Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Aug 29;18(8):e0286609. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286609

Expression, activity, and consequences of biochemical inhibition of α- and β-glucosidases in different life stages of Culex quinquefasciatus

Edwin R Burgess IV 1,*, Neil D Sanscrainte 2, Caitlin E Taylor 1, Lyle J Buss 1, Alden S Estep 2
Editor: Rachid Bouharroud3
PMCID: PMC10464971  PMID: 37643188

Abstract

Mosquitoes have a wide range of digestive enzymes that enable them to utilize requisite blood and sugar meals for survival and reproduction. Sugar meals, typically derived from plant sources, are critical to maintain energy in both male and female mosquitoes, whereas blood meals are taken only by females to complete oogenesis. Enzymes involved in sugar digestion have been the subject of study for decades but have been limited to a relatively narrow range of mosquito species. The southern house mosquito, Culex quinquefasciatus, is of public health importance and seldom considered in these types of studies outside of topics related to Bacillus sphaericus, a biocontrol agent that requires interaction with a specific gut-associated α-glucosidase. Here we sought to describe the nature of α-glucosidases and unexplored β-glucosidases that may aid Cx. quinquefasciatus larvae in acquiring nutrients from cellulosic sources in their aquatic habitats. Consistent with our hypothesis, we found both α- and β-glucosidase activity in larvae. Interestingly, β-glucosidase activity all but disappeared at the pupal stage and remained low in adults, while α-glucosidase activity remained in the pupal stage and then exceeded larval activity by approximately 1.5-fold. The expression patterns of the putative α- and β-glucosidase genes chosen did not consistently align with observed enzyme activities. When the α-glucosidase inhibitor acarbose was administered to adults, mortality was seen especially in males but also in females after two days of exposure and key energetic storage molecules, glycogen and lipids, were significantly lower than controls. In contrast, administering the β-glucosidase inhibitor conduritol β-epoxide to larvae did not produce mortality even at the highest soluble concentration. Here we provide insights into the importance of α- and β-glucosidases on the survival of Cx. quinquefasciatus in their three mobile life stages.

Introduction

Anautogenous mosquitoes utilize a range of specialized enzymes to process blood meals, including proteases and peptidases [1]. Apyrase (EC 3.6.1.5) is another enzyme important to the acquisition of blood meals by mosquitoes. The function of apyrase is to hydrolyze ATP and ADP into AMP and free phosphates, which inhibits platelet aggregation and thus clotting [2]. Blood is only a requirement for egg development in female anautogenous mosquitoes. A female mosquito’s remaining nutritional requirements are satisfied by sugar, usually acquired from plant fluids like nectar (reviewed in [3, 4]). Conversely, the male mosquito derives the totality of its nutritional requirements from sugars. The metabolism of these sugar meals requires specialized enzymes to help liberate glucose and even convert non-glucose monosaccharides to glucose from more complex carbohydrates. The glucose made available by these enzymes is utilized for numerous essential physiological processes.

Glycoside hydrolases, including α-glucosidase (EC 3.2.1.20) and β-1,3-glucanase (EC 3.2.1.6) are commonly found in organisms that digest sugars like sucrose and cellulosic tissues, respectively. Previous studies have examined the activities of glycoside hydrolases in different mosquito species and life stages, including salivary α-glucosidases in adult Ae. aegypti [5], midgut α-glucosidases in adult Anopheles aquasalis [6], and β-1,3-glucanase in the larvae of Aedes aegypti [7].

In Culex quinquefasciatus, a vector of numerous pathogens of public health importance, α-glucosidase has been a subject of study because of its interaction with Bacillus sphaericus, an important larval Culex spp. biological control agent. The α-glucosidase ‘Cpm1’ is a 60-kDa protein that plays a critical role as the binding site for the binary toxin produced by Bacillus sphaericus in larval Cx. pipiens [8], with homologs also found in Cx. quinquefasciatus and Anopheles gambiae (‘Cqm1’ and ‘Aqm1’, respectively). This enzyme is expressed in the brush border membranes of the larval midgut. Like so many toxin-based control mechanisms, resistance to Bacillus sphaericus has been observed in field strains of Culex spp. worldwide [911] and is due to different varieties of nucleotide deletions in the α-glucosidase gene [12, 13] or transposons that render the protein incapable of interacting with the binary toxin [14].

Outside of its importance for biological control, there is a paucity of general information on glycoside hydrolase activity in Cx. quinquefasciatus, especially information on β-glucosidases, which larvae may use to help liberate beta-linked glucose from cellulosic tissues. Mosquitoes from the Culex pipiens complex, including Cx. quinquefasciatus, make use of a wide range of aquatic habitats for larval and pupal development, including highly eutrophic areas like storm sewers [15, 16]. We therefore hypothesized that larvae would exhibit both α- and β-glucosidase activity because of the availability of a wide range of nutritional resources, including cellulosic tissues, in their larval habitats. On the other hand, with adults acquiring sugars from primarily plant sources, which contain high concentrations of sucrose and other sugars with alpha-linked glucose molecules, we hypothesized that high activity of α-glucosidases would be seen in adults. The following study describes activity and expression of both α- and β-glucosidases in the three mobile life stages of Cx. quinquefasciatus. Biochemical inhibition experiments were conducted to support the involvement of these enzymes in larval and adult survival.

