Skip to main content
Browse Subject Areas

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Arbovirus vectors of epidemiological concern in the Americas: A scoping review of entomological studies on Zika, dengue and chikungunya virus vectors

  • Reilly Jones,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft

    Affiliation Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

  • Manisha A. Kulkarni,

    Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

  • Thomas M. V. Davidson,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft

    Affiliation Department of Human Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

  • RADAM-LAC Research Team ,

    Roles Funding acquisition, Investigation, Project administration, Writing – review & editing

    Membership of the RADAM-LAC Research Team is listed in the Acknowledgments

    Affiliations Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada, Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada, Center for Investigation in Tropical Microbiology and Parasitology, Universidad de los Andes, Bogota, Colombia, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada, Group for Investigation in Applied Genetics (GIGA), IBS, UNaM-CONICET, Posadas, Argentina, School of Medicine, Universidad Laica Elroy Alfaro de Manabí, Manta, Ecuador, Center for Investigation of Arthropod Vectors, Instituto Nacional de Investigación en Salud Pública, Quito, Ecuador

  • Benoit Talbot

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada



Three arthropod-borne viruses (arboviruses) causing human disease have been the focus of a large number of studies in the Americas since 2013 due to their global spread and epidemiological impacts: Zika, dengue, and chikungunya viruses. A large proportion of infections by these viruses are asymptomatic. However, all three viruses are associated with moderate to severe health consequences in a small proportion of cases. Two mosquito species, Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus, are among the world’s most prominent arboviral vectors, and are known vectors for all three viruses in the Americas.


This review summarizes the state of the entomological literature surrounding the mosquito vectors of Zika, dengue and chikungunya viruses and factors affecting virus transmission. The rationale of the review was to identify and characterize entomological studies that have been conducted in the Americas since the introduction of chikungunya virus in 2013, encompassing a period of arbovirus co-circulation, and guide future research based on identified knowledge gaps.


The preliminary search for this review was conducted on PubMed (National Library of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States). The search included the terms ‘zika’ OR ‘dengue’ OR ‘chikungunya’ AND ‘vector’ OR ‘Aedes aegypti’ OR ‘Aedes albopictus’. The search was conducted on March 1st of 2018, and included all studies since January 1st of 2013.


A total of 96 studies were included in the scoping review after initial screening and subsequent exclusion of out-of-scope studies, secondary data publications, and studies unavailable in English language.

Key findings

We observed a steady increase in number of publications, from 2013 to 2018, with half of all studies published from January 2017 to March 2018. Interestingly, information on Zika virus vector species composition was abundant, but sparse on Zika virus transmission dynamics. Few studies examined natural infection rates of Zika virus, vertical transmission, or co-infection with other viruses. This is in contrast to the wealth of research available on natural infection and co-infection for dengue and chikungunya viruses, although vertical transmission research was sparse for all three viruses.


Arboviruses, or arthropod-borne viruses, comprise a diverse group of viruses mostly transmitted by mosquitoes and ticks, including globally spreading viruses causing human disease, such as Zika, dengue, and chikungunya viruses. The term arbovirus does not encompass a taxonomically distinct group, but these viruses have similar life-history and transmission patterns that make information gleaned from one virus potentially useful to the understanding, and therefore prevention and control, of the others.

Since its identification in Uganda in 1947, Zika virus (Flavivirus, Flaviviridae) has been, until recently, confined only to Africa and Asia [1]. The virus ultimately reached the Americas in late 2014, resulting in the declaration of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization [2]. To date, 86 countries have reported evidence of mosquito-transmitted Zika virus infection. [3] Brazil currently faces the greatest burden of Zika virus infections [4]. Dengue fever, caused by four different serotypes of dengue virus (Flavivirus, Flaviviridae) is the most common arboviral disease that affects humans– 50 million people contract it each year, and an estimated 22,000 die from severe dengue [5]. Dengue is hyperendemic in the Americas, with cyclic epidemics occurring every three to five years [6]. Chikungunya virus (Alphavirus, Togoviridae) was first isolated in Tanzania in 1952 [7]. In the early 2000s, chikungunya virus cases and outbreaks were identified in countries in Africa, Asia, and Europe [7]. In 2013, it emerged in the Americas in Saint-Martin, and within the first year, over a million new cases were reported, spreading to 45 countries in the Latin American and Caribbean region [8].

A large proportion of Zika, dengue, and chikungunya viral infections are asymptomatic [911]. However, all three viruses are associated with moderate to severe health consequences in a small proportion of cases, with neonates, young children and/or older age groups at higher risk. Symptoms of Zika viral infection include rash, fever, arthralgia, and conjunctivitis [11]. More importantly, since its initial emergence in the Americas, Zika virus has been confirmed as a cause of congenital abnormalities (in infants born to women infected with Zika virus during pregnancy) and as a trigger of Guillain-Barré Syndrome [12]. Symptoms of dengue viral infection include rash, fever, arthralgia, and nausea. Some of the more severe symptoms of dengue viral infection may include deadly hemorrhage and plasma leak [9]. Symptoms of chikungunya viral infection include rash, fever, and arthralgia that may persist for an extended duration [7].

Two mosquito species, Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus, are among the world’s most prominent arboviral vectors. Ae. aegypti originated in sub-Saharan Africa as a sylvatic species and was introduced to the Americas via ships soon after European arrival in the 1400s [13]. The species became domesticated and is now endemic to the Americas and the Asia-Pacific. The range of Ae. albopictus was restricted to Asia until the latter part of the 20th century. It is thought to have been introduced to the Western hemisphere through a shipment of used tires in 1985 and has expanded its territory to over 40% of the world’s landmass over the course of the past 30 years [1416].

This review summarizes the state of the literature surrounding the vectors of Zika, dengue and chikungunya viruses and factors affecting virus transmission in the Americas, with a focus on public health implications. Waddell et al. [17] conducted a comprehensive scoping review of the Zika virus literature in 2016. However, the authors identified a limited scope of literature on vector studies, and none specifically looked at vector populations of the Americas, highlighting the need for a scoping review focusing on this area given its relevance in understanding arboviral disease risk in the region. This scoping review aims to identify and characterize the literature pertaining to mosquito species vector competence and aspects of virus transmission dynamics in the Americas since the introduction of chikungunya in 2013. This timeframe includes the introduction of Zika virus and the ongoing co-circulation of three globally spreading arboviruses, namely Zika, dengue and chikungunya viruses.


This study’s search strategy and data extraction protocol were developed a priori. The list of definitions for each search term and the data characterization and utility form are available upon request. The review was conducted using PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews [18]. See S2 Table for this scoping review’s checklist. The preliminary search for this review was conducted on PubMed (National Library of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States). The search included the terms ‘zika’ OR ‘dengue’ OR ‘chikungunya’ AND ‘vector’ OR ‘Aedes aegypti’ OR ‘Aedes albopictus’. The search was conducted on March 1st of 2018, and included all studies since January 1st of 2013. We chose the year 2013 as a start date for our search to reflect the timing of chikungunya virus spread to the Americas, followed in 2014 by Zika virus. These years are thus characterized by co-circulation of multiple globally spreading arboviruses in the region. Upon selection of potentially relevant articles, studies were characterized according to main characteristics including study setting, virus of interest, study design, methods of mosquito collection and analysis, vector species discussed, and main findings. Zotero (Center for History and New Media, George Mason University, United States) was initially used for title and abstract screening. All studies were subsequently transferred to Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, United States) for data characterization and extraction. Two independent reviewers completed each step of the review following the broad initial screening, which was conducted by one reviewer.

Articles were selected if they were related to vector species composition and/or virus transmission dynamics, if they were related to Zika, dengue and/or chikungunya arboviruses, and if they were related to the ongoing virus circulation in the Americas. Other inclusion criteria included availability of an English language version and investigation of primary data. Studies that specifically examined the impacts of vector control measures, or studies that were unrelated to vector-borne aspects of disease, vector competence or entomological measures, were excluded due to the degree of scope expansion that would be caused by their inclusion.


Descriptive statistics of scoping review

The search yielded 6267 results. All records were screened, and 5919 were not deemed relevant based on title and abstract content. A total of 348 screened full-text studies were examined for eligibility, and ultimately 96 studies were included in the scoping review (Fig 1; S1 Table). The vast majority of studies were performed exclusively in the field, in the laboratory, or using a modelling framework, and most studies were conducted exclusively on Ae. aegypti (Table 1). Studies focusing exclusively on dengue virus were the most numerous, followed by studies focusing exclusively on Zika virus, while studies focusing on chikungunya virus or on a combination of arboviruses were the least numerous (Table 1). Studies on virus transmission dynamics were the most numerous, while studies on aspects of both vector species composition and virus transmission dynamics were the least numerous (Table 1). The average monthly number of studies hovered between 0 and 2 from 2013 to 2016, then increased to 3 or more in 2017 and 2018 (Fig 2), closely reflecting the introductions of chikungunya and Zika viruses in the Americas and subsequent epidemics, respectively.

Fig 1. Summary of screening and exclusion steps of this scoping review’s methodology, and resulting number of publications after each step.

Fig 2. Average monthly number of publications included in the scoping review, for each year since 2013, out of a total of 96.

*Year-to-date on March 1st 2018.

Table 1. Number of publications included in the scoping review, for each review section, study design, and arbovirus and mosquito vector species of interest.

Vector species composition

Zika virus.

There is extensive evidence that Ae. aegypti mosquitoes are able to transmit Zika virus in both the laboratory [1929] and in the field [3032]. Ae. albopictus mosquitoes were also able to transmit Zika virus in experimental studies [22,23], but studies in which both Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus were captured found no Zika virus-infected Ae. albopictus [31,32]. Gendernalik et al. [33] and O’Donnell et al. [25] report that Ae. vexans mosquitoes are also experimentally competent vectors of Zika virus, but no studies indicated natural Ae. vexans infection with Zika virus. Cx. quinquefasciatus has been identified by predictive models as a potential vector for Zika virus [34], as have Sabethes and Haemagogus spp. [35]. Seven studies found that Cx. quinquefasciatus mosquitoes were refractory to Zika virus when exposed to infectious blood meals [29,3642]. Ferreira-de-Brito et al. [31] reported that no Cx. quinquefasciatus captured in Brazil were positive for Zika virus. In contrast, Guedes et al. [43] detected Zika virus in the midgut, salivary glands and saliva of artificially fed Cx. quinquefasciatus captured in Brazil, using RT-PCR and transmission electron microscopy. The same study also reported Zika virus isolated from two field-caught Cx. quinquefasciatus in Brazil.

Dengue virus.

Ae. albopictus [4447] and Ae. aegypti [27,45,46,4850] are both experimentally competent to transmit dengue virus. Infection by the virus is observed in field populations of Ae. albopictus [5154], Ae. aegypti [51,52,5462] and Cx. quinquefasciatus [56], although the latter was not identified as a competent vector species experimentally.

Chikungunya virus.

Ae. aegypti [46,6368], Ae. albopictus [46,64,6669], Aedes terrens [70], and Haemagogus leucocelaenus [70] are all experimentally competent to transmit chikungunya virus. Chikungunya virus transmission in Ae. aegypti has also been observed in the field [30,59,71,72].

Virus transmission dynamics

Vector competence factors.

Four studies measured the effect of temperature on vector competence [47,63,64,73]. Adelman et al. [63] found that under silenced RNAi conditions, Ae. aegypti were more predisposed to chikungunya infection at lower temperatures. Alto et al. [64] found that larger fluctuations in diurnal temperature range led to higher rates of chikungunya infection, and Xiao et al. [47] found that maximum dengue infection rates occurred at 31°C. Mordecai et al. [73] modelled Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus transmission in the Americas and found that mean temperature data accurately reflected Zika, chikungunya and dengue human case data. Transmission was found to occur between 18 and 34°C and maximal transmission was observed between 26–29°C, with less certainty surrounding the critical thermal minimum than the critical thermal maximum [73]. Ae. albopictus was found to perform better in cooler temperatures [73]. Buckner et al. [45] found that the interaction of low temperature and low food availability increased Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus susceptibility to DENV-1 serotype infection.

Three studies examined the effects of larval competition on dengue vector competence [44,45,74]. Bara et al. [44] found that Ae. albopictus larval competition resulted in significantly longer development times, lower emergence rates, and smaller adults, but did not significantly affect the extrinsic incubation period of DENV-2 virus. Kang et al. [74] found that larval-stage crowding and nutritional limitation led to lower survival rates until pupation, lower blood feeding success, slower development, smaller adult body size, and lower susceptibility to DENV-2 infection. Four studies examined a variety of blood meal characteristics on arboviral infection rate [23,24,49,75]. Fresh Zika-infected blood meal was associated with significantly higher infection rates than frozen Zika-infected blood meal [23]. Similarly, Zika-infected whole blood meal was associated with significantly higher infection rates than Zika-infected protein meal [24]. Hill et al. [49] studied the impact of antibiotics on dengue infection rate and mosquito fertility, and found no significant association in Ae. aegypti. Mosquitoes exposed to DENV-2 were more likely to re-feed than those that were unexposed [75]. Sylvestre et al. [76] studied the impact of DENV-2 infection on Ae. aegypti life history traits, and found that it significantly affected feeding behaviour, survival, fecundity, and oviposition success.

Vector infection rate.

Two studies conducted in Brazil exclusively examined infection rates by Zika virus in wild mosquito populations (Table 2). Ferreira-de-Brito et al. [31] reported three Zika-infected pools of Ae. aegypti, but no Zika-infected Cx. quinquefasciatus or Ae. albopictus pool [31], out of 468 tested pools among the three species. Ayllón et al. [32] tested 406 Ae. aegypti and 11 Ae. albopictus field-collected individuals, and found three Zika-infected Ae. aegypti individuals.

Table 2. List of studies that report a proportion of positive mosquito pools for any or a combination of Zika, dengue and chikungunya viruses, along with information on authors, year and country of location of the study, and mosquito species of interest.

Six studies reported exclusively on dengue infection rates in wild mosquito populations (Table 2). Cecílio et al. [77] observed four positive pools, out of 54 tested, among Aedes mosquitoes collected in two regions of Brazil over the course of 17 months, through the installation of ovitraps in public schools. Cruz et al. [57] detected eight positive pools, out of 50 Ae. aegypti pools, collected in Mato Grosso, Brazil. Martínez et al. [62] reported two positive pools, out of 226 Ae. aegypti pools, collected in Mexico. Claderón-Arguedas et al. [78] reported nine positive pools, out of 35 Ae. albopictus pools, collected in Costa Rica. Pérez-Pérez et al. [54] reported 132 positive pools, out of 407 tested, collected in Colombia. One of the positive pools was Ae. albopictus, and the remainder were Ae. aegypti. Pérez-Castro et al. [79] reported 21 positive pools, out of 34 tested, in Ae. aegypti in Colombia.

A study measured the naturally-occurring prevalence of chikungunya virus in wild mosquito populations (Table 2). Díaz-González et al. [72] reported 18 Ae. aegypti positive pools in Mexico, out of 557 tested. A study reported on the prevalence of both chikungunya and Zika viruses among Ae. aegypti in Ecuador (Table 2) [30]. Three studies tested both chikungunya and dengue viruses in wild mosquito populations (Table 2). Chikungunya, but not dengue, was detected in Ae. aegypti in Mexico by Cigarroa-Toledo et al. [71], although both chikungunya and dengue viruses were isolated in Mexico in Ae. aegypti by Dzul-Manzanilla et al. [59], and in Martinique by Farraudière et al. [61].

Vertical transmission.

Three studies reported on vertical transmission of dengue virus [58,60,80], and one [81] reported on the vertical transmission of Zika virus. Buckner et al. [80] found a vertical transmission rate of DENV-1 of 11.11% in Ae. albopictus and of 8.33% in Ae. aegypti. Da Costa et al. [58] observed dengue infection rates among third and fourth instar Ae. aegypti between 1.14% and 2.41% in Brazilian municipalities, and Espinosa et al. [60] observed one DENV-3 positive male Ae. aegypti pool, collected in Argentina. Thangamani et al. [81] experimentally injected mosquitoes with Zika virus and observed Zika virus infection in Ae. aegypti offspring, but not Ae. albopictus. Six filial Ae. aegypti pools out of 69 tested were found positive for Zika virus [81].

Transmission risk modelling.

Seven studies modelled transmission dynamics for Zika virus [40,8287]. Lourenço et al. [40] used vectorial capacity as a means of prediction, Marini et al. [82] and Majumder et al. [83] used vector abundance and human case data, and Villela et al. [84] and Ospina et al. [85] used disease notification and natural history. Rojas et al. [86] found attack rates in Girardot and San Andres, Colombia to be highest among females, aged 20–49. Fitzgibbon et al. [87] report that early host and vector heterogeneity significantly affect final epidemic size.

Eleven studies modelled dengue transmission dynamics [8899]. Lee et al. [95] constructed a predictive model that accurately foresaw 75% of dengue outbreaks in Colombia. Reiner et al. [88] reported that social proximity drives fine-scale heterogeneity in dengue transmission rates based on data from Peru. Three studies reported that meteorological variables including temperature and humidity are important determinants of transmission dynamics [89,90,92,93], and one study found that transovarial transmission plays an important role in transmission dynamics depending on basic reproductive number [91]. Liu-Helmersson et al. [96] predicted an increase in diurnal temperature range and increased dengue epidemic potential under climate changes in cold, temperate and extremely hot climates where mean temperatures are far from 29°C. Velasques-Castro et al. [97] studied Ae. aegypti dynamics in relation to host spatial heterogeneity and generated a dengue infection risk map, based on host dynamics. Taber et al. [98] modelled the colonization of Pennsylvania by Ae. albopictus together with corresponding risk of dengue.

One study estimated chikungunya transmission risk according to temperature threshold for breeding and adult mosquitoes in Argentina [99]. The authors suggest that temperatures conducive to Ae. aegypti breeding and transmission are present during September and April in northeastern Argentina, and in January in southern Argentina. A study compared endemic and transient chikungunya and dengue transmission dynamics, and the role of virus evolution [100]. They found that reducing biting rate and vector-to-susceptible-host ratio were the most effective at reducing basic reproductive number. A study modelled transmission risk of Zika, dengue and chikungunya and found temperature data to match well with human case data [73].

Strain infectivity and co-infection.

Six studies examined the infectivity of different dengue viral strains, and the impact of co-infection [50,74,101104]. Muturi et al. [50] found that infection with DENV-4 rendered Ae. aegypti significantly less susceptible to secondary infection with DENV-2. Kang et al. [74] modelled interactions between dengue viral serotypes. Quiner et al. [101] studied the infectivity of different isolates of DENV-2, and found NI-2B to have a replicative advantage over NI-1 until 12 days following infection, after which the advantage had dissipated. Quintero-Gil et al. [102] found that the DENV-2 serotype performed with a thousand-fold greater efficiency than the DENV-3 serotype, upon co-infection. In parallel, Serrato-Salas et al. [103] found that Ae. aegypti were significantly less susceptible to secondary dengue infection, after having been challenged with an inactive version of the virus. Vazeille et al. [104] found that DENV-4 outperformed DENV-1 in Ae. aegypti upon co-infection. Nuckols et al. [46] artificially infected Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus with chikungunya and DENV-2 simultaneously, separately, and in reverse order. Simultaneous dissemination was detected in all groups upon co-infection, and co-transmission occurred at low rates [46]. Rückert et al. [27] found that the co-infection of Ae. aegypti with Zika, chikungunya and dengue viruses minimally affected vector competence, and that vectors were able to transmit each viral pair, as well as three viruses simultaneously. Alto et al. [69] found Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus to be susceptible to Indian Ocean and Asian chikungunya virus genotypes.

Human disease risk.

Five articles studied correlations between entomological measures and risk of human dengue infection [105109]. One study conducted in Peru found that Ae. aegypti density was not associated with an increased risk of seroconversion [105]. One study in Acre, Brazil found that Ae. aegypti density and risk of dengue increased with tourism and case importation [106]. A study in Mexico City found a positive correlation between dengue incidence and Ae. aegypti indoor abundance, as well as monthly average temperature and rainfall [107]. Another study conducted in Peru found that an individual’s likelihood of being bitten in the home was directly proportional to time spent in the home, and body surface area. They did not find age or gender to be significant predictors [108]. Oliveira et al. [109] reported the circulation of four dengue serotypes in Brazil introduced between 2001 and 2012 (DENV-1, DENV-2, DENV-3, DENV-4) and reported an increase in dengue infection in Brazil during that time period, i.e. 587 cases/100 000 in 2001 to 1561 cases/100 000 in 2012. Monaghan et al. [110] predicted the seasonal abundance of Ae. aegypti in the United States using meterorologically driven models as a means of estimating arboviral infection risk [110]. All 50 included cities were found to be suitable during the summer months (July to September), while only cities in Florida and Texas were found to have Ae. aegypti abundance potential during the winter months (December to March). Lo and Park [111] found that regions of Brazil with elevated temperature and precipitation were more conducive to Ae. aegypti presence and Zika virus cases. Da Cruz Ferreira et al. [112] found that dengue occurrence increased by 25% when the average number of mosquitoes caught by traps increased by 0.1 per week. Stewart-Ibarra and Lowe [113] assessed the effect of climatic and entomological variables on intra-annual variability in dengue incidence in Southern Ecuador. Da Rocha Taranto et al. [114] examined the relationship between vector collection, species composition, hatching rates, and population density on dengue incidence. Hatching rate was found to be affected by population density and climate, and presence of vectors was associated with dengue incidence [114]. Ernst et al. [94] found no correlation between Ae. aegypti density and human age structure between two cities with different dengue transmission dynamics.


Our scoping review included studies focused on vector species composition and arbovirus transmission dynamics of Zika, dengue and/or chikungunya in the Americas. We observed a steady increase in number of publications, from 2013 to 2018, with half of all studies published from January 2017 to March 2018. Sightly less than half of all studies included in this review were specifically pertaining to virus transmission dynamics. Around a third of all studies addressed vector species composition. The remainder treated aspects of both sections. Most studies focused on Aedes aegypti as the vector species of interest, had an exclusively laboratory-based or modelling-based study framework, and focused exclusively on either Zika or dengue. One limitation of our study is the use of a single search engine, PubMed, which may have reduced the number of included publications in our scoping review. However, given the focus of our scoping review, we believe this search engine should have captured almost all, if not all, relevant studies.

To determine vector competence, a species must be able to acquire, maintain, and transmit a pathogen, which is assessed through experimental infection studies. However, these studies are heterogeneous in both the mosquito populations and virus strains used, as well as methods measuring potential to transmit [115]. The detection of viral particles in wild-caught mosquitoes does not signify vector competence on its own, but it lends support to evidence from laboratory studies, when coupled with the observation of human host-feeding behaviour. Field studies are also important to assess the relative importance of competent vector species in disease maintenance and/or transmission. Vector competence for Zika virus has been well established for Ae. aegypti [1932] and Ae. albopictus [22,23], but there is a growing consensus that Cx. quinquefasciatus is not a competent Zika virus vector, and no consensus has been reached regarding the competence of Ae vexans. A number of studies report that Cx. quinquefasciatus is refractory to Zika virus [29,3639,41,116]. While Zika virus has been detected in a small number of field-caught Cx. quinquefasciatus in Brazil [42], this does not necessarily indicate their ability to transmit the virus. Interestingly, information on Zika virus vector species composition was abundant, but sparse on Zika virus transmission dynamics. Few studies examined natural infection rates of Zika virus [31,32], vertical transmission [81], or co-infection with other viruses [27]. This is in contrast to the wealth of research available on natural infection and co-infection for dengue and chikungunya viruses, although vertical transmission research was sparse for all three viruses [46,50,58,77,80,101,102].

Based on the internationally recognized urgency of Zika virus infection as a public health concern, and potential increase in the importance of this and other emerging arboviruses in the future, further research on Zika virus transmission dynamics is of pressing need. Also, given the ongoing co-circulation of these three globally spreading arboviruses in the Americas, and the resulting complexity of their transmission dynamics, more integrative studies are needed that investigate a combination of Zika, dengue and chikungunya viruses and use a variety of approaches to answer questions relating to the risk posed by these arboviruses.

Supporting information

S1 Table. List of full-text articles included in the review.

Information on first author’s last name, year of publication, title, journal, review section, study design, and arbovirus and mosquito vector species of interest are given for each full-text article.


S2 Table. PRISMA-ScR checklist.

Checklist stating location of each element of the scoping review, as implemented by Tricco et al. [18].



This research is part of an international project entitled ‘Research on Arbovirus Dynamics and Mitigation–Latin America and Canada’ (RADAM-LAC), with field study sites in Colombia, Ecuador and Argentina. The RADAM-LAC Research Team consists of Beate Sander, Camila González, Jianhong Wu, Manisha A. Kulkarni, Marcos Miretti, Mauricio Espinel and Varsovia Cevallos.


  1. 1. Dick GWA, Kitchen SF, Haddow AJ. Zika virus. I. Isolations and serological specificity. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1952;46: 509–520. pmid:12995440
  2. 2. Weaver SC, Costa F, Garcia-Blanco MA, Ko AI, Ribeiro GS, Saade G, et al. Zika virus: History, emergence, biology, and prospects for control. Antiviral Res. 2016;130: 69–80. pmid:26996139
  3. 3. World Health Organization. Zika virus. 2018. Available:
  4. 4. Hills SL, Fischer M, Petersen LR. Epidemiology of Zika virus infection. J Infect Dis. 2017;216: S868–S874. pmid:29267914
  5. 5. Kamgang B, Yougang AP, Tchoupo M, Riveron JM, Wondji C. Temporal distribution and insecticide resistance profile of two major arbovirus vectors Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus in Yaoundé, the capital city of Cameroon. Parasit Vectors. 2017;10: 469. pmid:29017606
  6. 6. Murray NEA, Quam MB, Wilder-Smith A. Epidemiology of dengue: past, present and future prospects. Clin Epidemiol. 2013;5: 299–309. pmid:23990732
  7. 7. Zeller H, Van Bortel W, Sudre B. Chikungunya: its history in Africa and Asia and its spread to new regions in 2013–2014. J Infect Dis. 2016;214: S436–S440. pmid:27920169
  8. 8. Yactayo S, Staples JE, Millot V, Cibrelus L, Ramon-Pardo P. Epidemiology of chikungunya in the Americas. J Infect Dis. 2016;214: S441–S445. pmid:27920170
  9. 9. Centre for Disease Control. Clinical Guidance | Dengue | CDC. 2019. Available:
  10. 10. Nakkhara P, Chongsuvivatwong V, Thammapalo S. Risk factors for symptomatic and asymptomatic chikungunya infection. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2013;107: 789–796. pmid:24052594
  11. 11. Haby MM, Pinart M, Elias V, Reveiz L. Prevalence of asymptomatic Zika virus infection: a systematic review. Bull World Health Organ. 2018;96: 402–413D. pmid:29904223
  12. 12. Krauer F, Riesen M, Reveiz L, Oladapo OT, Martínez-Vega R, Porgo TV, et al. Zika virus infection as a cause of congenital brain abnormalities and Guillain-Barré syndrome: Systematic Review. PLoS Med. 2017;14: e1002203. pmid:28045901
  13. 13. Powell JR, Tabachnick WJ, Powell JR, Tabachnick WJ. History of domestication and spread of Aedes aegypti—a review. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2013;108: 11–17. pmid:24473798
  14. 14. Wagman J, Grieco JP, King R, Briceño I, Bautista K, Polanco J, et al. First record and demonstration of a southward expansion of Aedes albopictus into Orange Walk Town, Belize, Central America. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2013;29: 380–382. pmid:24551972
  15. 15. Kraemer MUG, Reiner RC, Brady OJ, Messina JP, Gilbert M, Pigott DM, et al. Past and future spread of the arbovirus vectors Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus. Nat Microbiol. 2019;4: 854–863. pmid:30833735
  16. 16. Miller MJ, Loaiza JR. Geographic expansion of the invasive mosquito Aedes albopictus across Panama—implications for control of dengue and chikungunya viruses. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9: e0003383. pmid:25569303
  17. 17. Waddell LA, Greig JD. Scoping review of the Zika virus literature. PloS One. 2016;11: e0156376. pmid:27244249
  18. 18. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169: 467. pmid:30178033
  19. 19. Bolling BG, Vasilakis N, Guzman H, Widen SG, Wood TG, Popov VL, et al. Insect-specific viruses detected in laboratory mosquito colonies and their potential implications for experiments evaluating arbovirus vector competence. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2015;92: 422–428. pmid:25510714
  20. 20. 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: 330–339. pmid:28829735
  21. 21. Costa-da-Silva AL, Ioshino RS, Araújo HRC de, Kojin BB, Zanotto PM de A, Oliveira DBL, et al. Correction: laboratory strains of Aedes aegypti are competent to Brazilian Zika virus. PloS One. 2017;12: e0174081. pmid:28288192
  22. 22. 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 Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10: e0004543. pmid:26938868
  23. 23. 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. Emerg Infect Dis. 2017;23: 1110–1117. pmid:28430564
  24. 24. Huang Y-JS, Lyons AC, Hsu W-W, Park SL, Higgs S, Vanlandingham DL. Differential outcomes of Zika virus infection in Aedes aegypti orally challenged with infectious blood meals and infectious protein meals. PloS One. 2017;12: e0182386. pmid:28796799
  25. 25. O’Donnell KL, Bixby MA, Morin KJ, Bradley DS, Vaughan JA. Potential of a northern population of Aedes vexans (Diptera: Culicidae) to transmit Zika virus. J Med Entomol. 2017;54: 1354–1359. pmid:28499036
  26. 26. 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: 625–632. pmid:28287375
  27. 27. Rückert C, Weger-Lucarelli J, Garcia-Luna SM, Young MC, Byas AD, Murrieta RA, et al. Impact of simultaneous exposure to arboviruses on infection and transmission by Aedes aegypti mosquitoes. Nat Commun. 2017;8: 15412. pmid:28524874
  28. 28. Secundino NFC, Chaves BA, Orfano AS, Silveira KRD, Rodrigues NB, Campolina TB, et al. Zika virus transmission to mouse ear by mosquito bite: a laboratory model that replicates the natural transmission process. Parasit Vectors. 2017;10: 346. pmid:28728607
  29. 29. Weger-Lucarelli J, Rückert C, Chotiwan N, Nguyen C, Garcia Luna SM, Fauver JR, et al. Vector competence of American mosquitoes for three strains of Zika virus. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10: e0005101. pmid:27783679
  30. 30. Cevallos V, Ponce P, Waggoner JJ, Pinsky BA, Coloma J, Quiroga C, et al. Zika and chikungunya virus detection in naturally infected Aedes aegypti in Ecuador. Acta Trop. 2018;177: 74–80. pmid:28982578
  31. 31. Ferreira-de-Brito A, Ribeiro IP, Miranda RM de, Fernandes RS, Campos SS, Silva KAB da, et al. First detection of natural infection of Aedes aegypti with Zika virus in Brazil and throughout South America. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2016;111: 655–658. pmid:27706382
  32. 32. Ayllón T, Campos R de M, Brasil P, Morone FC, Câmara DCP, Meira GLS, et al. Early evidence for Zika virus circulation among Aedes aegypti mosquitoes, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Emerg Infect Dis. 2017;23: 1411–1412. pmid:28628464
  33. 33. Gendernalik A, Weger-Lucarelli J, Garcia Luna SM, Fauver JR, Rückert C, Murrieta RA, et al. American Aedes vexans mosquitoes are competent vectors of Zika virus. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2017;96: 1338–1340. pmid:28719283
  34. 34. Evans MV, Dallas TA, Han BA, Murdock CC, Drake JM. Data-driven identification of potential Zika virus vectors. eLife. 2017;6. pmid:28244371
  35. 35. Althouse BM, Vasilakis N, Sall AA, Diallo M, Weaver SC, Hanley KA. Potential for Zika virus to establish a sylvatic transmission cycle in the Americas. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10: e0005055. pmid:27977671
  36. 36. Fernandes RS, Campos SS, Ribeiro PS, Raphael LM, Bonaldo MC, Lourenço-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: 577–579. pmid:28767975
  37. 37. Fernandes RS, Campos SS, Ferreira-de-Brito A, Miranda RM de, Barbosa da Silva KA, Castro MG de, et al. Culex quinquefasciatus from Rio de Janeiro is not competent to transmit the local Zika virus. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10: e0004993. pmid:27598421
  38. 38. Hart CE, Roundy CM, Azar SR, Huang JH, Yun R, Reynolds E, et al. Zika virus vector competency of mosquitoes, Gulf Coast, United States. Emerg Infect Dis. 2017;23: 559–560. pmid:28005002
  39. 39. Kenney JL, Romo H, Duggal NK, Tzeng W-P, Burkhalter KL, Brault AC, et al. Transmission incompetence of Culex quinquefasciatus and Culex pipiens pipiens from North America for Zika virus. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2017;96: 1235–1240. pmid:28500817
  40. 40. Lourenço J, Maia de Lima M, Faria NR, Walker A, Kraemer MU, Villabona-Arenas CJ, et al. Epidemiological and ecological determinants of Zika virus transmission in an urban setting. eLife. 2017;6. pmid:28887877
  41. 41. Dodson BL, Rasgon JL. Vector competence of Anopheles and Culex mosquitoes for Zika virus. PeerJ. 2017;5: e3096. pmid:28316896
  42. 42. Aliota MT, Peinado SA, Osorio JE, Bartholomay LC. Culex pipiens and Aedes triseriatus mosquito susceptibility to Zika virus. Emerg Infect Dis. 2016;22: 1857–1859. pmid:27434194
  43. 43. Guedes DR, Paiva MH, Donato MM, Barbosa PP, Krokovsky L, Rocha SWDS, et al. Zika virus replication in the mosquito Culex quinquefasciatus in Brazil. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2017;6: e69. pmid:28790458
  44. 44. Bara J, Rapti Z, Cáceres CE, Muturi EJ. Effect of larval competition on extrinsic incubation period and vectorial capacity of Aedes albopictus for dengue virus. PloS One. 2015;10: e0126703. pmid:25951173
  45. 45. Buckner EA, Alto BW, Lounibos LP. Larval temperature-food effects on adult mosquito infection and vertical transmission of dengue-1 virus. J Med Entomol. 2016;53: 91–98. pmid:26489999
  46. 46. Nuckols JT, Huang Y-JS, Higgs S, Miller AL, Pyles RB, Spratt HM, et al. Evaluation of simultaneous transmission of chikungunya virus and dengue virus type 2 in infected Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol. 2015;52: 447–451. pmid:26334820
  47. 47. Xiao F-Z, Zhang Y, Deng Y-Q, He S, Xie H-G, Zhou X-N, et al. The effect of temperature on the extrinsic incubation period and infection rate of dengue virus serotype 2 infection in Aedes albopictus. Arch Virol. 2014;159: 3053–3057. pmid:24990415
  48. 48. Lourenço-de-Oliveira R, Rua AV, Vezzani D, Willat G, Vazeille M, Mousson L, et al. Aedes aegypti from temperate regions of South America are highly competent to transmit dengue virus. BMC Infect Dis. 2013;13: 610. pmid:24373423
  49. 49. Hill CL, Sharma A, Shouche Y, Severson DW. Dynamics of midgut microflora and dengue virus impact on life history traits in Aedes aegypti. Acta Trop. 2014;140: 151–157. pmid:25193134
  50. 50. Muturi EJ, Buckner E, Bara J. Superinfection interference between dengue-2 and dengue-4 viruses in Aedes aegypti mosquitoes. Trop Med Int Health TM IH. 2017;22: 399–406. pmid:28150899
  51. 51. Dos Santos TP, Cruz OG, da Silva KAB, de Castro MG, de Brito AF, Maspero RC, et al. Dengue serotype circulation in natural populations of Aedes aegypti. Acta Trop. 2017;176: 140–143. pmid:28743449
  52. 52. Alto BW, Smartt CT, Shin D, bBettinardi D, Malicoate J, Anderson SL, et al. Susceptibility of Florida Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus to dengue viruses from Puerto Rico. J Vector Ecol J Soc Vector Ecol. 2014;39: 406–413. pmid:25424270
  53. 53. Gómez-Palacio A, Suaza-Vasco J, Castaño S, Triana O, Uribe S. Aedes albopictus (Skuse, 1894) infected with the American-Asian genotype of dengue type 2 virus in Medellín suggests its possible role as vector of dengue fever in Colombia. Biomed Rev Inst Nac Salud. 2017;37: 135–142.
  54. 54. Pérez-Pérez J, Sanabria WH, Restrepo C, Rojo R, Henao E, Triana O, et al. Virological surveillance of Aedes (Stegomyia) aegypti and Aedes (Stegomyia) albopictus as support for decision making for dengue control in Medellín. Biomed Rev Inst Nac Salud. 2017;37: 155–166.
  55. 55. Gonçalves CM, Melo FF, Bezerra JMT, Chaves BA, Silva BM, Silva LD, et al. Distinct variation in vector competence among nine field populations of Aedes aegypti from a Brazilian dengue-endemic risk city. Parasit Vectors. 2014;7: 320. pmid:25015526
  56. 56. Serra OP, Cardoso BF, Ribeiro ALM, Santos FAL dos, Slhessarenko RD. Mayaro virus and dengue virus 1 and 4 natural infection in culicids from Cuiabá, state of Mato Grosso, Brazil. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2016;111: 20–29. pmid:26784852
  57. 57. Cruz LC de TA da, Serra OP, Leal-Santos FA, Ribeiro ALM, Slhessarenko RD, Santos MA dos. Natural transovarial transmission of dengue virus 4 in Aedes aegypti from Cuiabá, State of Mato Grosso, Brazil. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2015;48: 18–25. pmid:25860459
  58. 58. da Costa CF, Dos Passos RA, Lima JBP, Roque RA, de Souza Sampaio V, Campolina TB, et al. Transovarial transmission of DENV in Aedes aegypti in the Amazon basin: a local model of xenomonitoring. Parasit Vectors. 2017;10: 249. pmid:28526066
  59. 59. Dzul-Manzanilla F, Martínez NE, Cruz-Nolasco M, Gutiérrez-Castro C, López-Damián L, Ibarra-López J, et al. Arbovirus surveillance and first report of chikungunya virus in wild populations of Aedes aegypti from Guerrero, Mexico. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2015;31: 275–277. pmid:26375910
  60. 60. Espinosa M, Giamperetti S, Abril M, Seijo A. Vertical transmission of dengue virus in Aedes aegypti collected in Puerto Iguazú, Misiones, Argentina. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo. 2014;56: 165–167. pmid:24626420
  61. 61. Farraudière L, Sonor F, Crico S, Étienne M, Mousson L, Hamel R, et al. First detection of dengue and chikungunya viruses in natural populations of Aedes aegypti in Martinique during the 2013–2015 concomitant outbreak. Rev Panam Salud Publica Pan Am J Public Health. 2017;41: e63.
  62. 62. Martínez NE, Dzul-Manzanilla F, Gutiérrez-Castro C, Ibarra-López J, Bibiano-Marín W, López-Damián L, et al. Natural vertical transmission of dengue-1 virus in Aedes aegypti populations in Acapulco, Mexico. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2014;30: 143–146. pmid:25102601
  63. 63. Adelman ZN, Anderson MAE, Wiley MR, Murreddu MG, Samuel GH, Morazzani EM, et al. Cooler temperatures destabilize RNA interference and increase susceptibility of disease vector mosquitoes to viral infection. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7: e2239. pmid:23738025
  64. 64. Alto BW, Wiggins K, Eastmond B, Ortiz S, Zirbel K, Lounibos LP. Diurnal temperature range and chikungunya virus infection in invasive mosquito vectors. J Med Entomol. 2018;55: 217–224. pmid:29040730
  65. 65. Dong S, Balaraman V, Kantor AM, Lin J, Grant DG, Held NL, et al. Chikungunya virus dissemination from the midgut of Aedes aegypti is associated with temporal basal lamina degradation during bloodmeal digestion. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11: e0005976. pmid:28961239
  66. 66. Ledermann JP, Borland EM, Powers AM. Minimum infectious dose for chikungunya virus in Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus mosquitoes. Rev Panam Salud Publica Pan Am J Public Health. 2017;41: e65.
  67. 67. Vega-Rúa A, Lourenço-de-Oliveira R, Mousson L, Vazeille M, Fuchs S, Yébakima A, et al. Chikungunya virus transmission potential by local Aedes mosquitoes in the Americas and Europe. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9: e0003780. pmid:25993633
  68. 68. Vega-Rúa A, Zouache K, Girod R, Failloux A-B, Lourenço-de-Oliveira R. High level of vector competence of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus from ten American countries as a crucial factor in the spread of chikungunya virus. J Virol. 2014;88: 6294–6306. pmid:24672026
  69. 69. Alto BW, Wiggins K, Eastmond B, Velez D, Lounibos LP, Lord CC. Transmission risk of two chikungunya lineages by invasive mosquito vectors from Florida and the Dominican Republic. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11: e0005724. pmid:28749964
  70. 70. Lourenço-de-Oliveira R, Failloux A-B. High risk for chikungunya virus to initiate an enzootic sylvatic cycle in the tropical Americas. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11: e0005698. pmid:28662031
  71. 71. Cigarroa-Toledo N, Blitvich BJ, Cetina-Trejo RC, Talavera-Aguilar LG, Baak-Baak CM, Torres-Chablé OM, et al. Chikungunya virus in febrile humans and Aedes aegypti mosquitoes, Yucatan, Mexico. Emerg Infect Dis. 2016;22: 1804–1807. pmid:27347760
  72. 72. Díaz-González EE, Kautz TF, Dorantes-Delgado A, Malo-García IR, Laguna-Aguilar M, Langsjoen RM, et al. First report of Aedes aegypti transmission of chikungunya virus in the Americas. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2015;93: 1325–1329. pmid:26416113
  73. 73. Mordecai EA, Cohen JM, Evans MV, Gudapati P, Johnson LR, Lippi CA, et al. Detecting the impact of temperature on transmission of Zika, dengue, and chikungunya using mechanistic models. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11: e0005568. pmid:28448507
  74. 74. Kang DS, Alcalay Y, Lovin DD, Cunningham JM, Eng MW, Chadee DD, et al. Larval stress alters dengue virus susceptibility in Aedes aegypti (L.) adult females. Acta Trop. 2017;174: 97–101. pmid:28648790
  75. 75. Maciel-de-Freitas R, Sylvestre G, Gandini M, Koella JC. The influence of dengue virus serotype-2 infection on Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) motivation and avidity to blood feed. PloS One. 2013;8: e65252. pmid:23755202
  76. 76. Sylvestre G, Gandini M, Maciel-de-Freitas R. Age-dependent effects of oral infection with dengue virus on Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) feeding behavior, survival, oviposition success and fecundity. PloS One. 2013;8: e59933. pmid:23555838
  77. 77. Cecílio SG, Júnior WFS, Tótola AH, de Brito Magalhães CL, Ferreira JMS, de Magalhães JC. Dengue virus detection in Aedes aegypti larvae from southeastern Brazil. J Vector Ecol J Soc Vector Ecol. 2015;40: 71–74. pmid:26047186
  78. 78. Calderón-Arguedas O, Troyo A, Moreira-Soto RD, Marín R, Taylor L. Dengue viruses in Aedes albopictus Skuse from a pineapple plantation in Costa Rica. J Vector Ecol J Soc Vector Ecol. 2015;40: 184–186. pmid:26047200
  79. 79. Pérez-Castro R, Castellanos JE, Olano VA, Matiz MI, Jaramillo JF, Vargas SL, et al. Detection of all four dengue serotypes in Aedes aegypti female mosquitoes collected in a rural area in Colombia. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2016;111: 233–240. pmid:27074252
  80. 80. Buckner EA, Alto BW, Lounibos LP. Vertical transmission of Key West dengue-1 virus by Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) mosquitoes from Florida. J Med Entomol. 2013;50: 1291–1297. pmid:24843934
  81. 81. Thangamani S. Vertical transmission of Zika virus in Aedes aegypti mosquitoes. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2016;95: 1169–1173. pmid:27573623
  82. 82. Marini G, Guzzetta G, Rosà R, Merler S. First outbreak of Zika virus in the continental United States: a modelling analysis. Euro Surveill Bull Eur Sur Mal Transm Eur Commun Dis Bull. 2017;22. pmid:28933344
  83. 83. Majumder MS, Santillana M, Mekaru SR, McGinnis DP, Khan K, Brownstein JS. Utilizing nontraditional data sources for near real-time estimation of transmission dynamics during the 2015–2016 Colombian Zika virus disease outbreak. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2016;2: e30. pmid:27251981
  84. 84. Villela D a. M, Bastos LS, DE Carvalho LM, Cruz OG, Gomes MFC, Durovni B, et al. Zika in Rio de Janeiro: assessment of basic reproduction number and comparison with dengue outbreaks. Epidemiol Infect. 2017;145: 1649–1657. pmid:28240195
  85. 85. Ospina J, Hincapie-Palacio D, Ochoa J, Molina A, Rúa G, Pájaro D, et al. Stratifying the potential local transmission of Zika in municipalities of Antioquia, Colombia. Trop Med Int Health TM IH. 2017;22: 1249–1265. pmid:28686321
  86. 86. Rojas D, Dean N, Yang Y, Kenah E, Quintero J, Tomasi S, et al. The epidemiology and transmissibility of Zika virus in Girardot and San Andres island, Colombia, September 2015 to January 2016. Euro Surveill. 2016;21. pmid:27452806
  87. 87. Fitzgibbon WE, Morgan JJ, Webb GF. An outbreak vector-host epidemic model with spatial structure: the 2015–2016 Zika outbreak in Rio De Janeiro. Theor Biol Med Model. 2017;14: 7. pmid:28347332
  88. 88. Reiner RC, Stoddard ST, Scott TW. Socially structured human movement shapes dengue transmission despite the diffusive effect of mosquito dispersal. Epidemics. 2014;6: 30–36. pmid:24593919
  89. 89. Siraj AS, Oidtman RJ, Huber JH, Kraemer MUG, Brady OJ, Johansson MA, et al. Temperature modulates dengue virus epidemic growth rates through its effects on reproduction numbers and generation intervals. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11: e0005797. pmid:28723920
  90. 90. Yang HM, Boldrini JL, Fassoni AC, Freitas LFS, Gomez MC, de Lima KKB, et al. Fitting the incidence data from the city of Campinas, Brazil, based on dengue transmission modellings considering time-dependent entomological parameters. PloS One. 2016;11: e0152186. pmid:27010654
  91. 91. Yang HM. The transovarial transmission in the dynamics of dengue infection: epidemiological implications and thresholds. Math Biosci. 2017;286: 1–15. pmid:28131789
  92. 92. Campbell KM, Haldeman K, Lehnig C, Munayco CV, Halsey ES, Laguna-Torres VA, et al. Weather regulates location, timing, and intensity of dengue virus transmission between humans and mosquitoes. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9: e0003957. pmid:26222979
  93. 93. Masud MA, Kim BN, Kim Y. Optimal control problems of mosquito-borne disease subject to changes in feeding behavior of Aedes mosquitoes. Biosystems. 2017;156–157: 23–39. pmid:28385591
  94. 94. Lee J-S, Carabali M, Lim JK, Herrera VM, Park I-Y, Villar L, et al. Early warning signal for dengue outbreaks and identification of high risk areas for dengue fever in Colombia using climate and non-climate datasets. BMC Infect Dis. 2017;17: 480. pmid:28693483
  95. 95. Ernst KC, Walker KR, Reyes-Castro P, Joy TK, Castro-Luque AL, Diaz-Caravantes RE, et al. Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) longevity and differential emergence of dengue fever in two cities in Sonora, Mexico. J Med Entomol. 2017;54: 204–211. pmid:28082648
  96. 96. Liu-Helmersson J, Stenlund H, Wilder-Smith A, Rocklöv J. Vectorial capacity of Aedes aegypti: effects of temperature and implications for global dengue epidemic potential. PloS One. 2014;9: e89783. pmid:24603439
  97. 97. Velasquez-Castro J, Anzo-Hernandez A, Bonilla-Capilla B, Soto-Bajo M, Fraguela-Collar A. Vector-borne disease risk indexes in spatially structured populations. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12. pmid:29432455
  98. 98. Taber ED, Hutchinson ML, Smithwick EAH, Blanford JI. A decade of colonization: the spread of the Asian tiger mosquito in Pennsylvania and implications for disease risk. J Vector Ecol J Soc Vector Ecol. 2017;42: 3–12. pmid:28504449
  99. 99. Carbajo AE, Vezzani D. Waiting for chikungunya fever in Argentina: spatio-temporal risk maps. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2015;110: 259–262. pmid:25946252
  100. 100. Manore CA, Hickmann KS, Xu S, Wearing HJ, Hyman JM. Comparing dengue and chikungunya emergence and endemic transmission in A. aegypti and A. albopictus. J Theor Biol. 2014;356: 174–191. pmid:24801860
  101. 101. Quiner CA, Parameswaran P, Ciota AT, Ehrbar DJ, Dodson BL, Schlesinger S, et al. Increased replicative fitness of a dengue virus 2 clade in native mosquitoes: potential contribution to a clade replacement event in Nicaragua. J Virol. 2014;88: 13125–13134. pmid:25187539
  102. 102. Quintero-Gil DC, Ospina M, Osorio-Benitez JE, Martinez-Gutierrez M. Differential replication of dengue virus serotypes 2 and 3 in coinfections of C6/36 cells and Aedes aegypti mosquitoes. J Infect Dev Ctries. 2014;8: 876–884. pmid:25022298
  103. 103. Serrato-Salas J, Izquierdo-Sánchez J, Argüello M, Conde R, Alvarado-Delgado A, Lanz-Mendoza H. Aedes aegypti antiviral adaptive response against DENV-2. Dev Comp Immunol. 2018;84: 28–36. pmid:29408269
  104. 104. Vazeille M, Gaborit P, Mousson L, Girod R, Failloux A-B. Competitive advantage of a dengue 4 virus when co-infecting the mosquito Aedes aegypti with a dengue 1 virus. BMC Infect Dis. 2016;16: 318. pmid:27390932
  105. 105. Cromwell EA, Stoddard ST, Barker CM, Van Rie A, Messer WB, Meshnick SR, et al. The relationship between entomological indicators of Aedes aegypti abundance and dengue virus infection. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11: e0005429. pmid:28333938
  106. 106. Lana RM, Gomes MF da C, Lima TFM de, Honório NA, Codeço CT. The introduction of dengue follows transportation infrastructure changes in the state of Acre, Brazil: A network-based analysis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11: e0006070. pmid:29149175
  107. 107. Eisen L, García-Rejón JE, Gómez-Carro S, Nájera Vázquez M del R, Keefe TJ, Beaty BJ, et al. Temporal correlations between mosquito-based dengue virus surveillance measures or indoor mosquito abundance and dengue case numbers in Mérida City, México. J Med Entomol. 2014;51: 885–890. pmid:25118425
  108. 108. Liebman KA, Stoddard ST, Reiner RC, Perkins TA, Astete H, Sihuincha M, et al. Determinants of heterogeneous blood feeding patterns by Aedes aegypti in Iquitos, Peru. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014;8: e2702. pmid:24551262
  109. 109. Oliveira R de MAB, Araújo FM de C, Cavalcanti LP de G. Entomological and epidemiological aspects of dengue epidemics in Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil, 2001–2012. Epidemiol E Serv Saude Rev Sist Unico Saude Bras. 2018;27: e201704414. pmid:29451615
  110. 110. Monaghan AJ, Morin CW, Steinhoff DF, Wilhelmi O, Hayden M, Quattrochi DA, et al. On the seasonal occurrence and abundance of the Zika virus vector mosquito Aedes aegypti in the contiguous United States. PLoS Curr. 2016;8. pmid:27066299
  111. 111. Lo D, Park B. Modeling the spread of the Zika virus using topological data analysis. PloS One. 2018;13: e0192120. pmid:29438377
  112. 112. da Cruz Ferreira DA, Degener CM, de Almeida Marques-Toledo C, Bendati MM, Fetzer LO, Teixeira CP, et al. Meteorological variables and mosquito monitoring are good predictors for infestation trends of Aedes aegypti, the vector of dengue, chikungunya and Zika. Parasit Vectors. 2017;10: 78. pmid:28193291
  113. 113. Stewart-Ibarra AM, Lowe R. Climate and non-climate drivers of dengue epidemics in southern coastal ecuador. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2013;88: 971–981. pmid:23478584
  114. 114. da Rocha Taranto MF, Pessanha JEM, dos Santos M, dos Santos Pereira Andrade AC, Camargos VN, Alves SN, et al. Dengue outbreaks in Divinopolis, south-eastern Brazil and the geographic and climatic distribution of Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti in 2011–2012. Trop Med Int Health TM IH. 2015;20: 77–88. pmid:25328988
  115. 115. Souza-Neto JA, Powell JR, Bonizzoni M. Aedes aegypti vector competence studies: a review. Infect Genet Evol J Mol Epidemiol Evol Genet Infect Dis. 2019;67: 191–209. pmid:30465912
  116. 116. Lourenço-de-Oliveira R, Marques JT, Sreenu VB, Atyame Nten C, Aguiar ERGR, Varjak M, et al. Culex quinquefasciatus mosquitoes do not support replication of Zika virus. J Gen Virol. 2018;99: 258–264. pmid:29076805