Skip to main content
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases logoLink to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
. 2024 Mar 25;18(3):e0011862. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011862

Extensive variation and strain-specificity in dengue virus susceptibility among African Aedes aegypti populations

Stéphanie Dabo 1, Annabelle Henrion-Lacritick 2, Alicia Lecuyer 1, Davy Jiolle 3,4, Christophe Paupy 3,4, Diego Ayala 3,4, Silvânia da Veiga Leal 5, Athanase Badolo 6, Anubis Vega-Rúa 7, Massamba Sylla 8, Jewelna Akorli 9, Sampson Otoo 9, Joel Lutomiah 10, Rosemary Sang 10, John-Paul Mutebi 11, Maria-Carla Saleh 2, Noah H Rose 12,13,¤, Carolyn S McBride 12,13, Louis Lambrechts 1,*
Editor: Doug E Brackney14
PMCID: PMC10994562  PMID: 38527081

Abstract

African populations of the mosquito Aedes aegypti are usually considered less susceptible to infection by human-pathogenic flaviviruses than globally invasive populations found outside Africa. Although this contrast has been well documented for Zika virus (ZIKV), it is unclear to what extent it is true for dengue virus (DENV), the most prevalent flavivirus of humans. Addressing this question is complicated by substantial genetic diversity among DENV strains, most notably in the form of four genetic types (DENV1 to DENV4), that can lead to genetically specific interactions with mosquito populations. Here, we carried out a survey of DENV susceptibility using a panel of seven field-derived Ae. aegypti colonies from across the African range of the species and a colony from Guadeloupe, French West Indies as non-African reference. We found considerable variation in the ability of African Ae. aegypti populations to acquire and replicate a panel of six DENV strains spanning the four DENV types. Although African Ae. aegypti populations were generally less susceptible than the reference non-African population from Guadeloupe, in several instances some African populations were equally or more susceptible than the Guadeloupe population. Moreover, the relative level of susceptibility between African mosquito populations depended on the DENV strain, indicating genetically specific interactions. We conclude that unlike ZIKV susceptibility, there is no clear-cut dichotomy in DENV susceptibility between African and non-African Ae. aegypti. DENV susceptibility of African Ae. aegypti populations is highly heterogeneous and largely governed by the specific pairing of mosquito population and DENV strain.

Author summary

African populations of the mosquito Aedes aegypti are usually thought to be less likely to get infected by flaviviruses compared to Ae. aegypti mosquitoes found outside Africa. While this has been well-demonstrated for Zika virus, it is not clear if the same is true for dengue virus, which is the most common flavivirus in humans. Studying this is complicated by the strain diversity of dengue virus, including four main genetic types, potentially causing different interactions. In this study, we compared several mosquito populations and found that, in general, African mosquitoes were less likely to get infected by dengue virus compared to mosquitoes from outside Africa. However, in some cases, African mosquitoes were just as or even more likely to get infected. The specific strain of dengue virus also influenced how likely African mosquitoes were to get infected, showing that the relationship between African mosquitoes and dengue virus is complex.

Introduction

The mosquito Aedes aegypti is the main vector of several arthropod-borne viruses (arboviruses) of medical significance such as the flaviviruses dengue virus (DENV), Zika virus (ZIKV) and yellow fever virus (YFV). The species is native to Africa, but it is currently found throughout tropical and subtropical regions of the globe, and its distribution is expected to further expand in response to accelerating urbanization, connectivity, and climate change [1]. Two distinct subspecies of Aedes aegypti (that may even be considered distinct species [2]) were described by early taxonomists based on morphological and ecological differences [3] that were later associated with genetic variation [4]. Aedes aegypti formosus (Aaf) is a dark-colored, generalist subspecies found exclusively in sub-Saharan Africa that breeds both in forest and urban habitats and blood feeds on a variety of vertebrate hosts. Aedes aegypti aegypti (Aaa) is a light-colored, human-specialist subspecies found primarily outside Africa that preferentially bites humans and breeds in human-associated habitats. The dichotomy between Aaf and Aaa breaks down in some locations of Africa where genetically “admixed” populations are observed that display intermediate morphological and behavioral phenotypes [47].

The Aaf subspecies is considered a less efficient arbovirus vector than Aaa not only because of its lower affinity for human blood meals, but also because of a lower susceptibility to flavivirus infection [8]. Early comparative surveys reported a lower susceptibility to YFV [9,10] and DENV [11,12] of Aaf relative to Aaa populations. More recently, Aaa and Aaf were shown to differ significantly in ZIKV susceptibility [13]. Furthermore, the level of ZIKV susceptibility was found to correlate positively with the proportion of Aaa ancestry among African populations with varying levels of genetic admixture [13]. The genetic basis underlying variation in ZIKV susceptibility is not fully resolved but primarily lies in quantitative trait loci located on chromosome 2 [13]. Importantly, Aaf populations are less susceptible to ZIKV than Aaa populations irrespective of the virus strain [13].

Assessing arbovirus susceptibility in mosquitoes can be complicated by virus strain-specificity. Mosquito infection phenotypes are often determined by the specific pairing of the mosquito population and the virus strain, referred to as genotype-by-genotype (G x G) interactions [14]. G x G interactions are well documented for DENV susceptibility in Ae. aegypti [1520], but these earlier studies mainly considered Aaa populations and did not directly compare Aaa and Aaf. It is unknown to what extent G x G interactions may challenge the universally lower DENV susceptibility of Aaf that was previously inferred from a limited number of DENV and mosquito strains. DENV exhibits substantial genetic diversity, most notably in the form of four genetic types (DENV1, DENV2, DENV3, and DENV4) that loosely cluster antigenically and are often referred to as serotypes [21]. In a recent study, we described an Ae. aegypti population from Bakoumba, Gabon displaying differential susceptibility to DENV3 and DENV1, resulting in significant G x G interactions when compared to a population from Cairns, Australia [22]. G x G interactions were also previously observed between several Senegalese Ae. aegypti populations and different flaviviruses [23]. Significant genetic variability between Aaf populations [5,7] and high genetic diversity of circulating DENV strains [24] makes it critical to account for both levels of variation when assessing DENV susceptibility. Here, we investigated continent-wide variation in DENV susceptibility across seven African Ae. aegypti populations using a panel of six African DENV strains spanning the four DENV types.