Methods

Mosquitoes and chemicals

The USDA-ARS-CMAVE strain of Culex quinquefasciatus was used for all experiments. This strain is insecticide susceptible and has been characterized in previous toxicological studies [1720]. The strain has been reared in mass colony for decades using a standard rearing process. For the experiments described here, egg rafts (12 per pan) provided from the main colony were floated on 3 L of deionized water in a 40 x 60 plastic pan (Del-Tec Products, Greenville, SC) with 0.5 g of dissolved 2:1 alfalfa powder and brewer’s yeast as food source. Trays were maintained at 27°C on a 14:10 light dark cycle with provision of an additional 0.5 g of 2:1 food every other day as a slurry to reduce tray fouling (i.e., adverse microorganism growth). At pupation, pupae were manually picked using a transfer pipette, rinsed with clean tap water, and placed into 30cm x 30cm x 30cm plastic screened cages (MegaScience, Tiawan) for emergence. Collections of larvae, pupae, and adults were made at each life stage. The same rearing and collection procedure was performed at least 3 times using different batches of eggs distinct in time.

The following chemicals were purchased from Fisher Scientific (Waltham, MA, USA): acarbose hydrate (MW = 645.61; >98% purity), conduritol β-epoxide (MW = 162.14; 97% purity), p-nitrophenyl-α-D-glucopyranoside (MW = 301.25; >98% purity), p-nitrophenyl-β-D-glucopyranoside (MW = 301.25; >98% purity).

Activity of α- and β-glucosidases

Measuring the activity of both α- and β-glucosidases was done similarly to [21]. Separately, one L3 larvae, one-day-old pupae, and one-day-old adult female from the same generation was homogenized in 200 μL citric acid phosphate (CAP) buffer (50 mM citric acid, 50 mM sodium phosphate, 10 mM sodium chloride, pH 6.0) using a bead mill homogenizer. The resulting homogenate was then centrifuged at 10,000 x g and 4°C for 4 minutes, and the supernatant was used as the enzyme source. Solutions of p-nitrophenyl-α-D-glucopyranoside (α-glucosidase) and p-nitrophenyl-β-D-glucopyranoside (β-glucosidase) were made in acetone, diluted to 3.32 mM in CAP buffer, and 180 μL was added to 20 μL of enzyme supernatant (final concentration 3.0 mM, 0.675% acetone) in the wells of a 96-well clear, flat-bottomed plate. The reactions were allowed to incubate at 37°C for 10 min and then stopped by adding 10 μL of 2.5 M NaOH. Measurement of the p-nitrophenoxide chromophore was done at 405 nm in a BioTek Epoch II spectrophotometer (BioTek, Santa Clara, CA, USA) against p-nitrophenol standards (also 0.675% acetone; R2 = 0.975) also stopped with 10 μL of 2.5 M NaOH. Total protein was determined using the Bradford assay, with bovine serum albumin as a standard [22], and then used to normalize the enzymatic activity based on protein concentration (i.e., specific activity). Each biochemical assays was performed on eight individuals from each life stage.

Expression of α- and β-glucosidases

A portion of the previously mentioned enzyme homogenates was also used for gene expression studies. RNA was purified from 100 μL of the homogenate using a standard silica column spin kit, with a DNAse digestion step to remove residual DNA (ZymoResearch, Irvine, CA), by following the manufacturer instructions for liquid samples. The concentration of RNA was assessed on a NanoDrop8000 (ThermoFisher, Waltham, MA, USA) and samples were stored at -80°C until further use. Reverse transcription using 300 ng of whole purified RNA and oligo dT primers followed manufacturer instructions and reaction times for the SuperScript IV kit (ThermoFisher, Waltham, MA, USA). A no reverse transcriptase reaction was included as a control.

Putative glucosidases were identified by homology search of known glucosidases (EC 3.2.1.20 & EC 3.2.1.21) against the genomes and transcriptomes of Culex quinquefasciatus in NCBI and Vectorbase.org. Primers were designed using Primer3 to be specific for transcripts based on data and designed to cover at least one exon-exon junction in every pair to reduce non-specific amplification from contaminating DNA. NCBI lists 4 possible transcripts with β-glucosidase activity (XM_038253477.1-XM_038253480.1) and the primers were designed to target all four using a common region to provide an assessment of global expression level (CPIJ001433_F—CTGCTGTACCCTGTCGAGTC; CPIJ001433_R–TCGTCGCTGAACCACTTCTC). Primers were also designed against a putative Culex homolog of human GH-16, annotated as a b-1,3-glucan binding protein (XM_001845910.2), a glycoside hydrolase known to break down the cell walls of yeasts and fungi, using the recently released Johannesburg assembly in Vectorbase.org (CQUJHB008315_F–AGCATACTTTGGGAGGTGGC; CQUJHB008315_R–CAGCGTTGGACGGATGTAGA). Ribosomal protein L24 was used as the reference gene using previously described primers [23].

Expression studies were conducted on a calibrated QuantStudio6 Flex instrument (ThermoFisher, Waltham, MA, USA) using technical duplicate 10ul reactions in 384-well plates. Each reaction consisted of 5 μL of SYBRSelect (ThermoFisher, Waltham, MA, USA), 0.66 μL of 3 μM F/R primer premix, 3.84 μL of nuclease free water, and 1 μL of cDNA. Samples were amplified using standard “FAST” parameters (95°C for 1 min, then 40 cycles of 95°C for 3 sec and 60°C for 15 sec) and included a final melt curve stage to ensure amplification resulted in a single peak. Amplifications were replicated two or three times. Data were converted to relative expression using the 2-ΔΔCt method [24] against the reference gene and a larval sample as the calibrating sample defined as expression value 1.

In vivo inhibition of α- and β-glucosidases

To measure inhibition of α-glucosidases, mosquitoes were allowed to emerge in the presence of 20% sucrose water for three days (0–3 day old), at which point they were sorted into mixed-sex groups of approximately 27–97 adults under brief CO2 anesthesia and placed in experimental arenas. The arenas were made from 946.4 mL plastic soup containers with lids (Fig 1). Two holes (1.27 cm diameter each) were bored in the arenas, one in the wall approximately 0.95 cm from the bottom, and the other in the lid. A 2 mL microcentrifuge tube, with its cap cut off, was hot glued approximately 3.18 cm from the bottom of the arena to serve as the reservoir for inhibitor plus sucrose treatment or the no inhibitor sucrose control. A piece of blotting paper (0.95 x 3.8 cm) was cut to fit inside the walls of the receptacle, with approximately 1.3 cm extending out of the receptacle to act as a feeding surface for the mosquitoes. The blotting paper was held in place by a small piece of cotton on one side of the receptacle that also acted as a feeding surface. The inhibitor used was acarbose, an inhibitor of α-glucosidases in insects [25, 26]. A 4 mL volume of 10 mM, 1 mM, or 0 mM acarbose in 20% sucrose with blue food coloring (50 mL sucrose solution and 3 drops of blue food coloring; McCormick & Co., Inc. Hunt Valley, MD, USA) was prepared and added to the receptacle until full. Blue food coloring was used to confirm feeding through observation of blue fecal spots deposited in the arenas and blue crops and midguts viewed under a stereoscope. The containers were placed inside an environmental chamber set to 25°C, 70% RH, and 12:12 light:dark. Dead mosquitoes were collected every 24 h for four days. Mosquitoes that survived the four days were immediately frozen and stored at -80°C for follow-up measurement of α-glucosidase activity. Each concentration was replicated four times and were temporally blocked by treatment (i.e., 10, 1, and 0 mM treatments were run simultaneously). Follow-up α-glucosidase activity was measured as described on five 4 d old females that had survived to the end of the assays and did not have visibly blue crops or midguts. Prior to glucosidase activity measurement, the right wings were removed from mosquitoes and mounted to glass slides with euparal. Wing length was used as a proxy for body size in subsequent lipid and glycogen determination assays (described below) from these same samples.

Fig 1. Diagram of adult test arenas for biochemical inhibition of α-glucosidases in adult Culex quinquefasciatus.

Fig 1

A.) the front view of the test arena showing the bottom access hole covered in yellow lab tape, B.) the rear view showing the centrifuge tube feeding reservoir and the top hole covered in masking tape. C.) shows the number of dead mosquitoes on day 4, and D.) shows how the top hole is used to drain the remaining inhibitor in the reservoir before anesthetizing and collecting remaining live mosquitoes for subsequent biochemical tests.

Starvation state of the adults used in the α-glucosidase inhibition assay was quantified by measuring lipid and glycogen concentrations using assays adapted from [2729]. Anthrone reagent was made by adding 75 mL of purified water to a 500 mL Pyrex bottle, quickly adding 190 mL of concentrated sulfuric acid (95–98%), and then immediately adding 375 mg of anthrone (98%). The exothermic reaction of the acid and water combined with careful swirling completely dissolves the anthrone. Similarly, vanillin reagent was made by dissolving 350 mg of vanillin (99%) in 50 mL of hot (not boiling) purified water and then mixing it into 200 mL of 85% O-phosphoric acid in a 500 mL Pyrex bottle. Both reagents were stored for at least 24 h in light proof containers at 4°C prior to use. After α-glucosidase activity and protein measurement, 140 μL of the supernatant remained. A volume of 60 μL of 6.7% sodium sulfate was added to the supernatant to make a final concentration of 2% sodium sulfate to precipitate glycogen [27]. The supernatant was then mixed with 1000 μL of chloroform:methanol (1:2), vortexed, and centrifuged for 4 min at 10,000 x g and 4°C to pellet the glycogen. The total supernatant was aspirated into 12 x 75 mm borosilicate test tubes and evaporated to complete dryness (~ 1 h) in a Biotage TurboVap LV (Biotage LLC, Uppsala, Sweden) set to 90°C and using building compressed air. Next, 50 μL of concentrated sulfuric acid was added to each tube, vortexed, and then placed in an aluminum heating block for 10 min at 90°C. At this point, 1000 μL of anthrone reagent was added to the glycogen tubes, vortexed, and placed in the same aluminum heating block for 8 min. Both the lipid and glycogen tubes were then taken out of the heating block, the anthrone tubes were placed on ice for 10 min to allow for color development, while the lipid tubes had 2000 μL of vanillin added to them, were vortexed, and left to develop at room temp for 30 min. All tubes were vortexed before transferring 100 μL of each tube in duplicate to clear, flat-bottomed, 96-well plates. The lipid samples were read at 525 nm on a spectrophotometer, while glycogen samples were read at 625 nm. Samples were compared to standards of glucose (glycogen) and canola oil (lipids) at 50, 25, 12.5, 6.25, 3.13, 1.56, 0.78, and 0 μg. To account for size differences among the individual mosquitoes, previously removed wings were measured from the apical notch to the axillary margin, excluding the scale fringe on the apical edge of the wing [30, 31] using a Leica M205C stereoscope with attached DMC 5400 digital camera, and Leica Application Suite X measurement software version 3.7.4.23463 (Leica Microsystems, Wetzlar, Germany). Wing length is considered a good proxy for body size when quantifying both glycogen and lipids with the anthrone and vanillin methods, respectively [29].

Because larvae of Cx. quinquefasciatus feed on algae, various phytoplankton, and detritus in the water column [32], biochemical inhibition of α- and β-glucosidases was measured. This was done by setting up a series of 70 mL plastic cups with lids, adding 15–25 L3-L4 stage larvae to each cup, along with 0.5 mL of powdered fish food and 0.5 mL of one of four β-glucosidase inhibitor concentrations or a control (total of five cups per replicate). The concentrations tested were 1 mM, 0.1 mM, 0.01 mM, 0.001 mM and 0 mM of conduritol β-epoxide, which is known to inhibit β-glucosidases in insects [33, 34]. Initial mortality experiments were done at these concentrations with high mortality after 24 h due to a buildup of biological film on the surface of the water at all concentrations. Therefore, larvae were collected after a 24 h exposure for quantification of α- and β-glucosidase activity. Formal analysis on larval glucosidase inhibition was not completed as the experiment was terminated after two replicates. Summary statistics are presented in Table 3. A total of five individuals from each inhibitor concentration and replicate (total 10 per inhibitor concentration or control) were measured for both α- and β-glucosidase activity. Activity levels for each concentration were averaged among the five individual larvae tested in each replicate and subtracted from the activity of the 0 mM control to represent the percent remaining activity.

Table 3. In vivo inhibition of α- and β-glucosidases in L4 larval Culex quinquefasciatus using no-choice exposure to conduritol β-epoxide.

Concentration conduritol β-epoxide (mM) α-glucosidase activity1 β-glucosidase activity1
(% remaining activity2) (% remaining activity2)
1.0 29.7 ± 4.55 41.3 ± 5.24
(52.0) (72.1)
0.1 37.7 ± 6.35 60.0 ± 11.16
(66.0) (104.7)
0.01 51.3 ± 6.52 59.8 ± 6.20
(89.8) (104.4)
0.001 47.8 ± 3.58 49.2 ± 3.59
(83.7) (85.9)
0.0 57.1 ± 5.01 57.3 ± 3.06
(100) (100)

1 Mean ± SEM nmol/min/mg protein of p-nitrophenyl-α-D-glucopyranoside (α-glucosidase substrate) or p-nitrophenyl-β-D-glucopyranoside (β-glucosidase substrate) converted to 4-nitrophenoxide.

2% remaining activity = activity of each conduritol β-epoxide concentration divided by the 0.0 mM control.

Statistical analyses

All analyses were conducted with R version 4.2.0 [35]. Activity of α- and β-glucosidases were analyzed by ANOVA of a general linear model, with Box Cox transformation [36] when normality and homogeneity of variance were not met. Post hoc analyses were done pairwise using Tukey’s HSD in the ‘multcomp’ package [37]. The same analysis was used for relative gene expression. Survival data from the adult in vivo α-glucosidase inhibition experiments were analyzed with Cox regression using the ‘coxme’ package [38], including a random intercept assigned to the experimental arenas to account for the lack of independence among individuals measured in each arena (i.e., a “cluster” effect). The resulting measurements of enzyme activity, glycogen, and lipids were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models with the ‘glmmTMB’ package [39] using a Gaussian family, with activity as the dependent variable and treatment as the independent variable. Replicates were assigned random intercepts to account for the lack of independence of samples within each replicate [40]. Models were initially inspected for statistical assumptions and fit using the ‘DHARMa’ package [41]. If assumptions or fit were not met, a log transformation improved the models. Global tests of significance were done using ANOVA and post-hoc tests were conducted using the ‘emmeans’ package [42] with Tukey’s method for pairwise comparisons. Cutoff for statistical significance for all tests was set to α = 0.05.

Results

Activity of α- and β-glucosidases

There was a significant difference in α-glucosidase activity among the life stages (Table 1; F = 23.41, df = 2, 21, P < 0.001). Significant pairwise differences arose between larvae and pupae (Table 2; P = 0.002) as well as pupae and adults (P < 0.001), and between larvae and adults (P = 0.023). For β-glucosidase activity, there was a significant difference among the life stages (Table 1; F = 115.66, df = 2, 21, P < 0.001). There were significant pairwise differences between larvae and pupae (P < 0.001), larvae and adults (P < 0.001), but not pupae and adults (P = 0.377).

Table 1. Specific activities of α- and β-glucosidase in L3 stage larvae, 1-day old pupae, and 1-day old adult female Culex quinquefasciatus.

Specific Activity1 % of Larval Activity Ratio of α-to-β-Glucosidase Activity2
α-glucosidase
Larvae 91.0 ± 11.33 100.0 0.76
Pupae 50.6 ± 4.26 55.6 8.03
Adults 146.9 ± 18.54 161.4 19.59
β-glucosidase
Larvae 120.2 ± 17.22 100.0 -
Pupae 6.3 ± 0.60 5.2 -
Adults 7.5 ± 0.69 6.2 -

1 Mean ± SEM nmol/min/mg protein of p-nitrophenyl-α-D-glucopyranoside (α-glucosidase substrate) or p-nitrophenyl-β-D-glucopyranoside (β-glucosidase substrate) converted to 4-nitrophenoxide.

2 Ratio represents the specific activity of α-glucosidase divided by the specific activity of β-glucosidase within each life stage. Ratio = 1 means equal activity, > 1 means greater α-glucosidase activity compared to β-glucosidase activity, and < 1 means less α-glucosidase activity.

Table 2. Mean and standard error of the mean relative expression1 of putative α- and β-glucosidases in three life stages2 of Culex quinquefasciatus.

Putative target Larvae Pupae Adults
α-glucosidase 1.31 ± 0.492 2.05 ± 1.195 0.27 ± 0.051
Pooled β-glucosidases 1.29 ± 0.115 1.91 ± 0.118 2.24 ± 0.118
β-1,3-glucanase 0.85 ± 0.160 0.58 ± 0.113 0.59 ± 0.051

1 Relative expression was calculated using the 2-ΔΔCt method of Livak and Schmittgen (2001) with ribosomal protein L24 transcript as the reference gene and a larval sample as the calibrator.

2 Expression was determined from the same samples used to generate Table 1.

Expression of putative α- and β-glucosidases

There was a significant difference among the life stages in the relative expression of α-glucosidase (Table 2; F = 6.29, df = 2, 18, P = 0.008). There was a significant pairwise difference between larvae and adults (P = 0.027) and pupae and adults (P = 0.014), but not larvae and pupae (P = 0.907). For the pooled β-glucosidases, there was an overall effect on relative expression based on life stage (F = 17.88, df = 2, 20, P < 0.001). There was a significant pairwise difference between larvae and pupae (P = 0.004) and larvae and adults (P < 0.001) but not pupae and adults (P = 0.137). There was no effect of life stage on the relative expression of β-1,3-glucanase (F = 1.68, df = 2, 21, P = 0.211).

Biochemical inhibition of α- and β-glucosidases

Adult Cx. quinquefasciatus had a 28.1-fold increased mortality rate in the 10 mM acarbose arenas compared to the 0 mM control (Fig 2; HR = 28.1 (14.67–53.94) 95% CI; P < 0.001), and a 15.3-fold increased mortality rate compared to the 1 mM arenas (HR = 15.3 (9.13–25.60) 95% CI; P < 0.001), but no difference was seen between 1 mM and 0 mM acarbose arenas (P = 0.126). Across all treatments, males had a 3.9-fold increased mortality rate compared to females (HR = 3.9 (2.76–5.40) 95% CI; P < 0.001).

Fig 2. Survival of adult Culex quinquefasciatus in no-choice feeding assays with 10, 1, or mM acarbose (α-glucosidase inhibitor) in 20% sucrose solution.

Fig 2

There was a significant difference in α-glucosidase activity among the two acarbose treatments and control (Fig 3; χ2 = 655.6, df = 2, P < 0.001). All pairwise comparisons among the treatments and treatments and control were significantly different (all P < 0.001). Similarly, there was a significant difference in glycogen quantity among the treatments and control (Fig 4; χ2 = 43.3, df = 2, P < 0.001). The 10 mM acarbose treatment was significantly different from both the 0 mM and 1 mM arenas (both P < 0.001) but there was no difference between 0 mM and 1 mM (P = 0.119). There was also a significant difference in the amount of lipids present among the three treatments (Fig 5; χ2 = 85.6, df = 2, P < 0.001). Both 10 mM and 1 mM treatments significantly differed from the 0 mM control (both P < 0.001) but were not significantly different compared to each other (P = 0.153). Mean wing length was 3.03 mm ± 0.017.

Fig 3. In vivo inhibition of α-glucosidase in adult Culex quinquefasciatus using no-choice exposure to acarbose.

Fig 3

Activity was measured by intensity of 4-nitrophenoxide, a yellow chromophore. Different lowercase letters signify statistical significance of pairwise comparisons using Tukey’s method at α = 0.05.

Fig 4. Glycogen measurements in adult Culex quinquefasciatus after no-choice exposure to acarbose using the hot anthrone method.

Fig 4

Glycogen concentration was determined by blue-green color development. Different lowercase letters signify statistical significance of pairwise comparisons using Tukey’s method at α = 0.05.

Fig 5. Lipid measurements in adult Culex quinquefasciatus after no-choice exposure to acarbose using the vanillin method.

Fig 5

Lipid concentration was determined by pink color development. Different lowercase letters signify statistical significance of pairwise comparisons using Tukey’s method at α = 0.05.

The in vivo inhibition of α- and β-glucosidases with conduritol β-epoxide in larvae never reached the 50% necessary to accurately calculate IC50 values (Table 3). Conduritol β-epoxide more strongly inhibited α-glucosidases compared to β-glucosidases (> 20% difference) at 1 mM. This trend was also observed at the other inhibitor concentrations.

Discussion

The present study suggests that α- and β-glucosidases are critical to the survival of Cx. quinquefasciatus and that their roles may be of ontogenetic importance. Clear patterns of activity were observed toward the model substrates p-nitrophenyl-α-D-glucopyranoside (α-glucosidases) and p-nitrophenyl-β-D-glucopyranoside (β-glucosidases) and are likely explained by the carbohydrate resources available at each life stage. While larval α-glucosidase activity was only about 76% that of its β-glucosidase activity, it jumped to over 19-fold of the β-glucosidase activity in adults. This is likely because larval Cx. quinquefasciatus are often found in eutrophic aquatic habitats, with abundant cellulosic microorganisms and detritus available, where they employ a collecting-filtering feeding strategy in the water column [43]. These types of carbohydrate sources explain the necessity for β-glucosidases. The α-glucosidase activity we observed in larvae is a little harder to rationalize but may be necessary to process intracellular sugars derived from photosynthetic algaes, which are a major component of most larval mosquito diets (e.g., [44]). Shortly after pupation, a disparity was evident between the two glucosidase activities. While α-glucosidase activity maintained a little over 50% the larval activity, β-glucosidase activity almost completely disappeared. From a developmental standpoint, this latent α-glucosidase activity may be a sort of “priming” scenario, where the pupae are preparing for adult eclosion, or perhaps these enzymes are required for metabolic or catabolic purposes as tissues are reorganized in the pupae. Because adult mosquitoes get their sugar primarily from plant liquids, where sucrose and other glucose-containing saccharides are the main constituents, may explain why adult α-glucosidase activity was over 1.5-fold that of the larvae, while β-glucosidase activity remained at similarly low levels seen in the pupae.

Trends in the expression of the putative glucosidase genes were not consistent with the observed enzyme activities. There are several reasons for lack of concordance between activity and gene expression. Glucosidase protein expression levels may not correlate well with activity due to differential degradation of the functional protein, i.e., that the steady state of these proteins did not reveal any trends in gene expression that could be generalized across life stages [45]. Second, it is also possible that our homology search to identify putative glucosidases did not identify the specific transcripts responsible for the functional activity assessed in the biochemical assays. Glucosidases can sometimes have very specific substrate activity patterns and as we did not express these putative proteins, it is difficult to be sure that we have identified the correct transcripts. Instead, we feel that the utility of our expression data is to simply show that expression across life stages is dynamic like glucosidase activity levels. A follow-up study utilizing a multiomics approach would be useful in elucidating the steady state of these proteins and their associated transcripts.

Inhibition of α-glucosidases by acarbose in adult Cx. quinquefasciatus produced marked mortality both in females but especially in males, with clear reductions in in vivo activity, as well as in key energetic storage molecules. Specifically, the reduction in energetic storage molecules supports the likeliest explanation of mortality being starvation. It appears that there is a narrow threshold at which inhibition of α-glucosidases becomes lethal versus not. At 10 mM, acarbose produced around 60% mortality in females at 4 d, while mortality of males exceeded 90% at the same timepoint. It is interesting to see how sensitive males were in comparison to females. One explanation for this relatively large difference in response could have to do with typical adult diets. While females feed on both plant sugars and blood, males solely rely on plant sugars [32] and do not take blood meals. Because we assayed only females at the conclusion of the inhibition studies, it is unclear what impacts α-glucosidase inhibition had on in vivo activity and depletion of energetic storage molecules in males. This would be a worthwhile subject for a follow up study. Both glycogen and lipids are replenished from frequent sugar feeding by adult mosquitoes (reviewed in [3]). Upon emergence, adult mosquitoes quickly try to acquire a sugar meal to prolong flight. While we did not quantify flight activity during the inhibition experiments, mosquitoes in treatment arenas were noticeably less active than non-inhibited controls.

Predictably, inhibition of β-glucosidases did not yield mortality in larvae at 24 h. The larval diet consisted of crude fats, proteins, and carbohydrates that would require an array of enzyme classes to extract nutritional value. Interestingly, the known β-glucosidase inhibitor conduritol β-epoxide was a slightly better α-glucosidase inhibitor in Cx. quinquefasciatus larvae than it was a β-glucosidase inhibitor. Even so, the highest treatment concentration of 1 mM left 52.0% α-glucosidase activity and 72.1% β-glucosidase activity remaining after inhibition. Marked mortality was observed in the adult α-glucosidase inhibition assay when only around 20% activity remained. This suggests that the glycoside hydrolases in Cx. quinquefasciatus may have high rates of substrate turnover and thus can withstand a relatively high degree of impairment with few consequences, at least within 24 h.

Further study of glycoside hydrolases is of value in Cx. quinquefasciatus and other mosquitoes generally, because of their obligate sugar feeding behaviors (reviewed in [3]) and how this forces them to interact with their environment. Glycoside hydrolases, including α- and β-glucosidases, have been studied in numerous insects before with a similar theme [4649]. Key processes like sugar digestion offer new insights into potential physiological weaknesses that may be exploitable for control or surveillance purposes in Cx. quinquefasciatus.

Supporting information

S1 File. Raw data for all experiments.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We thank ME Scharf for conversations about glycoside hydrolases and the biochemical assays used here. We also thank M Mosore, OS Baker, and NN Barguez-Arias for assistance with the larval inhibition assays.

NDS and ASE are employees of the US Government, and this work was conducted as part of their official duties. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Billingsley PF, Hecker H. Blood digestion in the mosquito, Anopheles stephensi Liston (Diptera: Culicidae): activity and distribution of trypsin, aminopeptidase, and α-glucosidase in the midgut. J Med Entomol. 1991; 28(6): 865–871. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Smith TM, Hicks-Berger CA, Kim S, Kirley TL. Cloning, expression, and characterization of a soluble calcium-activated nucleotidase, a human enzyme belonging to a new family of extracellular nucleotidases. Arch Biochem Biophys. 2002; 406: 105–115. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9861(02)00420-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Foster WA. Mosquito sugar feeding and reproductive energetics. Annu Rev Entomol. 1995; 40: 443–474. doi: 10.1146/annurev.en.40.010195.002303 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Barredo E, DeGennaro M. Not just from blood: mosquito nutrient acquisition from nectar sources. Trends Parasitol. 2020; 36: 473–484. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2020.02.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Marinotti O, James AA, Ribeiro JMC. Diet and salivation in female Aedes aegypti mosquitoes. J Insect Physiol. 1990; 36: 545–548. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Souza-Neto JA, Machado FP, Lima JB, Valle D, Ribolla PEM. Sugar digestion in mosquitoes: identification and characterization of three midgut α-glucosidases of the neo-tropical malaria vector Anopheles aquasalis (Diptera: Culicidae). Comp Biochem Physiol B Biochem Mol Biol. 2007; 147: 993–1000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Souza RS, Diaz-Albiter HM, Dillon VM, Dillon RJ, Genta FA. Digestion of yeasts and beta-1,3-glucanases in mosquito larvae: physiological and biochemical considerations. PLoS ONE. 2016; 11(3): e0151403. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151403 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Darboux I, Nielsen-LeRoux C, Charles JF, Pauron D. The receptor of Bacillus sphaericus binary toxin in Culex pipiens (Diptera: Culicidae) midgut: molecular cloning and expression. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2001; 31: 981–990. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Rao DR, Mani TR, Rajendran R, Joseph AS, Gajanana A, Reuben R. Development of a high level of resistance to Bacillus sphaericus in a field population of Culex quinquefasciatus from Kochi, India. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 1995; 11(1): 1–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Yuan Z, Zhang Y, Cai Q, Liu EY. High-level field resistance to Bacillus sphaericus C3-41 in Culex quinquefasciatus from southern China. Biocontrol Sci Techn. 2000; 10: 41–49. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Chevillon C, Bernard C, Marquine M, Pasteur N. Resistance to Bacillus sphaericus in Culex pipiens (Diptera: Culicidae): interaction between recessive mutants and evolution in southern France. J Med Entomol. 2001; 38: 657–664. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Romão TP, Chalegre KDM, Key S, Ayres CFJ, Oliveira CMF, de-Melo-Neto OP, et al. A second independent resistance mechanism to Bacillus sphaericus binary toxin targets its α-glucosidase receptor in Culex quinquefasciatus. FEBS J. 2006; 273: 1556–1568. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Guo Q, Cai Q, Yan J, Hu X, Zheng D, Yuan Z. Single nucleotide deletion of cqm1 gene results in the development of resistance to Bacillus sphaericus in Culex quinquefasciatus. J Insect Physiol. 2013; 59: 967–973. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Darboux I, Charles J, Pauchet Y, Warot S, Pauron D. Transposon-mediated resistance to Bacillus sphaericus in a field-evolved population of Culex pipiens (Diptera: Culicidae). Cell Microbiol. 2007; 9: 2022–2029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Metzger ME, Harbison JE, Burns JE, Hu R. Ability of newly emerged adult Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae) mosquitoes to exit belowground stormwater treatment systems via lateral conveyance pipes. J Med Entomol. 2012; 49: 343–349. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Manrique-Saide P, Uc V, Prado C, Carmona C, Vadillo J, Chan R, et al. Storm sewers as larval habitats for Aedes aegypti and Culex spp. in a neighborhood of Merida, Mexico. J Am Mosq Contr. 2012; 28: 255–257. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Pridgeon JW, Pereira RM, Becnel JJ, Allan SA, Clark GG, Linthicum KJ. Susceptibility of Aedes aegypti, Culex quinquefasciatus Say, and Anopheles quadrimaculatus Say to 19 pesticides with different modes of action. J Med Entomol. 2008; 45(1): 82–87. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Chaskopoulou A, Nguyen S, Pereira RM, Scharf ME, Koehler PG. Toxicities of 31 volatile low molecular weight compounds against Aedes aegypti and Culex quinquefasciatus. J Med Entomol. 2009; 46(2): 328–334. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Xue RD, Qualls WA. Larvicidal activity of synthetic disinfectants and antibacterial soaps against mosquito, Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol. 2013; 50(1): 137–139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Cilek JE, Aldridge RL, Britch SC, Fajardo JD, Linthicum KJ, Richardson AG. Effectiveness of Aquatain® AMF and Cocobear™ larvicidal oil against Culex quinquefasciatus larvae and pupae in an organically enhanced aquatic habitat. J Am Mosq Contr Assoc. 2020; 36(1): 47–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Scharf ME, Kovaleva ES, Jadhao S, Campbell JH, Buchman GW, Boucias DG. Functional and translational analyses of a beta-glucosidase gene (glycosyl hydrolase family 1) isolated from the gut of the lower termite Reticulitermes flavipes. Insect Biochem Molec. 2010; 40: 611–620. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Bradford MM. A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal Biochem. 1976; 72: 248–254. doi: 10.1006/abio.1976.9999 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Puglise JM, Estep AS, Becnel JJ. Expression profiles and RNAi silencing of Inhibitor of Apoptosis transcripts in Aedes, Anopheles, and Culex mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol. 2016; 53(2): 304–314. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Livak KJ, Schmittgen TD. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(-Delta Delta C(T)) Method. Methods. 2001; 25(4): 402–408. doi: 10.1006/meth.2001.1262 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Suthangkornkul R, Sirichaiyakul P, Sungvornyothin S, Thepouyporn A, Svasti J, Arthan D. Functional expression and molecular characterization of Culex quinquefasciatus salivary α-glucosidase (MalI). Protein Expres Purif. 2015; 110: 145–150. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Wada-Katsumata A, Schal C. Salivary digestion extends the range of sugar-aversions in the German cockroach. Insects. 2021; 12: 263. doi: 10.3390/insects12030263 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Van Handel E. Rapid determination of total lipids in mosquitoes. J Econ Entomol. 1985. a; 78: 302–304. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Van Handel E. Rapid determination of glycogen and sugars in mosquitoes. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 1985. b; 1: 299–301. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Van Handel E, Day JF. Assay of lipids, glycogen and sugars in individual mosquitoes: correlations with wing length in field-collected Aedes vexans. J Am Mosq Contr. 1988; 4: 549–550. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Nasci RS. The size of emerging and host-seeking Aedes aegypti and the relation of size to blood-feeding success in the field. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 1986; 2: 61–62. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Schneider JR, Chadee DD, Mori A, Romero-Severson J, Severson DW. Heritability and adaptive phenotypic plasticity of adult body size in the mosquito Aedes aegypti with implications for dengue vector competence. Infect Genet Evol. 2011; 11: 11–16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Clements AN. The biology of mosquitoes: development, nutrition and reproduction. Vol. 1. CABI Publishing, Cambridge; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Zhu BCR, Henderson G, Laine RA. Screening method for inhibitors against formosan subterranean termite β-glucosidases in vivo. J Econ Entomol. 2005; 98: 41–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Zhang D, Allen AB, Lax AR. Functional analyses of the digestive β-glucosidase of formosan subterranean termites (Coptotermes formosanus). J Insect Physiol. 2012; 58: 205–210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria; 2022. URL https://www.R-project.org/. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Box G, Cox D. An analysis of transformations. J R Stat Soc Ser B Methodol. 1964; 26: 211–252. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P. Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrical Journal. 2008; 50: 346–363. doi: 10.1002/bimj.200810425 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Therneau TM. _comxe: mixed effects cox models_. R package version 2.2–18.1.; 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Brooks ME, Kristensen K, van Benthem KJ, Magnusson A, Berg CW, et al. glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. The R Journal. 2017; 9: 378–400. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Hurlbert SH. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol Monogr. 1984; 54: 187–211. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Hartig F. DHARMa: Residual diagnostics for hierarchical (multi-level / mixed) regression models. R package version 0.4.; 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Lenth R. emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R package version 1.8.3.; 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Merritt RW, Dadd RH, Walker ED. Feeding behavior, natural food, and nutritional relationships of larval mosquitoes. Annu Rev Entomol. 1992; 37: 349–374. doi: 10.1146/annurev.en.37.010192.002025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Garros C, Ngugi N, Githeko AE, Tuno N, Yan G. Gut content identification of larvae of the Anopheles gambiae complex in western Kenya using a barcoding approach. Mol Ecol Resour. 2008; 8: 512–518. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Hargrove JL, Schmidt FH. The role of mRNA and protein stability in gene expression. FASEB J. 1989; 3: 2360–2370. doi: 10.1096/fasebj.3.12.2676679 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Katagiri C. α-d-Glucosidase in the serum of the American cockroach, Periplaneta americana. Insect Biochem. 1979; 9: 199–204. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Gatehouse AMR, Anstee JH. The presence and partial characterization of carbohydrase enzymes in the gut of Callosobruchus maculatus. Experientia. 1983; 39: 1013–1015. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Yu SJ. β-Glucosidase in four phytophagous Lepidoptera. Insect Biochem. 1989; 19: 103–108. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Baker JE. Properties of glycosidases from the maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais. Insect Biochem. 1991; 21: 615–621. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Rachid Bouharroud

24 Jul 2023

PONE-D-23-15295Expression, activity, and consequences of biochemical inhibition of α- and β-glucosidases in different life stages of Culex quinquefasciatusPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Burgess,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 07 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rachid Bouharroud

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors

The work deserve to be published but some minor comments should be addressed in order to achieve best results.

Regards

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The results reported by this study are original and have not been published elsewhere and suggest the importance of α- and β-glucosidases on the survival in the 3 life stages of Cx. Quinquefasciatus studied. The experiments were described with sufficient details and the statistical analysis were well performed. The conclusions were supported accordingly to the data; however, the discussion may need a fresh literature for more clarity about the research in parallel that were done during the last few years. Therefore, I recommend a minor correction.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is interesting and provides valuable insights into the role of α-glucosidases and β-glucosidases in the survival of Cx. quinquefasciatus mosquitoes in different life stages. The findings contribute to our understanding of mosquito digestion, species-specific knowledge, biocontrol agents, and potential applications for vector control strategies.

However, I suggested an English review, I added some comments in the pdf. file.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Maísa da Silva Araújo

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-15295_MA20230717.pdf

PLoS One. 2023 Aug 29;18(8):e0286609. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286609.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


31 Jul 2023

Response to reviewers:

We thank the reviewers for their helpful comments that have improved our manuscript. We have made comments below addressing the general review statement. Additional, Reviewer #2 sent along a document with grammatical comments. We have generated a Word document with Track Changes added to it documenting which changes we made and which we didn’t, along with an explanation for why we chose not to make the change. Comments below are preceded by ***.

Reviewer #1: The results reported by this study are original and have not been published elsewhere and suggest the importance of α- and β-glucosidases on the survival in the 3 life stages of Cx. Quinquefasciatus studied. The experiments were described with sufficient details and the statistical analysis were well performed. The conclusions were supported accordingly to the data; however, the discussion may need a fresh literature for more clarity about the research in parallel that were done during the last few years. Therefore, I recommend a minor correction.

***We thank this reviewer for the flattering words on our work. We were very unsure of what this reviewer means by “fresh literature” about the “research in parallel.” To our knowledge, and with extensive literature searches preceding the submission of this manuscript, we found very little recent work done on the topic of glucosidases in mosquitoes. Of the ones we found, we addressed them in the introduction. As it stands, we feel that the discussion addresses our discoveries based on what is known and accepted in the entomological literature on this topic. We will default to what the editor would like us to do, if anything, to address this comment.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is interesting and provides valuable insights into the role of α-glucosidases and β-glucosidases in the survival of Cx. quinquefasciatus mosquitoes in different life stages. The findings contribute to our understanding of mosquito digestion, species-specific knowledge, biocontrol agents, and potential applications for vector control strategies.

However, I suggested an English review, I added some comments in the pdf. file.

***This reviewer provided a comprehensive review of our document’s grammar and syntax. We thank them for catching some errors and in general striving to improve the readability and flow of our manuscript. We have made a good number of the requested changes, while leaving others unchanged. We have added our changes and response to the comments in a Track Changes version of our manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Rachid Bouharroud

9 Aug 2023

Expression, activity, and consequences of biochemical inhibition of α- and β-glucosidases in different life stages of Culex quinquefasciatus

PONE-D-23-15295R1

Dear Dr. Burgess,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Rachid Bouharroud

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear

Happy for the acceptance of this valuable work related to public health. Your manuscript looks currently good to be published by PlosOne.

Regards

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Rachid Bouharroud

21 Aug 2023

PONE-D-23-15295R1

Expression, activity, and consequences of biochemical inhibition of a- and b-glucosidases in different life stages of Culex quinquefasciatus

Dear Dr. Burgess:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Rachid Bouharroud

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Raw data for all experiments.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-15295_MA20230717.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES