technical support. We also thank Luiz Paulo de Brito Oliveira and Stéphanie Silva Campos for their assistance in the experiments. To Dr Jeffrey Powell for English editing. The CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ and FIOCRUZ supported this study. TCC is a CAPES fellowship recipient.

References

1. Weaver SC, Barrett AD. Transmission cycles, host range, evolution and emergence of arboviral disease. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2004;2(10):789–801. pmid:15378043
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
2. Song BH, Yun SI, Woolley M, Lee YM. Zika virus: History, epidemiology, transmission, and clinical presentation. J Neuroimmunol. 2017;308:50–64. pmid:28285789
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
3. Dick GW, Kitchen SF, Haddow AJ. Zika virus. I. Isolations and serological specificity. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1952;46(5):509–20. pmid:12995440
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
4. Duffy MR, Chen TH, Hancock WT, Powers AM, Kool JL, Lanciotti RS, et al. Zika virus outbreak on Yap Island, Federated States of Micronesia. The New England journal of medicine. 2009;360(24):2536–43. pmid:19516034
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
5. Lanciotti RS, Kosoy OL, Laven JJ, Velez JO, Lambert AJ, Johnson AJ, et al. Genetic and serologic properties of Zika virus associated with an epidemic, Yap State, Micronesia, 2007. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2008;14(8):1232–9. pmid:18680646
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
6. Dupont-Rouzeyrol M, O'Connor O, Calvez E, Daures M, John M, Grangeon JP, et al. Co-infection with Zika and dengue viruses in 2 patients, New Caledonia, 2014. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2015;21(2):381–2. pmid:25625687
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
7. Tognarelli J, Ulloa S, Villagra E, Lagos J, Aguayo C, Fasce R, et al. A report on the outbreak of Zika virus on Easter Island, South Pacific, 2014. Arch Virol. 2016;161(3):665–8. pmid:26611910
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. Musso D, Nilles EJ, Cao-Lormeau VM. Rapid spread of emerging Zika virus in the Pacific area. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014;20(10):O595–6. pmid:24909208
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. Zanluca C, Melo VC, Mosimann AL, Santos GI, Santos CN, Luz K. First report of autochthonous transmission of Zika virus in Brazil. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2015;110(4):569–72. pmid:26061233
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
10. Campos GS, Bandeira AC, Sardi SI. Zika Virus Outbreak, Bahia, Brazil. Emerg Infect Dis. 2015;21(10):1885–6. pmid:26401719
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
11. Faria NR, Azevedo R, Kraemer MUG, Souza R, Cunha MS, Hill SC, et al. Zika virus in the Americas: Early epidemiological and genetic findings. Science. 2016;352(6283):345–9. pmid:27013429
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
12. Cao-Lormeau VM, Roche C, Teissier A, Robin E, Berry AL, Mallet HP, et al. Zika virus, French polynesia, South pacific, 2013. Emerg Infect Dis. 2014;20(6):1085–6. pmid:24856001
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
13. Oehler E, Watrin L, Larre P, Leparc-Goffart I, Lastere S, Valour F, et al. Zika virus infection complicated by Guillain-Barre syndrome—case report, French Polynesia, December 2013. Euro Surveill. 2014;19(9).
- View Article
- Google Scholar
14. Musso D, Gubler DJ. Zika Virus. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2016;29(3):487–524. pmid:27029595
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
15. Cao-Lormeau VM, Blake A, Mons S, Lastere S, Roche C, Vanhomwegen J, et al. Guillain-Barre Syndrome outbreak associated with Zika virus infection in French Polynesia: a case-control study. Lancet. 2016;387(10027):1531–9. pmid:26948433
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
16. Malta JM, Vargas A, Leite PL, Percio J, Coelho GE, Ferraro AH, et al. Guillain-Barre syndrome and other neurological manifestations possibly related to Zika virus infection in municipalities from Bahia, Brazil, 2015. Epidemiol Serv Saude. 2017;26(1):9–18. pmid:28226004
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
17. Calvet G, Aguiar RS, Melo ASO, Sampaio SA, de Filippis I, Fabri A, et al. Detection and sequencing of Zika virus from amniotic fluid of fetuses with microcephaly in Brazil: a case study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16(6):653–60. pmid:26897108
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
18. Hennessey M, Fischer M, Staples JE. Zika Virus Spreads to New Areas—Region of the Americas, May 2015-January 2016. MMWR Morbidity and mortality weekly report. 2016;65(3):55–8. pmid:26820163
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
19. Lanciotti RS, Lambert AJ, Holodniy M, Saavedra S, Signor Ldel C. Phylogeny of Zika Virus in Western Hemisphere, 2015. Emerg Infect Dis. 2016;22(5):933–5. pmid:27088323
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
20. Faye O, Freire CC, Iamarino A, Faye O, de Oliveira JV, Diallo M, et al. Molecular evolution of Zika virus during its emergence in the 20(th) century. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014;8(1):e2636. pmid:24421913
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
21. Haddow AD, Schuh AJ, Yasuda CY, Kasper MR, Heang V, Huy R, et al. Genetic characterization of Zika virus strains: geographic expansion of the Asian lineage. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6(2):e1477. pmid:22389730
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
22. Boyer S, Calvez E, Chouin-Carneiro T, Diallo D, Failloux AB. An overview of mosquito vectors of Zika virus. Microbes Infect. 2018;20(11–12):646–60. pmid:29481868
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. Kraemer MU, Sinka ME, Duda KA, Mylne AQ, Shearer FM, Barker CM, et al. The global distribution of the arbovirus vectors Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus. Elife. 2015;4:e08347. pmid:26126267
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
24. Lambrechts L, Chevillon C, Albright RG, Thaisomboonsuk B, Richardson JH, Jarman RG, et al. Genetic specificity and potential for local adaptation between dengue viruses and mosquito vectors. BMC Evol Biol. 2009;9:160. pmid:19589156
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
25. Lambrechts L. Quantitative genetics of Aedes aegypti vector competence for dengue viruses: towards a new paradigm? Trends Parasitol. 2011;27(3):111–4. pmid:21215699
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. Hardy JL, Houk E. J., Kramer L. D. & Reeves W. C. Intrinsic factors affecting vector competence of mosquitoes for arboviruses. Annual Review of Entomology1983. pmid:6131642
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27. Woodring J. L. HS, Beaty B. J. Natural cycles of vector-borne pathogens. Beaty B. J. MWC, editor. University Press of Colorado, Niwot, Colo1996.
28. Fay RW, Eliason DA. A preferred oviposition site as a surveillance method for Aedes aegypti. Mosquito News. 1966;26(4):531–5.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
29. Donald CL, Brennan B, Cumberworth SL, Rezelj VV, Clark JJ, Cordeiro MT, et al. Full Genome Sequence and sfRNA Interferon Antagonist Activity of Zika Virus from Recife, Brazil. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10(10):e0005048. pmid:27706161
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. Dubrulle M, Mousson L, Moutailler S, Vazeille M, Failloux AB. Chikungunya virus and Aedes mosquitoes: saliva is infectious as soon as two days after oral infection. PLoS One. 2009;4(6):e5895. pmid:19521520
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
31. R Core Team (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing V, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org.
32. Waggoner JJ, Gresh L, Vargas MJ, Ballesteros G, Tellez Y, Soda KJ, et al. Viremia and Clinical Presentation in Nicaraguan Patients Infected With Zika Virus, Chikungunya Virus, and Dengue Virus. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;63(12):1584–90. pmid:27578819
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
33. Roundy CM, Azar SR, Rossi SL, Huang JH, Leal G, Yun R, et al. Variation in Aedes aegypti Mosquito Competence for Zika Virus Transmission. Emerg Infect Dis. 2017;23(4):625–32. pmid:28287375
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
34. Ciota AT, Bialosuknia SM, Zink SD, Brecher M, Ehrbar DJ, Morrissette MN, et al. Effects of Zika virus strain and aedes mosquito species on vector competence. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2017;23(7):1110. pmid:28430564
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
35. Azar SR, Roundy CM, Rossi SL, Huang JH, Leal G, Yun R, et al. Differential Vector Competency of Aedes albopictus Populations from the Americas for Zika Virus. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2017;97(2):330–9. pmid:28829735
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
36. Tsetsarkin KA, McGee CE, Volk SM, Vanlandingham DL, Weaver SC, Higgs S. Epistatic roles of E2 glycoprotein mutations in adaption of chikungunya virus to Aedes albopictus and Ae. aegypti mosquitoes. PLoS One. 2009;4(8):e6835. pmid:19718263
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
37. Guerbois M, Fernandez-Salas I, Azar SR, Danis-Lozano R, Alpuche-Aranda CM, Leal G, et al. Outbreak of Zika Virus Infection, Chiapas State, Mexico, 2015, and First Confirmed Transmission by Aedes aegypti Mosquitoes in the Americas. J Infect Dis. 2016;214(9):1349–56. pmid:27436433
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
38. Goic B, Stapleford KA, Frangeul L, Doucet AJ, Gausson V, Blanc H, et al. Virus-derived DNA drives mosquito vector tolerance to arboviral infection. Nat Commun. 2016;7:12410. pmid:27580708
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
39. Zouache K, Fontaine A, Vega-Rua A, Mousson L, Thiberge JM, Lourenco-De-Oliveira R, et al. Three-way interactions between mosquito population, viral strain and temperature underlying chikungunya virus transmission potential. Proc Biol Sci. 2014;281(1792).
- View Article
- Google Scholar
40. Tsai CH, Chen TH, Lin C, Shu PY, Su CL, Teng HJ. The impact of temperature and Wolbachia infection on vector competence of potential dengue vectors Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus in the transmission of dengue virus serotype 1 in southern Taiwan. Parasit Vectors. 2017;10(1):551. pmid:29116011
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
41. Mbaika S, Lutomiah J, Chepkorir E, Mulwa F, Khayeka-Wandabwa C, Tigoi C, et al. Vector competence of Aedes aegypti in transmitting Chikungunya virus: effects and implications of extrinsic incubation temperature on dissemination and infection rates. Virol J. 2016;13:114. pmid:27357190
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
42. Liu Z, Zhang Z, Lai Z, Zhou T, Jia Z, Gu J, et al. Temperature Increase Enhances Aedes albopictus Competence to Transmit Dengue Virus. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:2337. pmid:29250045
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
43. Ciota AT, Chin PA, Ehrbar DJ, Micieli MV, Fonseca DM, Kramer LD. Differential Effects of Temperature and Mosquito Genetics Determine Transmissibility of Arboviruses by Aedes aegypti in Argentina. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2018;99(2):417–24. pmid:29869610
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
44. Tesla B, Demakovsky LR, Mordecai EA, Ryan SJ, Bonds MH, Ngonghala CN, et al. Temperature drives Zika virus transmission: evidence from empirical and mathematical models. Proc Biol Sci. 2018;285(1884).
- View Article
- Google Scholar
45. Lambrechts L, Paaijmans KP, Fansiri T, Carrington LB, Kramer LD, Thomas MB, et al. Impact of daily temperature fluctuations on dengue virus transmission by Aedes aegypti. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108(18):7460–5. pmid:21502510
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
46. Fernandes RS, Campos SS, Ferreira-de-Brito A, Miranda RM, Barbosa da Silva KA, Castro MG, et al. Culex quinquefasciatus from Rio de Janeiro Is Not Competent to Transmit the Local Zika Virus. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10(9):e0004993. pmid:27598421
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
47. Fernandes RS, Campos SS, Ribeiro PS, Raphael LM, Bonaldo MC, Lourenco-de-Oliveira R. Culex quinquefasciatus from areas with the highest incidence of microcephaly associated with Zika virus infections in the Northeast Region of Brazil are refractory to the virus. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2017;112(8):577–9. pmid:28767975
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
48. Tabachnick WJ. Nature, nurture and evolution of intra-species variation in mosquito arbovirus transmission competence. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013;10(1):249–77. pmid:23343982
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
49. Chouin-Carneiro T, Vega-Rua A, Vazeille M, Yebakima A, Girod R, Goindin D, et al. Differential Susceptibilities of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus from the Americas to Zika Virus. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2016;10(3):e0004543. pmid:26938868
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
50. Vega-Rua A, Lourenco-de-Oliveira R, Mousson L, Vazeille M, Fuchs S, Yebakima A, et al. Chikungunya virus transmission potential by local Aedes mosquitoes in the Americas and Europe. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9(5):e0003780. pmid:25993633
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Weaver SC, Barrett AD. Transmission cycles, host range, evolution and emergence of arboviral disease. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2004;2(10):789–801. pmid:15378043
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] PubMed/NCBI

[4] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Song BH, Yun SI, Woolley M, Lee YM. Zika virus: History, epidemiology, transmission, and clinical presentation. J Neuroimmunol. 2017;308:50–64. pmid:28285789
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[6] View Article

[7] PubMed/NCBI

[8] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Dick GW, Kitchen SF, Haddow AJ. Zika virus. I. Isolations and serological specificity. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1952;46(5):509–20. pmid:12995440
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[10] View Article

[11] PubMed/NCBI

[12] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Duffy MR, Chen TH, Hancock WT, Powers AM, Kool JL, Lanciotti RS, et al. Zika virus outbreak on Yap Island, Federated States of Micronesia. The New England journal of medicine. 2009;360(24):2536–43. pmid:19516034
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[14] View Article

[15] PubMed/NCBI

[16] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Lanciotti RS, Kosoy OL, Laven JJ, Velez JO, Lambert AJ, Johnson AJ, et al. Genetic and serologic properties of Zika virus associated with an epidemic, Yap State, Micronesia, 2007. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2008;14(8):1232–9. pmid:18680646
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[18] View Article

[19] PubMed/NCBI

[20] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Dupont-Rouzeyrol M, O'Connor O, Calvez E, Daures M, John M, Grangeon JP, et al. Co-infection with Zika and dengue viruses in 2 patients, New Caledonia, 2014. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2015;21(2):381–2. pmid:25625687
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[22] View Article

[23] PubMed/NCBI

[24] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Tognarelli J, Ulloa S, Villagra E, Lagos J, Aguayo C, Fasce R, et al. A report on the outbreak of Zika virus on Easter Island, South Pacific, 2014. Arch Virol. 2016;161(3):665–8. pmid:26611910
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[26] View Article

[27] PubMed/NCBI

[28] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Musso D, Nilles EJ, Cao-Lormeau VM. Rapid spread of emerging Zika virus in the Pacific area. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014;20(10):O595–6. pmid:24909208
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[30] View Article

[31] PubMed/NCBI

[32] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Zanluca C, Melo VC, Mosimann AL, Santos GI, Santos CN, Luz K. First report of autochthonous transmission of Zika virus in Brazil. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2015;110(4):569–72. pmid:26061233
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[34] View Article

[35] PubMed/NCBI

[36] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Campos GS, Bandeira AC, Sardi SI. Zika Virus Outbreak, Bahia, Brazil. Emerg Infect Dis. 2015;21(10):1885–6. pmid:26401719
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[38] View Article

[39] PubMed/NCBI

[40] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Faria NR, Azevedo R, Kraemer MUG, Souza R, Cunha MS, Hill SC, et al. Zika virus in the Americas: Early epidemiological and genetic findings. Science. 2016;352(6283):345–9. pmid:27013429
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[42] View Article

[43] PubMed/NCBI

[44] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Cao-Lormeau VM, Roche C, Teissier A, Robin E, Berry AL, Mallet HP, et al. Zika virus, French polynesia, South pacific, 2013. Emerg Infect Dis. 2014;20(6):1085–6. pmid:24856001
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[46] View Article

[47] PubMed/NCBI

[48] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Oehler E, Watrin L, Larre P, Leparc-Goffart I, Lastere S, Valour F, et al. Zika virus infection complicated by Guillain-Barre syndrome—case report, French Polynesia, December 2013. Euro Surveill. 2014;19(9).
View Article
Google Scholar

[50] View Article

[51] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Musso D, Gubler DJ. Zika Virus. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2016;29(3):487–524. pmid:27029595
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[53] View Article

[54] PubMed/NCBI

[55] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Cao-Lormeau VM, Blake A, Mons S, Lastere S, Roche C, Vanhomwegen J, et al. Guillain-Barre Syndrome outbreak associated with Zika virus infection in French Polynesia: a case-control study. Lancet. 2016;387(10027):1531–9. pmid:26948433
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[57] View Article

[58] PubMed/NCBI

[59] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Malta JM, Vargas A, Leite PL, Percio J, Coelho GE, Ferraro AH, et al. Guillain-Barre syndrome and other neurological manifestations possibly related to Zika virus infection in municipalities from Bahia, Brazil, 2015. Epidemiol Serv Saude. 2017;26(1):9–18. pmid:28226004
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[61] View Article

[62] PubMed/NCBI

[63] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Calvet G, Aguiar RS, Melo ASO, Sampaio SA, de Filippis I, Fabri A, et al. Detection and sequencing of Zika virus from amniotic fluid of fetuses with microcephaly in Brazil: a case study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16(6):653–60. pmid:26897108
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[65] View Article

[66] PubMed/NCBI

[67] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Hennessey M, Fischer M, Staples JE. Zika Virus Spreads to New Areas—Region of the Americas, May 2015-January 2016. MMWR Morbidity and mortality weekly report. 2016;65(3):55–8. pmid:26820163
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[69] View Article

[70] PubMed/NCBI

[71] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Lanciotti RS, Lambert AJ, Holodniy M, Saavedra S, Signor Ldel C. Phylogeny of Zika Virus in Western Hemisphere, 2015. Emerg Infect Dis. 2016;22(5):933–5. pmid:27088323
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[73] View Article

[74] PubMed/NCBI

[75] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Faye O, Freire CC, Iamarino A, Faye O, de Oliveira JV, Diallo M, et al. Molecular evolution of Zika virus during its emergence in the 20(th) century. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014;8(1):e2636. pmid:24421913
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[77] View Article

[78] PubMed/NCBI

[79] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Haddow AD, Schuh AJ, Yasuda CY, Kasper MR, Heang V, Huy R, et al. Genetic characterization of Zika virus strains: geographic expansion of the Asian lineage. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6(2):e1477. pmid:22389730
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[81] View Article

[82] PubMed/NCBI

[83] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Boyer S, Calvez E, Chouin-Carneiro T, Diallo D, Failloux AB. An overview of mosquito vectors of Zika virus. Microbes Infect. 2018;20(11–12):646–60. pmid:29481868
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[85] View Article

[86] PubMed/NCBI

[87] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Kraemer MU, Sinka ME, Duda KA, Mylne AQ, Shearer FM, Barker CM, et al. The global distribution of the arbovirus vectors Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus. Elife. 2015;4:e08347. pmid:26126267
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[89] View Article

[90] PubMed/NCBI

[91] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Lambrechts L, Chevillon C, Albright RG, Thaisomboonsuk B, Richardson JH, Jarman RG, et al. Genetic specificity and potential for local adaptation between dengue viruses and mosquito vectors. BMC Evol Biol. 2009;9:160. pmid:19589156
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[93] View Article

[94] PubMed/NCBI

[95] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Lambrechts L. Quantitative genetics of Aedes aegypti vector competence for dengue viruses: towards a new paradigm? Trends Parasitol. 2011;27(3):111–4. pmid:21215699
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[97] View Article

[98] PubMed/NCBI

[99] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Hardy JL, Houk E. J., Kramer L. D. & Reeves W. C. Intrinsic factors affecting vector competence of mosquitoes for arboviruses. Annual Review of Entomology1983. pmid:6131642
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[101] View Article

[102] PubMed/NCBI

[103] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Woodring J. L. HS, Beaty B. J. Natural cycles of vector-borne pathogens. Beaty B. J. MWC, editor. University Press of Colorado, Niwot, Colo1996.

[ref28] 28. Fay RW, Eliason DA. A preferred oviposition site as a surveillance method for Aedes aegypti. Mosquito News. 1966;26(4):531–5.
View Article
Google Scholar

[106] View Article

[107] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Donald CL, Brennan B, Cumberworth SL, Rezelj VV, Clark JJ, Cordeiro MT, et al. Full Genome Sequence and sfRNA Interferon Antagonist Activity of Zika Virus from Recife, Brazil. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10(10):e0005048. pmid:27706161
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[109] View Article

[110] PubMed/NCBI

[111] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Dubrulle M, Mousson L, Moutailler S, Vazeille M, Failloux AB. Chikungunya virus and Aedes mosquitoes: saliva is infectious as soon as two days after oral infection. PLoS One. 2009;4(6):e5895. pmid:19521520
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[113] View Article

[114] PubMed/NCBI

[115] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. R Core Team (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing V, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org.

[ref32] 32. Waggoner JJ, Gresh L, Vargas MJ, Ballesteros G, Tellez Y, Soda KJ, et al. Viremia and Clinical Presentation in Nicaraguan Patients Infected With Zika Virus, Chikungunya Virus, and Dengue Virus. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;63(12):1584–90. pmid:27578819
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[118] View Article

[119] PubMed/NCBI

[120] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Roundy CM, Azar SR, Rossi SL, Huang JH, Leal G, Yun R, et al. Variation in Aedes aegypti Mosquito Competence for Zika Virus Transmission. Emerg Infect Dis. 2017;23(4):625–32. pmid:28287375
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[122] View Article

[123] PubMed/NCBI

[124] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Ciota AT, Bialosuknia SM, Zink SD, Brecher M, Ehrbar DJ, Morrissette MN, et al. Effects of Zika virus strain and aedes mosquito species on vector competence. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2017;23(7):1110. pmid:28430564
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[126] View Article

[127] PubMed/NCBI

[128] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Azar SR, Roundy CM, Rossi SL, Huang JH, Leal G, Yun R, et al. Differential Vector Competency of Aedes albopictus Populations from the Americas for Zika Virus. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2017;97(2):330–9. pmid:28829735
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[130] View Article

[131] PubMed/NCBI

[132] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Tsetsarkin KA, McGee CE, Volk SM, Vanlandingham DL, Weaver SC, Higgs S. Epistatic roles of E2 glycoprotein mutations in adaption of chikungunya virus to Aedes albopictus and Ae. aegypti mosquitoes. PLoS One. 2009;4(8):e6835. pmid:19718263
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[134] View Article

[135] PubMed/NCBI

[136] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Guerbois M, Fernandez-Salas I, Azar SR, Danis-Lozano R, Alpuche-Aranda CM, Leal G, et al. Outbreak of Zika Virus Infection, Chiapas State, Mexico, 2015, and First Confirmed Transmission by Aedes aegypti Mosquitoes in the Americas. J Infect Dis. 2016;214(9):1349–56. pmid:27436433
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[138] View Article

[139] PubMed/NCBI

[140] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Goic B, Stapleford KA, Frangeul L, Doucet AJ, Gausson V, Blanc H, et al. Virus-derived DNA drives mosquito vector tolerance to arboviral infection. Nat Commun. 2016;7:12410. pmid:27580708
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[142] View Article

[143] PubMed/NCBI

[144] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Zouache K, Fontaine A, Vega-Rua A, Mousson L, Thiberge JM, Lourenco-De-Oliveira R, et al. Three-way interactions between mosquito population, viral strain and temperature underlying chikungunya virus transmission potential. Proc Biol Sci. 2014;281(1792).
View Article
Google Scholar

[146] View Article

[147] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Tsai CH, Chen TH, Lin C, Shu PY, Su CL, Teng HJ. The impact of temperature and Wolbachia infection on vector competence of potential dengue vectors Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus in the transmission of dengue virus serotype 1 in southern Taiwan. Parasit Vectors. 2017;10(1):551. pmid:29116011
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[149] View Article

[150] PubMed/NCBI

[151] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Mbaika S, Lutomiah J, Chepkorir E, Mulwa F, Khayeka-Wandabwa C, Tigoi C, et al. Vector competence of Aedes aegypti in transmitting Chikungunya virus: effects and implications of extrinsic incubation temperature on dissemination and infection rates. Virol J. 2016;13:114. pmid:27357190
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[153] View Article

[154] PubMed/NCBI

[155] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Liu Z, Zhang Z, Lai Z, Zhou T, Jia Z, Gu J, et al. Temperature Increase Enhances Aedes albopictus Competence to Transmit Dengue Virus. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:2337. pmid:29250045
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[157] View Article

[158] PubMed/NCBI

[159] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Ciota AT, Chin PA, Ehrbar DJ, Micieli MV, Fonseca DM, Kramer LD. Differential Effects of Temperature and Mosquito Genetics Determine Transmissibility of Arboviruses by Aedes aegypti in Argentina. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2018;99(2):417–24. pmid:29869610
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[161] View Article

[162] PubMed/NCBI

[163] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. Tesla B, Demakovsky LR, Mordecai EA, Ryan SJ, Bonds MH, Ngonghala CN, et al. Temperature drives Zika virus transmission: evidence from empirical and mathematical models. Proc Biol Sci. 2018;285(1884).
View Article
Google Scholar

[165] View Article

[166] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. Lambrechts L, Paaijmans KP, Fansiri T, Carrington LB, Kramer LD, Thomas MB, et al. Impact of daily temperature fluctuations on dengue virus transmission by Aedes aegypti. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108(18):7460–5. pmid:21502510
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[168] View Article

[169] PubMed/NCBI

[170] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. Fernandes RS, Campos SS, Ferreira-de-Brito A, Miranda RM, Barbosa da Silva KA, Castro MG, et al. Culex quinquefasciatus from Rio de Janeiro Is Not Competent to Transmit the Local Zika Virus. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10(9):e0004993. pmid:27598421
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[172] View Article

[173] PubMed/NCBI

[174] Google Scholar

[ref47] 47. Fernandes RS, Campos SS, Ribeiro PS, Raphael LM, Bonaldo MC, Lourenco-de-Oliveira R. Culex quinquefasciatus from areas with the highest incidence of microcephaly associated with Zika virus infections in the Northeast Region of Brazil are refractory to the virus. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2017;112(8):577–9. pmid:28767975
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[176] View Article

[177] PubMed/NCBI

[178] Google Scholar

[ref48] 48. Tabachnick WJ. Nature, nurture and evolution of intra-species variation in mosquito arbovirus transmission competence. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013;10(1):249–77. pmid:23343982
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[180] View Article

[181] PubMed/NCBI

[182] Google Scholar

[ref49] 49. Chouin-Carneiro T, Vega-Rua A, Vazeille M, Yebakima A, Girod R, Goindin D, et al. Differential Susceptibilities of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus from the Americas to Zika Virus. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2016;10(3):e0004543. pmid:26938868
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[184] View Article

[185] PubMed/NCBI

[186] Google Scholar

[ref50] 50. Vega-Rua A, Lourenco-de-Oliveira R, Mousson L, Vazeille M, Fuchs S, Yebakima A, et al. Chikungunya virus transmission potential by local Aedes mosquitoes in the Americas and Europe. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9(5):e0003780. pmid:25993633
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[188] View Article

[189] PubMed/NCBI

[190] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Background

Methodology/Principal findings

Conclusions/Significance

Author summary

Introduction

Materials and methods

Ethical considerations

Mosquito populations

Viral strain

Experimental ZIKV infection

Mosquito infection, dissemination, and transmission potential

Statistical analysis

Results

ZIKV infection, dissemination and transmission in Ae. aegypti

ZIKV infection, dissemination and transmission in Ae. albopictus

Discussion

Supporting information

S1 Table. Infection, dissemination, transmission and transmission efficacy for Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus according to mosquito population, ZIKV dose, incubation temperature and days post infection.

S2 Table.

S3 Table.

Acknowledgments

References