Results

We used a panel of seven field-derived Ae. aegypti colonies (Table 1) from across the African range of the species and included a colony from Guadeloupe, French West Indies as a 100% Aaa reference. The panel of African DENV strains (Table 2) consisted of six wild-type viruses originally isolated from human serum from the four DENV types. In each experiment, the eight mosquito colonies were challenged simultaneously with one of the six DENV strains (3 increasing infectious doses each). The percentage of infected mosquitoes was determined by RT-PCR detection of viral RNA in mosquito bodies 12 days post infectious blood meal. In total, we tested 2,903 individual mosquitoes.

Table 1. Panel of Ae. aegypti colonies.

The average percentage of Aaa genetic ancestry (% Aaa) of each colony was determined based on whole-genome sequencing of their wild-caught progenitors [6,7].

Locality of origin Year of colonization Lab generations % Aaa
Saint François, Guadeloupe 2015 20–23 100
Praia, Cape Verde 2020 4–7 23.0
Ngoye, Senegal 2018 12–14 37.4
Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso 2018 8–11 8.75
Kumasi, Ghana 2018 11–13 6.75
Lopé, Gabon 2014 24–27 7.30
Entebbe, Uganda 2015 19–22 0.00
Rabai, Kenya 2017 13–15 7.36

Table 2. Panel of DENV strains.

All virus strains were originally isolated from human serum. The passage number refers to the number of amplifications in C6/36 cells prior to the experiments.

Virus strain DENV type Locality of origin Year of isolation Passage number Reference
DENV1_Gabon2010 DENV1 Franceville, Gabon 2010 8 [30]
DENV1_Somalia2012 DENV1 Somalia 2012 4 None
DENV2_Gabon2007 DENV2 Libreville, Gabon 2007 3 [30]
DENV2_Gabon2010 DENV2 Franceville, Gabon 2010 4 [30]
DENV3_Gabon2010 DENV3 Moanda, Gabon 2010 7 [30]
DENV4_Senegal1983 DENV4 Senegal 1983 10 [41]

We first analyzed the proportion of infected mosquitoes as a function of virus dose (blood meal titer), DENV strain and mosquito population of origin (Fig 1). We analyzed infection prevalence by logistic regression, excluding the reference non-African population from Guadeloupe because we were primarily interested in the variation among African populations. Infection prevalence depended on a three-way interaction between virus dose, DENV strain and mosquito population, indicating that the dose-response curves differed significantly among virus-population pairs (Table 3). Dose-response curves account for the strong dose dependency of infection prevalence and provide an absolute measure of susceptibility, which can be summarized by the 50% oral infectious dose (OID50), that is the blood meal titer expected to infect 50% of blood-fed mosquitoes [6,13]. We obtained the OID50 estimates from the logistic fit of the dose-response curves. Comparison of OID50 estimates confirmed that the level of DENV susceptibility depended on the specific pairing of mosquito population and DENV strain (Fig 2).

Fig 1. Dose-response curves of infection prevalence for eight Ae. aegypti colonies challenged by six DENV strains.

Fig 1

The percentage of infected mosquitoes 12 days post oral challenge is shown as a function of the blood meal titer in log10 FFU/ml. Each panel represents a different DENV strain. A non-African colony from Guadeloupe, French West Indies is included as a 100% Aaa reference. Lines are logistic regressions of the data, color-coded by mosquito population. FFU: focus-forming units.

Table 3. Test statistics of infection prevalence.

The table shows the result of a full-factorial logistic regression of infection status (excluding the reference Guadeloupe population).

Variable df LR χ2 p value
Virus strain 5 687.2 <0.0001
Mosquito population 6 105.1 <0.0001
Virus*Population 30 125.2 <0.0001
Infectious dose 1 0.001 0.9733
Virus*Dose 5 27.28 <0.0001
Population*Dose 6 18.13 0.0059
Virus*Population*Dose 30 45.94 0.0315

df: degrees of freedom; LR: likelihood-ratio.

Fig 2. OID50 estimates for eight Ae. aegypti colonies challenged by six DENV strains.

Fig 2

OID50 estimates are shown for each virus-population pair on a color scale in log10 FFU/ml of blood. The size of the dot is inversely proportional to the size of the confidence interval of the OID50 estimate. When the size of the confidence interval could not be estimated, it was arbitrarily set to 30 log10 units. Lack of a dot means that the OID50 could not be estimated with the data.

In general, the level of susceptibility of one mosquito population to a given DENV strain was not predictive of its susceptibility to another DENV strain (Fig 1). For example, Ae. aegypti from Ghana were among the most susceptible to the DENV2 and DENV3 strains, but they were among the most resistant to the DENV1 strains. Of note, the most susceptible mosquitoes were not always from the 100% Aaa population from Guadeloupe. For example, Ae. aegypti from Kenya were the most susceptible to the DENV1_Gabon2010 strain (Kenya: OID50 = 6.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 6.34–6.79; Guadeloupe: OID50 = 7.05, 95% CI = 6.82–7.61), and Ae. aegypti from Burkina Faso were the most susceptible to the DENV1_Somalia2012 strain (Burkina Faso: OID50 = 4.44, 95% CI = 4.12–4.72; Guadeloupe: OID50 = 5.35, 95% CI = 4.99–5.76). Only for the DENV4 strain were the mosquitoes from Guadeloupe significantly more susceptible than all the African mosquito populations. Overall, we did not detect a strong link between OID50 estimates for different DENV strains or between OID50 estimates and the proportion of Aaa genetic ancestry (S1 Fig), although our only unadmixed Aaf population (Uganda) showed consistently lower DENV susceptibility than admixed African populations. The DENV4 strain was the only one for which % Aaa was a significant predictor of OID50 estimates (linear regression: R2 = 0.59, p = 0.044), but this relationship was largely driven by the 100% Aaa Guadeloupe population. We found no significant effect of the number of laboratory generations on the OID50 estimates (linear regressions: R2 = 0.01–0.51; p = 0.175–0.828).

Next, we examined the level of systemic viral dissemination 12 days post oral challenge by quantifying infectious virus concentration in the head tissues of all infected mosquitoes (1,387 individuals in total) by end-point focus-forming assay. The prevalence of viral dissemination among infected mosquitoes was significantly influenced by the infectious dose and the virus-population pairing (Fig 3 and Table 4). Finally we analyzed non-zero dissemination titers, which are considered a proxy for DENV transmission potential because they are a strong predictor of the probability to detect infectious virus in mosquito saliva [25]. Dissemination titers were significantly influenced by the mosquito population and the interaction between infectious dose and DENV strain (Fig 4 and Table 5). Together, these results indicate that once infected, mosquitoes from different African populations also vary in their ability to disseminate DENV in a strain-specific manner.

Fig 3. Dose-response curves of viral dissemination prevalence for eight Ae. aegypti colonies challenged by six DENV strains.

Fig 3

The percentage of infected mosquitoes with viral dissemination to the head tissues 12 days post infection is shown as a function of the blood meal titer in log10 FFU/ml. Each panel represents a different DENV strain. A non-African colony from Guadeloupe, French West Indies is included as a 100% Aaa reference. Lines are logistic regressions of the data, color-coded by mosquito population. Logistic regression could not be performed for the DENV1 strains due to insufficient numbers of infected mosquitoes. FFU: focus-forming units.

Table 4. Test statistics of dissemination prevalence.

The table shows the result of a full-factorial logistic regression of dissemination status among infected mosquitoes (excluding the reference Guadeloupe population). The DENV1 strains could not be included in this analysis due to insufficient numbers of infected mosquitoes that resulted in missing variable combinations. Non-significant terms were removed sequentially to obtain the minimal adequate model.

Variable df LR χ2 p value
Virus strain 3 79.26 <0.0001
Mosquito population 6 57.39 <0.0001
Virus*Population 18 43.89 0.0006
Infectious dose 1 62.95 <0.0001

df: degrees of freedom; LR: likelihood-ratio.

Fig 4. Dissemination titers for eight Ae. aegypti colonies challenged by six DENV strains.

Fig 4

Boxplots show the log10-transformed distribution of non-zero infectious titers in the head tissues of mosquitoes with a disseminated infection (12 days post infectious blood meal) for each virus-population pair. The mosquito populations are color-coded, and symbols represent different doses (low, medium, and high blood meal titers). A non-African colony from Guadeloupe, French West Indies is included as a 100% Aaa reference. FFU: focus-forming units.

Table 5. Test statistics of non-zero dissemination titers.

The table shows the result of a full-factorial ANOVA of log10-transformed dissemination titers among mosquitoes with a disseminated infection (excluding the reference Guadeloupe population). The DENV1 and DENV4 strains could not be included in this analysis due to insufficient numbers of mosquitoes with a disseminated infection that resulted in missing variable combinations. Non-significant terms were removed sequentially to obtain the minimal adequate model.

Variable df SS F ratio p value
Virus strain 2 17.32 18.05 <0.0001
Mosquito population 6 28.70 9.971 <0.0001
Infectious dose 1 4.641 9.673 0.0020
Virus*Dose 2 3.235 3.372 0.0354
Error 350 225.3

df: degrees of freedom; SS: sum of squares.

Discussion

Our survey of DENV susceptibility across seven African Ae. aegypti populations unveiled a more intricate relationship than previously presumed. Traditionally, African Ae. aegypti have been considered less likely to become infected by human-pathogenic flaviviruses compared to their counterparts outside of Africa [8]. This belief is supported by strong experimental evidence in the case of ZIKV [6,13], but the extension to other flaviviruses was not conclusively demonstrated. The present study challenges the notion of a clear-cut dichotomy in DENV susceptibility between African and non-African mosquitoes. Because we only included a single non-African Ae. aegypti population from Guadeloupe as an Aaa reference, our assessment is primarily relevant to compare African populations between them. Nevertheless, had there been a large phenotypic divergence in DENV susceptibility between Aaa and Aaf, the Guadeloupe population would have clearly stood out for all DENV strains.

In general, our findings were consistent with the initial assumption that African mosquito populations are generally less susceptible to DENV compared to non-African mosquitoes. Additionally, what emerged as an important insight was the substantial variation within African mosquito populations. While the majority exhibited lower susceptibility, some instances revealed African populations that were equally or even more susceptible to DENV compared to the reference Aaa population from Guadeloupe. Although the relatively small number of admixed populations limited our statistical power to detect correlations, the genome-wide proportion of Aaa ancestry was not a reliable predictor of DENV susceptibility. However, it is possible that some of the phenotypic variation observed among admixed populations resulted from local ancestry effects, that is, variation in the proportion of Aaa ancestry at the specific loci that are relevant for DENV susceptibility.

Our results also highlighted the influential role of the specific virus strain in determining DENV susceptibility. The relationship between African mosquitoes and DENV was not a uniform phenomenon but rather a complex interplay influenced by both the mosquito population and the specific DENV strain. This confirms the pervasive nature of G x G interactions between DENV and Ae. aegypti for both Aaa and Aaf [1520,22]. G x G interactions between hosts and pathogens are a prerequisite for local adaptation to occur [14,18]. For example, pathogen adaptation to vector populations has been observed between Anopheles mosquitoes and Plasmodium parasites [26]. Our experimental design did not allow testing for local adaptation patterns between DENV strains and Ae. aegypti populations because of the insufficient number of allopatric and sympatric combinations. An earlier study in Thailand did not provide support for DENV adaptation to local Ae. aegypti populations [16].

Our results may contribute to explain some unresolved features of dengue epidemiology in Africa. Dengue is present in several African countries, but its reported incidence is relatively lower compared to other regions like Southeast Asia and Latin America [27]. Large-scale dengue outbreaks in Africa have been less frequently documented compared to other continents, although sporadic cases and small outbreaks are detected regularly. For example, dengue outbreaks have been reported in Kenya [28,29], Gabon [30], Senegal [31,32], and Burkina Faso [33]. DENV prevalence in Africa might be more widespread that existing data suggest due to underreporting of dengue cases [3436]. The disease may be misdiagnosed or underdiagnosed due to similarities in symptoms with other febrile illnesses, limited access to healthcare, and a lack of comprehensive surveillance systems. There are also indications that dengue is currently expanding in Africa [35]. Irrespective of the true prevalence of DENV, there is heterogeneity in its distribution between different regions of Africa [35,36]. The substantial variation and strain-specific patterns of DENV susceptibility among African Ae. aegypti observed in this study may contribute to explain this heterogeneity. Although more DENV4 strains are needed to conclusively address this possibility, it is tempting to speculate that the significantly lower DENV4 susceptibility of all African Ae. aegypti populations relative to the Aaa reference may be responsible, in part, for the rarity of DENV4 invasions in Africa [24].

Our findings also have implications for dengue prevention and control in Africa. The traditional assumption that African mosquitoes uniformly exhibit lower DENV susceptibility is challenged by the observed heterogeneity among mosquito populations. This diversity has significant consequences for the development of dengue prevention and control strategies in the region. A one-size-fits-all approach to dengue management may prove insufficient in the face of such variability. It could be more effective to tailor strategies based on the specific characteristics of the local mosquito populations and the prevalent DENV strains. For instance, regions with populations showing higher susceptibility to the circulating DENV strains may require more targeted and intensive vector control measures.

A limitation of our study is that the field-derived mosquito colonies had been maintained in the laboratory for up to 27 generations prior to the experiments (Table 1). Despite our efforts to maximize the number of reproducing adults at each generation during colony maintenance, laboratory adaptation and genetic drift are inevitable. Thus, it is possible that the colonies did not perfectly represent their populations of origin on the genetic level. Our results will need to be confirmed with mosquito colonies that are more recently derived from their wild progenitors.

In conclusion, this study challenges the conventional wisdom regarding DENV susceptibility in African Ae. aegypti and emphasizes the need for a nuanced and adaptive approach to dengue prevention and control in the region [37]. The complex interplay between mosquito populations and DENV strains adds a layer of intricacy that requires a thorough understanding for effective and targeted interventions. Understanding the factors influencing the heterogeneous DENV susceptibility among African mosquito populations is the next critical step. It could involve exploring the genetic variations within Ae. aegypti populations in different regions, and the temporal dynamics of genetically specific interactions with DENV strains. Additionally, it will be important to assess how variation in DENV susceptibility combines with other parameters underlying vectorial capacity, such as human preference, to determine transmission risk [6].

Methods

Mosquitoes

Seven recently established Ae. aegypti colonies were chosen based on their geographical origins to best represent the African range of the species (Table 1). A colony from Guadeloupe, French West Indies was included as a non-African reference. Mosquitoes were reared under controlled insectary conditions (28°C, 12h:12h light:dark cycle and 70% relative humidity). Prior to performing the experiments, their eggs were hatched synchronously in a vacuum chamber for 1 hour. Their larvae were reared in plastic trays containing 1.5 liter of dechlorinated tap water and supplemented with a standard diet of Tetramin (Tetra) fish food at a density of 200 larvae per tray. After emergence, adults were kept in 30 × 30 × 30 cm BugDorm-1 insect cages (BugDorm) with permanent access to 10% sucrose solution. For each experiment, all the mosquito colonies were reared simultaneously in the same insectary.

Viruses

Six wild-type DENV strains originally isolated from human serum in Africa were chosen to represent the four DENV genetic types (Table 2). Viruses were amplified in the C6/36 Aedes albopictus cell line (ATCC CRL-1660) to generate viral stocks as previously described [38]. The C6/36 wells were maintained at 28°C under atmospheric CO2 in tissue-culture flasks with non-vented caps, in Leibovitz’s L-15 medium complemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS), 2% tryptose phosphate broth (Gibco ThermoFisher Scientific), 1× non-essential amino acids (Gibco ThermoFisher Scientific), 10 U/ml of penicillin (Gibco Thermo Fisher Scientific) and 10 μg/ml of streptomycin (Gibco ThermoFisher Scientific). DENV infectious titers were measured in C6/36 cells using a standard focus-forming assay (FFA) as previously described [38]. A commercial mouse anti-DENV complex monoclonal antibody (MAB8705; Merck Millipore) diluted 1:200 in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS; Gibco Thermo Fisher Scientific) supplemented with 1% bovine serum albumin (BSA; Interchim) was used as the primary antibody. The secondary antibody was an Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated goat anti-mouse antibody (A-11029; Life Technologies) diluted 1:500 in PBS supplemented with 1% BSA.

Experimental infections

Mosquitoes were orally challenged with DENV by membrane feeding as previously described [39]. Briefly, five- to seven-day-old females deprived of sucrose solution for 24 hours were offered an artificial infectious blood meal for 20 min using a Hemotek membrane-feeding apparatus (Hemotek Ltd.) with porcine intestine as the membrane. Blood meals consisted of a 2:1 mix of washed commercial rabbit erythrocytes (BCL) and virus suspension. To establish the dose responses, the mosquitoes were exposed to different virus concentrations by diluting the virus stocks in cell culture medium prior to preparing the artificial infectious blood meal. Adenosine triphosphate (Merck) was added to the blood meal as a phagostimulant at a final concentration of 10 mM. Fully engorged females were sorted on wet ice, transferred into 1-pint cardboard containers and maintained under controlled conditions (28°, 12h:12h light:dark cycle and 70% relative humidity) in a climatic chamber with permanent access to 10% sucrose solution. After 12 days of incubation, mosquitoes were cold anesthetized, and their head and body were separated from each other and stored at –80°C. Infection prevalence was determined by RT-PCR of bodies, whereas viral dissemination titers were determined by FFA of heads from mosquitoes with a virus-positive body. RT-PCR is a reliable and sensitive assay to determine infection prevalence. FFA was used to quantify infectious virus in head tissues because dissemination titer is a proxy for DENV transmission potential [25].

Sample testing

Head-less mosquito bodies were homogenized individually in 300 μl of squash buffer (Tris 10 mM, NaCl 50 mM, EDTA 1.27 mM with a final pH adjusted to 9.2) supplemented with proteinase K (Eurobio Scientific) at a final concentration of 0.35 mg/ml. The body homogenates were clarified by centrifugation and 100 μl of each supernatant were incubated for 5 min at 56°C followed by 10 min at 98°C to extract viral RNA. Detection of viral RNA was performed using a two-step RT-PCR reaction targeting a conserved region of the DENV NS5 gene. Total RNA was reverse transcribed into cDNA using random hexameric primers and the M-MLV reverse transcriptase (ThermoFisher Scientific) by the following program: 10 min at 25°C, 50 min at 37°C and 15 min at 70°C. The cDNA was subsequently amplified using DreamTaq DNA polymerase (ThermoFisher Scientific). For this step, 20-μl reaction volumes contained 1× of reaction mix and 10 μM of primers. Specific primer pairs were used to detect DENV1_Gabon2010 (Forward: 5’-CCGACTTGTCCACTTCCTCT-3’; Reverse: 5’-TTGGGAGCACGCTTTCTAGA-3’), DENV1_Somalia2012 (Forward: 5’-CGAAGATCACTGGTTCAGCA-3’; Reverse: 5’-ACATCCATCACGGTTCCATT-3’), both DENV2 strains (Forward: 5’-CGCTTCTTAGAGTTTGAAGCCC-3’; Reverse: 5’-GGTCTTTGCACACGCACC-3’), DENV3_Gabon2010 (Forward: 5’-AGAAGGAGAAGGACTGCACA-3’; Reverse: 5’- ACCTGTCCACTGCCTCTTTG-3’) and DENV4_Senegal1983 (Forward: 5’- CTGGAATTTGAAGCCCTGGG-3’; Reverse: 5’-GGGTCTGAGGACTTTCACCA-3’). The thermocycling program was 2 min at 95°C, 35 cycles of 30 sec at 95°C, 30 sec at 60°C, and 30 sec at 72°C with a final extension step of 7 min at 72°C. Amplicons were visualized by electrophoresis on a 2% agarose gel. Individual heads were homogenized in 200 μl of Leibovitz’s L-15 medium with 2% TPB, 1× NAA, 10 U/ml of penicillin, and 10 μg/ml of streptomycin. Infectious titers were determined by end-point FFA in C6/36 cells as previously described [38].

Statistics

Statistical analyses were performed in JMP v10.0.2 (www.jmpdiscovery.com), and graphical representations were generated with the R package ggplot2 [40]. Prevalence (infection and dissemination) was analyzed by nominal logistic regression and likelihood-ratio χ2 tests. Non-zero dissemination titers were log10-transformed and compared by analysis of variance (ANOVA). The full-factorial model included infectious dose (log10-transformed blood meal titer), mosquito population and virus strain as covariates. Non-significant terms were removed sequentially to obtain the minimal adequate model. The OID50 estimates and their respective 95% confidence intervals were derived from the logistic fits of infection prevalence.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Raw data of the study.

(XLSX)

pntd.0011862.s001.xlsx (99.1KB, xlsx)
S1 Fig. Correlations between DENV susceptibility levels for different virus strains and the percentage of Aaa ancestry.

The Pearson linear correlations between OID50 estimates are shown for each pair of DENV strains and with % Aaa (rightmost column). The black lines represent the linear correlations, and the grey shading indicates their confidence interval. The mosquito populations are color-coded; their average % Aaa was determined based on whole-genome sequencing of their wild-caught progenitors.

(EPS)

pntd.0011862.s002.eps (2.7MB, eps)

Acknowledgments

We thank Catherine Lallemand for assistance with mosquito rearing, Alexander Bergman for technical help with graphical displays, and the other members of the Lambrechts lab for their insights. We are grateful to Scott O’Neill for his suggestions. We thank Eric Leroy, Jean-Bernard Lekana-Douki, Isabelle Moltini-Conclois, Marie-Pascale Frenkiel, Albin Fontaine and Isabelle Leparc-Goffart for facilitating the transfer of virus strains.

Data Availability

The raw data are provided in S1 Table.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by Monash University and the World Mosquito Program, Agence Nationale de la Recherche (grant ANR-18-CE35-0003-01 to LL), the French Government’s Investissement d’Avenir program Laboratoire d’Excellence Integrative Biology of Emerging Infectious Diseases (grant ANR-10-LABX-62-IBEID to LL), the US National Institutes of Health (grant NIDCD R00-DC012069 to CSM), and a Helen Hay Whitney Postdoctoral Fellowship (to NHR). CSM is a New York Stem Cell Foundation – Robertson Investigator. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

References

  • 1.Kraemer MUG, Reiner RC Jr., 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(5):854–63. Epub 2019/03/06. doi: 10.1038/s41564-019-0376-y . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Harbach RE, Wilkerson RC. The insupportable validity of mosquito subspecies (Diptera: Culicidae) and their exclusion from culicid classification. Zootaxa. 2023;5303(1):1–184. Epub 2023/07/31. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.5303.1.1 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Mattingly PF. Genetical aspects of the Aedes aegypti problem. I. Taxonomy and bionomics. Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 1957;51(4):392–408. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Gloria-Soria A, Ayala D, Bheecarry A, Calderon-Arguedas O, Chadee DD, Chiappero M, et al. Global genetic diversity of Aedes aegypti. Mol Ecol. 2016;25(21):5377–95. doi: 10.1111/mec.13866 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kotsakiozi P, Evans BR, Gloria-Soria A, Kamgang B, Mayanja M, Lutwama J, et al. Population structure of a vector of human diseases: Aedes aegypti in its ancestral range, Africa. Ecol Evol. 2018;8(16):7835–48. Epub 2018/09/27. doi: 10.1002/ece3.4278 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Rose NH, Dabo S, da Veiga Leal S, Sylla M, Diagne CT, Faye O, et al. Enhanced mosquito vectorial capacity underlies the Cape Verde Zika epidemic. PLoS Biol. 2022;20(10):e3001864. Epub 2022/10/27. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001864 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Rose NH, Sylla M, Badolo A, Lutomiah J, Ayala D, Aribodor OB, et al. Climate and Urbanization Drive Mosquito Preference for Humans. Curr Biol. 2020. Epub 2020/07/25. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2020.06.092 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Black WC, Bennett KE, Gorrochotegui-Escalante N, Barillas-Mury CV, Fernandez-Salas I, de Lourdes Munoz M, et al. Flavivirus susceptibility in Aedes aegypti. Arch Med Res. 2002;33(4):379–88. doi: 10.1016/s0188-4409(02)00373-9 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Aitken TH, Downs WG, Shope RE. Aedes aegypti strain fitness for yellow fever virus transmission. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1977;26(5 Pt 1):985–9. Epub 1977/09/01. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.1977.26.985 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Tabachnick WJ, Wallis GP, Aitken TH, Miller BR, Amato GD, Lorenz L, et al. Oral infection of Aedes aegypti with yellow fever virus: geographic variation and genetic considerations. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1985;34(6):1219–24. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.1985.34.1219 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Gubler DJ, Nalim S, Tan R, Saipan H, Sulianti Saroso J. Variation in susceptibility to oral infection with dengue viruses among geographic strains of Aedes aegypti. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1979;28(6):1045–52. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.1979.28.1045 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Sylla M, Bosio C, Urdaneta-Marquez L, Ndiaye M, Black WCt. Gene flow, subspecies composition, and dengue virus-2 susceptibility among Aedes aegypti collections in Senegal. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2009;3(4):e408. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000408 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Aubry F, Dabo S, Manet C, Filipovic I, Rose NH, Miot EF, et al. Enhanced Zika virus susceptibility of globally invasive Aedes aegypti populations. Science. 2020;370(6519):991–6. Epub 2020/11/21. doi: 10.1126/science.abd3663 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Lambrechts L. Dissecting the genetic architecture of host-pathogen specificity. PLoS Pathog. 2010;6(8):e1001019. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1001019 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Fansiri T, Fontaine A, Diancourt L, Caro V, Thaisomboonsuk B, Richardson JH, et al. Genetic Mapping of Specific Interactions between Aedes aegypti Mosquitoes and Dengue Viruses. PLoS Genet. 2013;9(8):e1003621. Epub 2013/08/13. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003621 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Fansiri T, Pongsiri A, Klungthong C, Ponlawat A, Thaisomboonsuk B, Jarman RG, et al. No evidence for local adaptation of dengue viruses to mosquito vector populations in Thailand. Evolutionary applications. 2016;9(4):608–18. Epub 2016/04/22. doi: 10.1111/eva.12360 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Lambrechts L. Quantitative genetics of Aedes aegypti vector competence for dengue viruses: towards a new paradigm? Trends Parasitol. 2011;27(3):111–4. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2010.12.001 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lambrechts L, Chevillon C, Albright RG, Thaisomboonsuk B, Richardson JH, Jarman RG, et al. Genetic specificity and potential for local adaptation between dengue viruses and mosquito vectors. BMC Evol Biol. 2009;9:160. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-9-160 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lambrechts L, Quillery E, Noel V, Richardson JH, Jarman RG, Scott TW, et al. Specificity of resistance to dengue virus isolates is associated with genotypes of the mosquito antiviral gene Dicer-2. Proc Biol Sci. 2013;280(1751):20122437. Epub 2012/11/30. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.2437 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Matthews BJ, Dudchenko O, Kingan SB, Koren S, Antoshechkin I, Crawford JE, et al. Improved reference genome of Aedes aegypti informs arbovirus vector control. Nature. 2018;563(7732):501–7. Epub 2018/11/16. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0692-z . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Katzelnick LC, Fonville JM, Gromowski GD, Bustos Arriaga J, Green A, James SL, et al. Dengue viruses cluster antigenically but not as discrete serotypes. Science. 2015;349(6254):1338–43. Epub 2015/09/19. doi: 10.1126/science.aac5017 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Dickson LB, Merkling SH, Gautier M, Ghozlane A, Jiolle D, Paupy C, et al. Exome-wide association study reveals largely distinct gene sets underlying specific resistance to dengue virus types 1 and 3 in Aedes aegypti. PLoS Genet. 2020;16(5):e1008794. Epub 2020/05/29. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1008794 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Dickson LB, Sanchez-Vargas I, Sylla M, Fleming K, Black WCt. Vector competence in West African Aedes aegypti Is Flavivirus species and genotype dependent. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014;8(10):e3153. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003153 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Alfsnes K, Eldholm V, Gaunt MW, de Lamballerie X, Gould EA, Pettersson JH. Tracing and tracking the emergence, epidemiology and dispersal of dengue virus to Africa during the 20th century. One Health. 2021;13:100337. Epub 2021/11/09. doi: 10.1016/j.onehlt.2021.100337 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Lambrechts L, Fansiri T, Pongsiri A, Thaisomboonsuk B, Klungthong C, Richardson JH, et al. Dengue-1 virus clade replacement in Thailand associated with enhanced mosquito transmission. J Virol. 2012;86(3):1853–61. Epub 2011/12/02. doi: 10.1128/JVI.06458-11 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Joy DA, Gonzalez-Ceron L, Carlton JM, Gueye A, Fay M, McCutchan TF, et al. Local adaptation and vector-mediated population structure in Plasmodium vivax malaria. Mol Biol Evol. 2008;25(6):1245–52. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msn073 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Bhatt S, Gething PW, Brady OJ, Messina JP, Farlow AW, Moyes CL, et al. The global distribution and burden of dengue. Nature. 2013;496(7446):504–7. Epub 2013/04/09. doi: 10.1038/nature12060 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Johnson BK, Ocheng D, Gichogo A, Okiro M, Libondo D, Kinyanjui P, et al. Epidemic dengue fever caused by dengue type 2 virus in Kenya: preliminary results of human virological and serological studies. East Afr Med J. 1982;59(12):781–4. Epub 1982/12/01. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Konongoi L, Ofula V, Nyunja A, Owaka S, Koka H, Makio A, et al. Detection of dengue virus serotypes 1, 2 and 3 in selected regions of Kenya: 2011–2014. Virol J. 2016;13(1):182. Epub 2016/11/07. doi: 10.1186/s12985-016-0641-0 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Caron M, Grard G, Paupy C, Mombo IM, Bikie Bi Nso B, Kassa Kassa FR, et al. First evidence of simultaneous circulation of three different dengue virus serotypes in Africa. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(10):e78030. Epub 2013/11/10. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0078030 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Dieng I, Barry MA, Talla C, Sow B, Faye O, Diagne MM, et al. Analysis of a Dengue Virus Outbreak in Rosso, Senegal 2021. Trop Med Infect Dis. 2022;7(12). Epub 2022/12/23. doi: 10.3390/tropicalmed7120420 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Gaye A, Ndiaye T, Sy M, Deme AB, Thiaw AB, Sene A, et al. Genomic investigation of a dengue virus outbreak in Thies, Senegal, in 2018. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):10321. Epub 2021/05/16. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-89070-1 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Tarnagda Z, Cisse A, Bicaba BW, Diagbouga S, Sagna T, Ilboudo AK, et al. Dengue Fever in Burkina Faso, 2016. Emerg Infect Dis. 2018;24(1):170–2. Epub 2017/12/21. doi: 10.3201/eid2401.170973 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Amarasinghe A, Kuritsk JN, Letson GW, Margolis HS. Dengue virus infection in Africa. Emerg Infect Dis. 2011;17(8):1349–54. Epub 2011/08/02. doi: 10.3201/eid1708.101515 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Gainor EM, Harris E, LaBeaud AD. Uncovering the Burden of Dengue in Africa: Considerations on Magnitude, Misdiagnosis, and Ancestry. Viruses. 2022;14(2). Epub 2022/02/27. doi: 10.3390/v14020233 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Simo FBN, Bigna JJ, Kenmoe S, Ndangang MS, Temfack E, Moundipa PF, et al. Dengue virus infection in people residing in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence studies. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):13626. Epub 2019/09/22. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-50135-x . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Weetman D, Kamgang B, Badolo A, Moyes CL, Shearer FM, Coulibaly M, et al. Aedes Mosquitoes and Aedes-Borne Arboviruses in Africa: Current and Future Threats. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2018;15(2). Epub 2018/02/01. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15020220 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Fontaine A, Jiolle D, Moltini-Conclois I, Lequime S, Lambrechts L. Excretion of dengue virus RNA by Aedes aegypti allows non-destructive monitoring of viral dissemination in individual mosquitoes. Sci Rep. 2016;6:24885. Epub 2016/04/28. doi: 10.1038/srep24885 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Baidaliuk A, Miot EF, Lequime S, Moltini-Conclois I, Delaigue F, Dabo S, et al. Cell-Fusing Agent Virus Reduces Arbovirus Dissemination in Aedes aegypti Mosquitoes In Vivo. J Virol. 2019;93(18). Epub 2019/06/28. doi: 10.1128/JVI.00705-19 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Wickham H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Chungue E, Cassar O, Drouet MT, Guzman MG, Laille M, Rosen L, et al. Molecular epidemiology of dengue-1 and dengue-4 viruses. J Gen Virol. 1995;76 (Pt 7):1877–84. Epub 1995/07/01. doi: 10.1099/0022-1317-76-7-1877 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011862.r001

Decision Letter 0

Doug E Brackney, Abdallah M Samy

29 Jan 2024

Dear Dr. Lambrechts,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Extensive variation and strain-specificity in dengue virus susceptibility among African Aedes aegypti populations" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

Thank you again for your submission. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Doug E Brackney

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Abdallah Samy

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

Editor comments to authors:

The reviewers tended to like the study and had some minor improvements. Specifically, I tend to agree with Reviewer 2 that titer data should be calculated by removing the zero values. The proportion data tells us how many became infected whereas the titer data should tell us how well the virus is able to replicate in those mosquitoes that became infected. Also, Reviewer 1 suggested adding some caveats to the discussion about the potential that inbreeding of the colonies and passaging of the virus could have on the outcomes. Reviewer 3 pointed out some useful citations concerning DENV activity in Africa. Some text should be added to the manuscript regarding DENV activity in Africa. Reviewer 3 also questioned the conclusions about transmission potential of your disseminated mosquitoes. Additional studies are not required to address this but justifying your conclusions with a reference(s) would be recommended.

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: Below I pointed the issues related to mosquito lines and inbreeding and DENV isolates (time) which could have impacted the results.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: The objectives of the study are clearly articulated, however, a few areas need to be clarified or discussed:

What were the individual DENV blood meal titers used to infect each mosquito population in order to come up with the OID50?

Why were 2 different methods or approaches used to determine the infection and dissemination rates? That is PCR to determine infection rates and FFA to determine the dissemination rates.

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: To create clarity and allow the reader to interpret the results better, other than the graphs, it will be important to provide a table that provides raw figures of the mosquitoes exposed to each viral titer, the percentage infected and the percentage disseminating the virus.

It may be an overreach to state that dissemination can be considered as transmission potential as many studies have shown high levels of dissemination into the body but lack of transmission of the virus in expectorated saliva. It may be only safe to consider pathogens present in the salivary gland as that likely to be transmitted to the saliva.

It may be important to explain why the Guadaloupe reference strain was excluded during the dissemination analysis

Line 174 and 175 should be altered to demonstrate what you're study investigated as you investigated dissemination but not transmission.

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: Partially

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: It will be important to include in your discussion the effect of using a low lab generation of Cape Verde on the overall results.

Lines 179-180: This might need to be re-worded as there have been contradictory findings on the vector competence of Aaf for DENV and YFV

There have also been reports of several Dengue outbreaks in African countries driven by local populations of Aedes aegypti, hence there is a possibility that African populations of Aedes aegypti are susceptible to Dengue virus

Dickson, L. B., Sanchez-Vargas, I., Sylla, M., Fleming, K. & Black, W. C., 4th. Vector competence in West African Aedes aegypti Is Flavivirus species and genotype dependent. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 8, e3153 (2014).

Tabachnick, W. J. et al. Oral infection of Aedes aegypti with yellow fever virus: geographic variation and genetic considerations. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 34, 1219–1224 (1985).

Bosio, C. F., Beaty, B. J. & Black, W. C., 4th. Quantitative genetics of vector competence for dengue-2 virus in Aedes aegypti. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 59, 965–970 (1998).

Lines 216-217 may need to be re-worded

There have been reports of several Dengue outbreaks in African countries that have been documented in the past: This is just a single country:

Johnson, B. K. et al. Epidemic dengue fever caused by dengue type 2 virus in Kenya: preliminary results of human virological and serological studies. East Afr. Med. J. 59, 781–784 (1982).

Konongoi, L. et al. Detection of dengue virus serotypes 1, 2 and 3 in selected regions of Kenya: 2011-2014. Virol. J. 13, 182 (2016).

Gathii, K., Nyataya, J. N., Mutai, B. K., Awinda, G. & Waitumbi, J. N. Complete Coding Sequences of Dengue Virus Type 2 Strains from Febrile Patients Seen in Malindi District Hospital, Kenya, during the 2017 Dengue Fever Outbreak. Genome Announc. 6, (2018).

Muthanje, E. M. et al. March 2019 dengue fever outbreak at the Kenyan south coast involving dengue virus serotype 3, genotypes III and V. PLOS Global Public Health vol. 2 e0000122 Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0000122

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: N/A

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: The present study performed by Dabo and colleagues studied the vector competence of African Aedes aegypti populations towards DENV isolated from Africa. The manuscript is well written, and the methods, although simplified, were appropriate for the topic in question. The work is quite simple and had no major link around the vector competence of African mosquito populations and DENV, maybe because of the points discussed below.

Major points

Mosquito populations: 5-25 generations in the lab means a lot of inbreeding and might not represent the field component of the mosquito line and origin.

Virus isolates: Isolates have been collected quite long ago and multiple passaging could impact on the infectivity. It was not present on the methods section how these isolates have been kept (whether in constant passaging, which could impact mosquito infectivity; or as frozen stocks). Also, it was a pity that there were no respective virus isolates to match each mosquito population. Most of the isolates came from Gabon.

Including a discussion around these caveats would be beneficial to the study.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript by Dabo et al. aims to measure whether African populations of Ae. aegypti are more refractory to DENV compared to non-African populations. The authors compare the vector competence of panel of Ae. aegypti lines from within Africa to a reference colony collected outside Africa. Using a panel of different DENV serotypes and genotypes the authors clearly demonstrates that unlike with ZIKV, the vector competence of the African lines is not lower than a line from Guadeloupe in all cases. Instead, vector competence depends on the specific pairing between mosquito population and DENV strain. The manuscript is very well written and the data clearly supports the conclusions.

Minor Comments:

Line 45: Seven colonies is hardly a continent-wide survey. Language should be softened.

Figure 3: This figure is hard to read. Zeroes should not be included when comparing the titers between individuals. It is more informative to compare titers of those individuals who are infected and then separately plot the percentage of individuals with a disseminated infection.

Reviewer #3: The authors may need to provide a bit more clarity with regard to their data presentation as well as update and highlight other findings and publications about Dengue circulation and outbreaks in several countries in Africa which may explain some of their findings. This will bring clarity and improve their discussion sections. Comments on specific sections have been provided above.

--------------------

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: No

Reviewer #3: No

Figure 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. 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 us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011862.r003

Decision Letter 1

Doug E Brackney, Abdallah M Samy

15 Mar 2024

Dear Dr. Lambrechts,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Extensive variation and strain-specificity in dengue virus susceptibility among African Aedes aegypti populations' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Doug E Brackney, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Abdallah Samy

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************************************************

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011862.r004

Acceptance letter

Doug E Brackney, Abdallah M Samy

19 Mar 2024

Dear Dr. Lambrechts,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Extensive variation and strain-specificity in dengue virus susceptibility among African Aedes aegypti populations," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Editorial, Viewpoint, Symposium, Review, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript will be published online unless you opted out of this process. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Raw data of the study.

    (XLSX)

    pntd.0011862.s001.xlsx (99.1KB, xlsx)
    S1 Fig. Correlations between DENV susceptibility levels for different virus strains and the percentage of Aaa ancestry.

    The Pearson linear correlations between OID50 estimates are shown for each pair of DENV strains and with % Aaa (rightmost column). The black lines represent the linear correlations, and the grey shading indicates their confidence interval. The mosquito populations are color-coded; their average % Aaa was determined based on whole-genome sequencing of their wild-caught progenitors.

    (EPS)

    pntd.0011862.s002.eps (2.7MB, eps)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Dabo_response_to_reviewers.docx

    pntd.0011862.s003.docx (25.9KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The raw data are provided in S1 Table.


    Articles from PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES