Skip to main content
Wellcome Open Research logoLink to Wellcome Open Research
. 2018 Aug 10;3:79. Originally published 2018 Jun 25. [Version 2] doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.14659.2

Geographical distribution of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) and genetic diversity of invading population of Ae. albopictus in the Republic of the Congo

Basile Kamgang 1,a, Theodel A Wilson-Bahun 1,2, Helen Irving 3, Michael O Kusimo 1, Arsene Lenga 2, Charles S Wondji 1,3
PMCID: PMC6081977  PMID: 30175244

Version Changes

Revised. Amendments from Version 1

Just the first sentence of Methods has been modified. Mosquitoes were collected in May (8 locations) and November 2017 (Pointe Noire only) corresponding to the rainy season in nine locations in the Republic of the Congo across the north-south transect.

Abstract

Background: The arbovirus vector, Aedes albopictus, originating from Asia, has recently invaded African countries, including the Republic of the Congo, where it was associated with a chikungunya outbreak. Up until now, little was known about its distribution in relation to the native Aedes aegypti and how the invasion will modify the epidemiology of arboviral diseases. Here, we assessed the current distribution of Ae. albopictus and Ae. aegypti in the Republic of the Congo and explored the genetic diversity of the invading species, Ae. albopictus.

Methods: Immature stages of Aedes were collected in nine locations in the Republic of the Congo in 2017 following a north-south transect and reared to adult stage. Adults were morphologically identified, counted and grouped according to species and location. Genetic diversity of Ae. albopictus was assessed by analyzing the cytochrome oxidase I ( COI) gene.

Results: Ae. albopictus and Ae. aegypti were found together across the country in all the locations investigated. The invasive species is predominant over the native species in all locations except Brazzaville, suggesting that Ae. albopictus is displacing Ae. aegypti across Congo. When comparing the species distributions across the two largest cities, Brazzaville and Pointe Noire, Ae. albopictus was more prevalent than Ae. aegypti in the suburbs whereas the opposite situation was reported in the city centre. Mitochondrial DNA analysis revealed very low genetic diversity of Ae. albopictus with only three haplotypes recorded across the country supporting the recent introduction of this species in the Republic of the Congo. Phylogenetic tree analysis revealed that Ae. albopictus from Congo originated from other tropical Asian countries such as China, likely as a result of increasing trade links.

Conclusion: These findings are important for the implementation of vector control strategies and can serve as a foundation for further research on these vectors in the country.

Keywords: Aedes albopictus, Aedes aegypti, ecological distribution, arbovirus vectors, genetic diversity, Republic of Congo

Introduction

Arthropod-borne viral diseases such as dengue, zika and chikungunya have emerged or re-emerged in several countries of the world during the past decades 14.

These viruses are transmitted to vertebrates, including humans, by the bites of infected mosquitoes that share the same ecological niche as the host organism. Indeed, two distinct ecological cycles, enzootic and urban epidemic cycles, have been well documented 5, 6. The enzootic cycle occurs in the sylvan environment, involving non-human primates and wild mosquitoes, while urban epidemic cycle occurs in urban environments, implicating human beings and urban mosquitoes such as Aedes aegypti Linneaus 1762 and Ae. albopictus (Skuse) 1894. Other potential modes of zika virus transmission to humans have been evoked notably via sexual intercourse or via blood donor 5. Both epidemic vectors, Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus, are found in sub-Saharan Africa, where Ae. aegypti is native. Two subspecies of Ae aegypti, Ae. aegypti formosus and Ae. aegypti aegypti, were formally identified by Mattingly in 1957 7. Ae. aegypti formosus, is a dark colored mosquito confined to African forests while Ae. aegypti aegypti is light-colored with white abdominal scales and is found in human-dominated habitats primarily outside Africa. Generally, Ae. aegypti collected in central Africa match Ae. aegypti formosus 8.

While Ae. albopictus is a native of South East Asia, it has now invaded all the five continents during the past 30–40 years 9, 10. This rapid global spread was caused mainly by sales and distribution of used tires across the world 11 coupled with the ecological plasticity of the species, enabling its adaptation to various environments 9. Ae. albopictus was reported for the first time in Central Africa in early 2000 12 and is currently present in almost all central African countries 13, where it tends to supplant the indigenous species Ae. aegypti in human-domesticated environment 14, 15. The predominance of Ae. albopictus over Ae. aegypti in sympatric areas has been shown to result from the higher mating competitiveness of Ae. albopictus over Ae. aegypti 16, 17. Previous studies in Central Africa showed that both Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus can be found together in the same location and often share the same larval habitats 14, 15. In this region, the immature stages of both species develop in stagnant water found mainly in peri-domestic containers such as used tires and discarded tanks. However, in the sympatric area, Ae. albopictus prefers containers surrounded by vegetation whereas Ae. aegypti prefers containers located in neighbourhoods with high building densities 15, 18.

Dengue, zika and chikungunya were for a long-time considered to be rare in Central Africa, because only sporadic epidemics were reported in the rural environment, with isolation of the viruses in wild mosquitoes and humans 19, 20. In the past decades, several outbreaks have been reported in this part of the world, notably a concurrent dengue/chikungunya outbreak in Gabon in 2007, with more than 20, 000 cases of chikungunya 2, and a large chikungunya outbreak in 2011 in the Republic of the Congo with more than 11, 000 cases 21. This suggests an epidemiological modification of arboviral diseases in the region. During these outbreaks, Ae. albopictus was established as the major vector particularly in Gabon 22, 23, where zika was detected in this species 24. In Congo, both Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus were found to be positive for chikungunya virus 25, implicating both species in virus transmission. This investigation was the first to confirm the presence of Ae. albopictus in the Republic of the Congo. Since then, no study has been undertaken to compare the geographical distribution and prevalence of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus in the Republic of the Congo as well as the genetic diversity of the invading species. Indeed, previous studies in Central Africa based on polymorphisms to the cytochrome oxidase subunit 1 ( COI) gene indicated that Ae. albopictus populations in Cameroon are related to tropical rather than temperate or subtropical out-groups 26. However, the Central African Republic population segregated into two lineages: the first encompassed specimens from tropical areas including all the haplotypes from Cameroon and the second lineage encompassed temperate and subtropical areas 15, suggesting multiple sources of Ae. albopictus.

To improve entomological surveillance and the control of these arbovirus vectors in the Republic of the Congo, we present here the current nation-wide geographical distribution and prevalence of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus in this country, and establish the genetic diversity of the invading population of Ae. albopictus using the COI gene.

Methods

Sampling sites

Mosquitoes were collected in May and November 2017 (Pointe Noire only) corresponding to the rainy season in nine locations in the Republic of the Congo across the north-south transect ( Table 1 and Figure 1). The Republic of the Congo is located in Central Africa, straddling the equator. Two main types of vegetation are found. The forest in the north, covering 60% of the national territory, and the savannah, which occupies the remaining parts of the country. There are three types of climate. The equatorial climate is found in the north of the country, characterized by high humidity and rainfall greater than 1,700 mm per year, with an average temperature between 24°C and 26°C. The humid tropical climate in the southwest, where annual average precipitation varies from 1,200 mm to 1,700 mm, with an average monthly temperature between 21°C and 27°C. The subequatorial climate, experienced at the plateau and basin regions, has an average annual rainfall of about 1,600 mm. Because the spread of Aedes mosquitoes mainly relies on human activities, sampling was focused on human-domesticated environments spread along the main communication networks, and trade routes throughout the country.

Table 1. Sampling sites in the Republic of the Congo.

Location Geographical coordinates Altitude, m Climate
Brazzaville S 4°19'38'' E 15°09'12'' 278 Subequatorial climate
Lefini S 2°54'58" E 15°37'56" 314 Subequatorial climate
Ngo S 2°29'14" E 15°45'00" 636 Subequatorial climate
Gamboma S 1°52'27" E 15°52'25" 378 Subequatorial climate
Oyo S 1°09'14" E 15°58'21" 297 Subequatorial climate
Owando S 0°29'42" E 15°54'41" 275 Subequatorial climate
Makoua S 0°00'23" E 19°37'33" 350 Equatorial climate
Ouesso N 1°36'35" E 16°02'58" 339 Equatorial climate
Pointe Noire N 4°48'19" E 11°53'23" 14 Tropical climate

Figure 1. Geographic distribution of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus across the Republic of the Congo.

Figure 1.

Mosquito collection, rearing and identification

In Brazzaville and Pointe Noire, the two most populated cities of the Republic of the Congo, the difference between downtown and suburban was examined during the investigation. In the other locations, however, samples were collected randomly throughout each city and pooled together. In each selected location, all containers with water were inspected and positive containers (with at least one Aedes larvae or pupae) were recorded. Immature stages of Aedes were collected, transported to the insectaries, pooled according to the location and reared to adult stage for morphological identification. G0 adults were stored at -20°C for molecular and genetic analyses. The comparisons between the prevalence of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus in each location, across the country were performed using multiple chi-square test.

Mitochondrial DNA analysis for Ae. albopictus

Genomic DNA was extracted from 20 whole Ae. albopictus per location (nine locations) using the Livak protocol as previously described 27. DNA extracts from each location were used as templates to amplify 700-bp fragment of COI gene. The sequences of primers used are: albCOIF 5’-TTTCAACAAATCATAAAGATATTGG-3’ and albCOIR 5’- TAAACTTCTGGA TGACCAAAAAATCA-3’ 28. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification was performed using a Gene Touch thermal cycler (Bulldog Bio, Portsmouth, USA), as described previously 28. PCR products were detected by agarose gel electrophoresis in Tris-Acid-EDTA buffer (TAE). The gel was prepared with Midori green, staining dye, and visualized with the aid of UV light. PCR products from each location with very good amplification were purified using the Exo-SAP protocol and sent to the Centre for Genomic Research (Liverpool, UK) for sequencing.

Sequence data analysis

Sequences were manually corrected using BioEdit software version 7.2.1 ( http://en.bio-soft.net/format/BioEdit.html) and aligned using ClustalW, which is present in BioEdit 29. Sequences were numbered based on the reference sequences downloaded in GenBank KU738429.1. The number of haplotypes (h), the number of polymorphism sites (S), haplotype diversity (Hd) and nucleotide diversity (π) were computed with DnaSP 5.10.01 ( http://en.bio-soft.net/dna/dnasp.html) 30. The statistical tests of Tajima 31, and Fu and Li 32 were also estimated with DnaSP in order to establish non-neutral evolution and deviation from mutation-drift equilibrium. The different haplotypes detected were compared to previous sequences published in GenBank ( Supplementary Table 1) that originated from China, Papua New Guinea, USA, Singapore, Taiwan, Malaysia, Hawai, Christmas Islands, Japan, Solomon Islands, Timor Leste and Torres Strait Islands 28, 33, 34. The same COI region was sequenced at these various regions and the maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree was constructed using MEGA 7.0 35. Genealogical relationships between haplotype in this current study was assessed using TCS version 1.21 36 and tcsBU ( http://cibio.up.pt/software/tcsBU/) 37 software.

Results

Containers inspected and prevalence of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus

A total of 640 containers with water were investigated across the Republic of the Congo ( Table 2). Among them, 42.9% were positive for immature stages of Aedes. Containers were classified into three main groups: domestic (flower pot and water storage tanks), peridomestic (used tires, discarded tanks and car wrecks) and natural (axil of plants). Used tires were the most prevalent habitat and most productive containers in all the locations, ranging from 18.1% in Pointe Noire to 100% in Lefini ( Table 2). The presence of Aedes in other containers was very limited.

Table 2. Containers prospected per location.

Location Axil of
plants
Used
tires
Car
wrecks
Discarded
tanks
Water
storages
Flower
pots
All
N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)
Brazzaville downtown 1 (0.0) 59 (49.2) 3 (100) 10 (80.0) 0 (NC) 0 (NC) 73 (54.8)
Brazzaville suburb 0 (NC) 69 (63.8) 0 (NC) 3 (0.0) 0 (NC) 0 (NC) 72 (61.1)
Pointe Noire downtown 0 (NC) 61 (18.1) 0 (NC) 3 (33.3) 0 (NC) 0 (NC) 64 (18.8)
Pointe Noire suburb 0 (NC) 56 (25.0) 0 (NC) 13 (46.2) 4 (50.0) 0 (NC) 73 (30.1)
Lefini 0 (NC) 3 (100) 0 (NC) 0 (NC) 0 (NC) 0 (NC) 3 (100)
Ngo 0 (NC) 47 (38.3) 0 (NC) 0 (NC) 0 (NC) 0 (NC) 47 (38.3)
Gamboma 0 (NC) 58 (37.9) 0 (NC) 2 (50) 1 (100) 0 (NC) 61 (39.3)
Oyo 0 (NC) 43 (48.8) 0 (NC) 0 (NC) 0 (NC) 0 (NC) 43 (48.8)
Owando 0 (NC) 4 (25) 0 (NC) 8 (62.5) 0 (NC) 10 (10.0) 22 (31.8)
Makoua 0 (NC) 59 (54.2) 0 (NC) 10 (30) 0 (NC) 0 (NC) 69 (50.7)
Ouesso 0 (NC) 97 (50.5) 0 (NC) 0 (NC) 0 (NC) 0 (NC) 97 (50.5)
All 1 (0.0) 556 (43.9) 3 (100) 65 (36.9) 5 (60.0) 10 (10.0) 640 (42.9)

N, number of containers found with water; (%), percentage of positive containers; NC, not computed.

In total, 6,684 specimens of immature stages of Aedes were identified, comprising 72.24% of Ae. albopictus, 27.70% of Ae. aegypti and 0.06% (four specimens collected in Brazzaville suburb) of Aedes simpsoni. Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus were found together in all the locations investigated ( Figure 1 and Table 3). However, Ae. albopictus was predominant in all the locations except in Brazzaville. When samples from the two major cities, Brazzaville and Pointe Noire, were divided according to the environment (downtown versus suburb), Ae. albopictus was found more prevalent in the suburbs (95.62% and 75.39% in Brazzaville and Pointe Noire, respectively) than Ae. aegypti, whereas the reverse was true for the downtown areas ( Table 3).

Table 3. Prevalence of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus according to the location.

Location Ae. aegypti Ae. albopictus P-value
Brazzaville downtown 962 (86.28%) 153 (13.72%) <0.001
Brazzaville suburb 28 (4.38%) 611 (95.62%) <0.001
Pointe Noire downtown 128 (58.72%) 90 (41.28%) <0.001
Pointe Noire suburb 63 (24.61%) 193 (75.39%) <0.001
Lefini 18 (6.45%) 261 (93.55%) <0.001
Ngo 104 (41.43%) 147 (58.57%) <0.001
Gamboma 116 (22.97%) 389 (77.03%) <0.001
Oyo 20 (30.30%) 46 (69.70%) <0.001
Owando 42 (6.97%) 561 (93.03%) <0.001
Makoua 249 (14.96%) 1415 (85.04%) <0.001
Ouesso 122 (11.25%) 962 (88.75%) <0.001
All 1852 (27.72%) 4828 (72.28%) <0.001

Mitochondrial DNA analysis of Ae. albopictus

In total, 127 specimens of Ae. albopictus from nine locations across the Republic of the Congo were analysed using the COI gene. Sequence analysis, based on 638 nucleotides, revealed a low polymorphism, with only two mutational sites defining three haplotypes namely H1, H2 and H3 ( Figure 2B). Consequently, this resulted in low haplotype diversity (Hd=0.24) and nucleotide diversity (π=0.00005) indexes ( Table 4). The most frequent haplotype, H1 (86.6%), was detected in all the locations. Supplementary Table 2 shows the haplotype distribution per location. The haplotypes H2 (10.2%) and H3 (3.2%) were found in three (Brazzaville, Ouesso and Oyo) and two (Brazzaville and Lefini) locations, respectively ( Table 4 and Figure 2). The dominant haplotype matches perfectly with the COI gene sequence deposited in GenBank that originated from China (KU738429.1). A higher genetic diversity was reported in Brazzaville where all the three haplotypes were reported. The haplotype network showed that each haplotype was separated from the others by one mutational step ( Figure 2). Overall, Tajima’s D (D=-0.294) and Fu’s Fs (Fs=-0.024) statistics were negative, but not statistically significant. Phylogenetic tree generated and analysed based on 445 nucleotides previously published in GenBank showed that the Republic of the Congo’s haplotypes were closely related to the sequences from China, Singapore, Papua New Guinea and Christmas Island ( Figure 3).

Figure 2. Genetic diversity of the COI gene across Congolese populations of Ae. albopictus.

Figure 2.

( A) Haplotype network showing the genealogic relationships between three haplotypes detected across Congo. The pie chart represents the proportion of each haplotype per site. ( B) COI haplotypes found across the Republic of the Congo. Only polymorphic positions are shown and are numbered with reference (Ref) to the published Ae. albopictus sequences for COI (JF309317; China). Dots represent identity with respect to the reference. The numbers above nucleotides indicate the position where mutations were found. *GenBank accession number shown in brackets.

Table 4. Summary statistics for COI gene polymorphism in Aedes albopictus from the Republic of the Congo.

Locality N H S Hd π (k) D D* Fs F*
Brazzaville 14 H1, H2, H3 2 0.692 0.0014 (0.890) 1.127 ns 0.935 ns 0.612 ns 1.021 ns
Lefini 15 H1, H3 2 0.133 0.0004 (0.266) -1.490 ns -1.873 ns 0.235 ns -1.844 ns
Ngo 12 H1 0 0.000 0.0000 (0.000) NC NC NC NC
Gamboma 14 H1 0 0.000 0.0000 (0.000) NC NC NC NC
Oyo 12 H1, H2 1 0.303 0.0005 (0.303) -0.195 ns 0.752 ns 0.297 ns 0.533 ns
Owando 11 H1 0 0.000 0.0000 (0.000) NC NC NC NC
Makoua 14 H1 0 0.000 0.0000 (0.000) NC NC NC NC
Ouesso 15 H1, H2 1 0.514 0.0008 (0.5143) 1.376 ns 0.701 ns 1.253 ns 0.906 ns
Pointe Noire 20 H1 0 0.000 0.0000 (0.000) NC NC NC NC
Total 127 3 2 0.246 0.0005 (0.2952) -0.294 ns 0.662 ns -0.0238 ns 0.417 ns

N, number of sequences; S, number of polymorphic sites; H, haplotype; Hd, haplotype diversity; π, nucleotide diversity; k, mean number of nucleotide differences; D, Tajima statistic; D* and F*, Fu and Li statistics; Fs, Fu statistic; NC, not computed; ns, not significant.

Figure 3. Molecular phylogenetic analysis using the Maximum Likelihood method.

Figure 3.

The evolutionary history was inferred using the Maximum Likelihood method based on the Tamura 3-parameter model. The tree is drawn to scale, with branch lengths measured in the number of substitutions per site. There was a total of 445 positions in the final dataset.

Discussion

This study has assessed the geographical distribution of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus in the Republic of the Congo, revealing the co-occurrence of both species across the country. Analyses showed that the invasive species Ae. albopictus is the predominant species in all locations investigated except Brazzaville. The co-occurrence of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus across the Republic of the Congo suggests that the environmental factors which prevail in the country are favourable for the development of both species. The presence of Ae. albopictus in the Republic of the Congo was confirmed in 2011 during the chikungunya outbreak in Brazzaville 25, suggesting its recent introduction. Indeed, previous studies in some central African countries such as Cameroon and Central Africa Republic showed that the co-occurrence of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus is limited to the southern part of the country up to 6°N 14, 15, 18 suggesting that climate is a limiting factor for invasion. The predominance of the invading species, Ae. albopictus, over the indigenous species, Ae. aegypti, has been previously reported in areas where both species are found together in Central Africa. The ecological plasticity of Ae. albopictus has been suggested as the main cause of its adaptation to different environments 9, as well as its mating competitiveness in areas of sympatry with Ae. aegypti 17, 38. The prevalence of each species can vary according to the season in sympatric areas, as shown previously 15, 39, but was specifically linked to the duration of the dry season 40. Although, Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus have desiccant-resistant eggs, previous studies showed that Ae. aegypti eggs are more tolerant to high temperatures than those of Ae. albopictus 41. In both major cities where samples were analysed according to peri-urban and downtown environment, results revealed the predominance of Ae. aegypti in downtown areas but less in peri-urban areas. Similar findings to these were reported previously in Central Africa 15, 18, 40. These observations are consistent with former studies indicating the segregation of habitats in sympatric areas according to urban environmental gradients as the main factor responsible for the coexistence of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus 42, 43. Used tyres were the most common container found positive for Aedes in all the locations. This is in accordance with previous studies in Central Africa showing that used tires are the main productive for both Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus 13, 15. However, the current study targeted mainly garages and tire shops to increase the chances of discovering immature Aedes.

The presence and predominance of Ae. albopictus across the Republic of the Congo can increase the risk of mosquito-borne arboviral diseases since Ae. albopictus has been found competent to transmit about 22 arboviruses 44. Notably, the emergence of dengue and chikungunya viruses in the human dominated environment in central Africa coincides with the invasion of Ae. albopictus in this area where it was found as the main vector 13, 23, 25. During previous studies in central Africa, Ae. albopictus, was found to be infected by zika virus in natural conditions 24. It was also demonstrated that Ae. albopictus from Bangui in Central African Republic is able to transmit enzootic chikungunya virus strains 45.

A very low polymorphism of Ae. albopictus discovered in the Republic of the Congo in this study is in agreement with the previous studies using the COI gene in areas newly colonised by this species including some Central African countries 15, 26, 46. This low polymorphism is consistent with the recent introduction from a founder Ae. albopictus population or could be related to ubiquitous Wolbachia infection in populations of this species, as suggested previously 47. Brazzaville, the capital city of the Republic of the Congo would be probably the main entry point of Ae. albopictus in the country, as higher levels of polymorphism (all the three haplotypes recorded) were detected at this location. For instance, Ae. albopictus was reported for the first time in the Republic of the Congo in Brazzaville during a chikungunya outbreak which occurred in the country 21, 25. Phylogenetic analysis showed that the haplotype sequences from the Republic of the Congo are very close to the sequences isolated from populations originating from China, New Papua Guinea, Singapore and Christmas Islands. Primers used in this current study were not the same as those used in the previous study in Cameroon, Central African Republic and Sao Tome island. Therefore, the haplotypes in the current study cannot be compared with those detected in Central Africa. Nevertheless, these data indicate that the population of Ae. albopictus found in Central Africa probably originated from other tropical regions as previously suggested 15, 26, 46. It will be interesting to perform other studies at macro-geographic scale using other markers such as double-digest restriction-site-associated DNA sequencing to assess the genetic structure and the level of the gene flow between these populations.

Conclusion

To our knowledge, this is the first study assessing the distribution of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus in the Republic of the Congo since Ae. albopictus was reported in 2011. Both species were found across the country with Ae. albopictus predominating in almost all locations. Low genetic polymorphism of Ae. albopictus indicated a recent introduction into the country. The spread of the invading species across the country could change the epidemiology of arboviral diseases in the Republic of the Congo. Thus, it will be important to assess urgently, the vector competence of both Aedes species from the Republic of the Congo to prevent several emergence or re-emergence of arboviruses such as dengue, zika and yellow fever viruses. Assessing the susceptibility profile of these species to insecticide will be an important information needed to prepare the country against potential future outbreaks.

Data availability

Sequence for Aedes albopictus haplotype H1 cytochrome oxidase subunit I ( COI) gene, partial cds; mitochondrial, GenBank accession number MH025948: http://identifiers.org/ncbigi/GI:1402399558.

Sequence for A. albopictus haplotype H2 cytochrome oxidase subunit I ( COI) gene, partial cds; mitochondrial, GenBank accession number MH025949: http://identifiers.org/ncbigi/GI:1402399560.

Sequence for A. albopictus haplotype H3 cytochrome oxidase subunit I ( COI) gene, partial cds; mitochondrial, GenBank accession number MH025950: http://identifiers.org/ncbigi/GI:1402399562.

Acknowledgments

We thank the people living around all the sampling sites for their cooperation during the field investigations.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by a Wellcome Trust Training Fellowship in Public Health and Tropical Medicine (204862) awarded to Basile Kamgang. The funders had no role in study design, data collection or analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

[version 2; referees: 3 approved]

Supplementary material

Supplementary Table 1. Outgroup sequences used for phylogenetic analysis.
Supplementary Table 2. H1, H2 and H3 haplotype distribution per location.

References

  • 1. Hennessey M, Fischer M, Staples JE: Zika Virus Spreads to New Areas - Region of the Americas, May 2015-January 2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016;65(3):55–58. 10.15585/mmwr.mm6503e1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Leroy EM, Nkoghe D, Ollomo B, et al. : Concurrent chikungunya and dengue virus infections during simultaneous outbreaks, Gabon, 2007. Emerg Infect Dis. 2009;15(4):591–593. 10.3201/eid1504.080664 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Bhatt S, Gething PW, Brady OJ, et al. : The global distribution and burden of dengue. Nature. 2013;496(7446):504–507. 10.1038/nature12060 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Nsoesie EO, Kraemer MU, Golding N, et al. : Global distribution and environmental suitability for chikungunya virus, 1952 to 2015. Euro Surveill. 2016;21(20). 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2016.21.20.30234 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Sharma A, Lal SK: Zika Virus: Transmission, Detection, Control, and Prevention. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:110. 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Thiboutot MM, Kannan S, Kawalekar OU, et al. : Chikungunya: a potentially emerging epidemic? PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2010;4(4):e623. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000623 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Mattingly PF: Genetical aspects of the Aedes aegypti problem. I. Taxonom: and bionomics. Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 1957;51(4):392–408. 10.1080/00034983.1957.11685829 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Gloria-Soria A, Ayala D, Bheecarry A, et al. : Global genetic diversity of Aedes aegypti. Mol Ecol. 2016;25(21):5377–5395. 10.1111/mec.13866 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Paupy C, Delatte H, Bagny L, et al. : Aedes albopictus, an arbovirus vector: from the darkness to the light. Microbes Infect. 2009;11(14–15):1177–1185. 10.1016/j.micinf.2009.05.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Benedict MQ, Levine RS, Hawley WA, et al. : Spread of the tiger: global risk of invasion by the mosquito Aedes albopictus. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2007;7(1):76–85. 10.1089/vbz.2006.0562 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Reiter P, Fontenille D, Paupy C: Aedes albopictus as an epidemic vector of chikungunya virus: another emerging problem? Lancet Infect Dis. 2006;6(8):463–464. 10.1016/S1473-3099(06)70531-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Fontenille D, Toto JC: Aedes (Stegomyia) albopictus (Skuse), a potential new Dengue vector in southern Cameroon. Emerg Infect Dis. 2001;7(6):1066–1067. 10.3201/eid0706.010631 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Ngoagouni C, Kamgang B, Nakouné E, et al. : Invasion of Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) into central Africa: what consequences for emerging diseases? Parasit Vectors. 2015;8:191. 10.1186/s13071-015-0808-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Simard F, Nchoutpouen E, Toto JC, et al. : Geographic distribution and breeding site preference of Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti (Diptera: culicidae) in Cameroon, Central Africa. J Med Entomol. 2005;42(5):726–731. 10.1093/jmedent/42.5.726 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Kamgang B, Ngoagouni C, Manirakiza A, et al. : Temporal patterns of abundance of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) and mitochondrial DNA analysis of Ae. albopictus in the Central African Republic. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7(12):e2590. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002590 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Bargielowski IE, Lounibos LP, Shin D, et al. : Widespread evidence for interspecific mating between Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) in nature. Infect Genet Evol. 2015;36:456–461. 10.1016/j.meegid.2015.08.016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Bargielowski IE, Lounibos LP, Carrasquilla MC: Evolution of resistance to satyrization through reproductive character displacement in populations of invasive dengue vectors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110(8):2888–2892. 10.1073/pnas.1219599110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Kamgang B, Happi JY, Boisier P, et al. : Geographic and ecological distribution of the dengue and chikungunya virus vectors Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus in three major Cameroonian towns. Med Vet Entomol. 2010;24(2):132–141. 10.1111/j.1365-2915.2010.00869.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Desdouits M, Kamgang B, Berthet N, et al. : Genetic characterization of Chikungunya virus in the Central African Republic. Infect Genet Evol. 2015;33:25–31. 10.1016/j.meegid.2015.04.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Berthet N, Nakouné E, Kamgang B, et al. : Molecular characterization of three Zika flaviviruses obtained from sylvatic mosquitoes in the Central African Republic. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2014;14(12):862–865. 10.1089/vbz.2014.1607 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Moyen N, Thiberville SD, Pastorino B, et al. : First reported chikungunya fever outbreak in the republic of Congo, 2011. PLoS One. 2014;9(12):e115938. 10.1371/journal.pone.0115938 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Paupy C, Kassa Kassa F, Caron M, et al. : A chikungunya outbreak associated with the vector Aedes albopictus in remote villages of Gabon. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2012;12(2):167–169. 10.1089/vbz.2011.0736 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Paupy C, Ollomo B, Kamgang B, et al. : Comparative role of Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti in the emergence of Dengue and Chikungunya in central Africa. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2010;10(3):259–266. 10.1089/vbz.2009.0005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Grard G, Caron M, Mombo IM, et al. : Zika virus in Gabon (Central Africa)--2007: a new threat from Aedes albopictus? PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014;8(2):e2681. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002681 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Mombouli JV, Bitsindou P, Elion DO, et al. : Chikungunya virus infection, Brazzaville, Republic of Congo, 2011. Emerg Infect Dis. 2013;19(9):1542–1543. 10.3201/eid1909.130451 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Kamgang B, Brengues C, Fontenille D, et al. : Genetic structure of the tiger mosquito, Aedes albopictus, in Cameroon (Central Africa). PLoS One. 2011;6(5):e20257. 10.1371/journal.pone.0020257 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Livak KJ: Organization and mapping of a sequence on the Drosophila melanogaster X and Y chromosomes that is transcribed during spermatogenesis. Genetics. 1984;107(4):611–634. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Maynard AJ, Ambrose L, Cooper RD, et al. : Tiger on the prowl: Invasion history and spatio-temporal genetic structure of the Asian tiger mosquito Aedes albopictus (Skuse 1894) in the Indo-Pacific. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11(4):e0005546. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005546 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Thompson JD, Higgins DG, Gibson TJ: CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res. 1994;22(22):4673–4680. 10.1093/nar/22.22.4673 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Librado P, Rozas J: DnaSP v5: a software for comprehensive analysis of DNA polymorphism data. Bioinformatics. 2009;25(11):1451–1452. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp187 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Tajima F: Statistical method for testing the neutral mutation hypothesis by DNA polymorphism. Genetics. 1989;123(3):585–595. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Fu YX, Li WH: Statistical tests of neutrality of mutations. Genetics. 1993;133(3):693–709. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Zhong D, Lo E, Hu R, et al. : Genetic analysis of invasive Aedes albopictus populations in Los Angeles County, California and its potential public health impact. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e68586. 10.1371/journal.pone.0068586 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Beebe NW, Ambrose L, Hill LA, et al. : Tracing the tiger: population genetics provides valuable insights into the Aedes (Stegomyia) albopictus invasion of the Australasian Region. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7(8):e2361. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002361 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Tamura K, Stecher G, Peterson D, et al. : MEGA6: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis version 6.0. Mol Biol Evol. 2013;30(12):2725–2729. 10.1093/molbev/mst197 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Clement M, Posada D, Crandall KA: TCS: a computer program to estimate gene genealogies. Mol Ecol. 2000;9(10):1657–1659. 10.1046/j.1365-294x.2000.01020.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Múrias dos Santos A, Cabezas MP, Tavares AI, et al. : tcsBU: a tool to extend TCS network layout and visualization. Bioinformatics. 2016;32(4):627–628. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv636 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Bargielowski IE, Lounibos LP, Shin D, et al. : Widespread evidence for interspecific mating between Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) in nature. IInfect Genet Evol. 2015;36:456–461. 10.1016/j.meegid.2015.08.016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Reiskind MH, Lounibos LP: Spatial and temporal patterns of abundance of Aedes aegypti L. (Stegomyia aegypti) and Aedes albopictus (Skuse) [Stegomyia albopictus (Skuse)] in southern Florida. Med Vet Entomol. 2013;27(4):421–429. 10.1111/mve.12000 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Kamgang B, Yougang AP, Tchoupo M, et al. : Temporal distribution and insecticide resistance profile of two major arbovirus vectors Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus in Yaoundé, the capital city of Cameroon. Parasit Vectors. 2017;10(1):469. 10.1186/s13071-017-2408-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Juliano SA, O'Meara GF, Morrill JR, et al. : Desiccation and thermal tolerance of eggs and the coexistence of competing mosquitoes. Oecologia. 2002;130(3):458–469. 10.1007/s004420100811 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Rey JR, Nishimura N, Wagner B, et al. : Habitat segregation of mosquito arbovirus vectors in south Florida. J Med Entomol. 2006;43(6):1134–1141. 10.1093/jmedent/43.6.1134 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Cox J, Grillet ME, Ramos OM, et al. : Habitat segregation of dengue vectors along an urban environmental gradient. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2007;76(5):820–826. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Gratz NG: Critical review of the vector status of Aedes albopictus. Med Vet Entomol. 2004;18(3):215–227. 10.1111/j.0269-283X.2004.00513.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Ngoagouni C, Kamgang B, Kazanji M, et al. : Potential of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus populations in the Central African Republic to transmit enzootic chikungunya virus strains. Parasit Vectors. 2017;10(1):164. 10.1186/s13071-017-2101-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Reis S, Cornel AJ, Melo M, et al. : First record of Aedes albopictus (Skuse 1894) on São tomé island. Acta Trop. 2017;171:86–89. 10.1016/j.actatropica.2017.03.035 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Armbruster P, Damsky WE, Jr, Giordano R, et al. : Infection of New- and Old-World Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) by the intracellular parasite Wolbachia: implications for host mitochondrial DNA evolution. J Med Entomol. 2003;40(3):356–360. 10.1603/0022-2585-40.3.356 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Wellcome Open Res. 2018 Aug 31. doi: 10.21956/wellcomeopenres.16070.r33461

Referee response for version 2

Julien B Z Zahouli 1

1) General comments

Kamgang et al. conducted this study with the overall aim of assessing the geographical distribution of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus and the genetic diversity of Ae. albopictus in the Republic of Congo. Specifically, the authors sampled immature Aedes mosquitos among their usual breeding sites in 9 sites across several eco-regions, reared immature to adult stage for species morphological identification, and analyze the diversity of Ae. albopictus using CO1 gene method.

This study merits a careful and particular attention. While it is not novel to describe the Aedes mosquito species in Africa, this study is the one focusing on the invading Asian tiger Ae. albopictus which has been newly introduced into the African continent by the means of transportation and trade.  The authors identified three Aedes species ( Aedes aegypti, Aedes albopictus and Aedes simpsoni) that may have an important impact on public health as they may carry and transmit pathogens. The study shows some clear results, which include the variation of among mosquito species abundance of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus and genetic diversity of Ae. albopictus species as a function of location. The outcomes were represented as texts, figures and tables. The outcomes of this work could be explored for better understanding of the distribution of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus species that can influence the transmission of arboviruses to humans and may contribute the control arboviral diseases in the Republic of Congo.

Despite its strength, there are a number of weaknesses and gaps to the study that need to be addressed. The study is inherently limited to represent the species and specimens of non- Aedes mosquitoes and some features of the containers. The authors did not characterize the larval habits by looking at some ecological features of the containers. Some important characteristics such as the exposure of containers to sunlight, the presence or absence of microbial food inputs, air temperature, rainfall, temperature of water, turbidity of water, color of containers and some biological interactions (predation, competition, sympatry…) involving predators, competitors and other associations among mosquito  larvae were not reported. The report of these factors may probably help to better understand the difference in ecological distribution and patterns between Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus species. The authors talked about the displacement of Aedes aegypti due to the presence of Aedes albopictus in the abstract without clearly indicating the strength of the displacement and presenting data showing this important ecological phenomenon.  The objective of this study is not clear to me. The hypothesis of this study was not provided. The authors should provide the objective and hypothesis of their works.

The writing throughout the manuscript is good to me. However, the writing needs to be improved in some places. In addition, as the authors did not sample the ecological characteristics of sampling areas and containers, they discussed their findings on the basis of the findings of other studies – this seems to consider them as speculations – the authors should focus on the own data, discuss them on the basis of their own data sampled and drawn inferences after comparing the data with previous studies.

Ultimately, above all, more importantly are the paper's weaknesses that should be addressed. I have provided more detailed and specific comments below.

2) Specific comments

Background

Line 3 (It….associated): Please replace “was” with “has been”

Line 4-5 (how ….. diseases): It seems that this paper did not focus on the epidemiology of arboviral diseases, but the ecology of Aedes species. Please, it suggested that the authors delete or provide clearer explanation.

Abstract

Background

Line 2 (in 2017): It suggested that the authors clarify the period (month) of the study. The authors should write the date at the start of the sentence or at the end of the sentence, but not at the middle. Please, correct.

Results:

The authors stated that Ae. albopictus has been newly introduction to Congo and that Ae. albopictus has displaced Ae. aegypti. I am concerned – please, what was the distribution of Ae aegypti before the introduction of Ae. albopictus? Please, how do the authors know that Ae. Albopictus is displacing Ae. aegypti since I did not see data on such an ecological issue in this manuscript. Please, correct.

Line 4-5 (suggesting …….across Congo): The portion of the sentence seems to be a discussion – may I suggest that the authors displace it into the Conclusion.

Line 9-10 (supporting …….the Congo): The portion of the sentence seems to be a discussion – may I suggest that the authors displace it into the Conclusion.

Line 11-12 (likely …….trade links): The portion of the sentence seems to be a discussion – may I suggest that the authors displace it into the Conclusion.

Introduction

Please replace “zika” with “Zika” in the whole document (please use a capital letter “Z”

Line (This rapid …….caused mainly…): Please, replace “was” with “has been”

Line (This suggests …… in the region): This sentence is not clear to me – may the authors clarify?

May I suggest that the authors clearly provide  the objective and hypothesis of this study?

Methods

Line (The humid tropical climate…..in the southwest): It seems that words are missing here – maybe “is found”?

Line (In Brazzaville…..downtown and suburban…). How did the authors make the difference between “downtown” and “suburban”? What were the criteria?

Line (with at least one Aedes larvae or pupae) – please, may the authors replace “larvae” with “larva” (singular form!) and “pupae” and “pupa” (singular form)?

Line (….stage for morphological identification.): please, may the authors specify the determination key used for morphological identification and the reference?

Lines (The comparisons between …………chi-square test): Is this a statistical analysis of the data? I am not sure that this corresponds to the title of this paragraph – usually, the statistical analysis of data is separated from the lab works – may the authors write an independent paragraph clearly describing the statistical analysis procedures? It will be interesting if the authors perform geospatial analysis of the data to clearly show the distribution of Ae. albopictus and Ae. aegypti across sampling areas.

Lines (in each selected location ALL containers, ….were recorded) – I am not sure that it is possible to sample ALL containers in a given site – usually, only readily visible and accessible containers can be sampled – please, it is suggested that the authors reword this sentence?

It appears that the authors did not sample the characteristics of containers and habitats, but only the mosquito immatures – If so, how will they explain the distribution of species? It should be important to collect information on the biotic and abiotic characteristics/variables of the sampling sites and breeding containers.

May the authors explain or justify the importance of using CO1 method to assess the origin of Ae. albopictus instead of other technique? What are the advantages of using CO1 method?

Results

As I said previously, while the authors stated that ALL containers were sampled in such large areas, only 640 containers were sampled? In my experience, it is not possible to sample all containers in such large areas.

Were the breeding sites and land cover not characterized? The characteristics of the breeding containers and land cover are likely to affect species distributions. It is suggested that the authors described the characteristics of Aedes breeding sites and land covers surrounding the containers.

It is suggested that the authors add a paragraph focusing on the distribution of both main Aedes species, Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus, among the containers samples? May the authors also specify the proportions of containers that both species co-habited?

Table 3: The overall proportions of Ae. aegypti (27.72%) and Ae. albopictus (72.28%) in the Table 3 does not match with the proportions indicated in the text (In total, 6,684 specimens …….. comprising 72.24%.......27.70%....). Please, explain or correct these differences.

I am concerned: non- Aedes mosquitoes were not collected? Usually, Culex species, sometimes Anopheles species and other predatory larvae of mosquitoes inhabit Aedes breeding sites… These species are likely to alter the ecology and distribution of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus. Please, it is suggested that the authors add other mosquito species if they collected.

Discussion

Line (This study has assessed….): please, it is suggested deleting “has”.

Line (Analyses showed…..is….Brazzaville): please, may the authors replace “is” with “was” (past simple / preterit) – as the authors are reporting their own data?

Line (The co-occurrence of Ae. aegypti …….environmental factors……..both species) – please, may the authors explain which environmental factors that influence the co-occurrence of both Aedes species? I did not see a clear link/association/correlation between such environmental factors and Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus distribution. It should be good if the authors sampled and reported the environmental variables (vegetation, land cover, temperature, humidity, rainfall, season, sunlight radiation, shade, nature of water of the containers, type of breeding sites, foods, predators, competitors,)  in each specific location and look at the relationships between these variable with the presence/or abundance of the species. May the authors provide such relationship between environmental parameters and the occurrence of Aedes species?

Line (The ecological plasticity….): The data did not clearly report the ecological plasticity/elasticity in Ae. albopictus which means that the species colonize different habitats (for instance, vegetated/open environment), containers (natural, peridomestic, domestic…), land covers (rural, urban, forests, savannah…)…. Please, may I suggest that the authors report such findings in the Results season to support their discussion?

Line (The prevalence……….peri-urban areas) - Here the authors seem to link the difference in the distribution of Aedes species between downtown and peri-urban environment to eggs tolerance/desiccation to temperature variations. But, as they did not record the temperature among both environments, it is difficult to understand such an inference… Why not other environmental parameters such as human density, human activities/behaviors, shade/sunlight, the nature of breeding sites or containers?

Line (This is in accordance with ……….the main productive for both Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus): It seems that some words are missing in the sentence – it appears to be “…main productive -breeding sites- for..”

Line (However, the …………..garages and tire shops…) – may I suggest that the authors in the Methods that the larval collection was performed mainly in the garages and tire shops? It seems that the authors were mixing UK/British spelling and US spelling! As the overall manuscript is written using UK English, they should write “tyre” /UK English) instead of “tire” (US English). Please, correct in the whole document.

Line (…. Ae. albopictus , was found to be infected….) – please, it suggested deleting coma “,”.

Conclusion

Line (…SEVERAL emergence or re-emergence of arboviruses….) – may I suggest “….. emergence or re-emergence of SEVERAL arboviruses…”

Line (Assessing the susceptibility……….future outbreaks) – yes, but I do see the link between the current study and insecticide susceptibility issue. Please, it is suggested to delete this sentence.

I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Wellcome Open Res. 2018 Aug 7. doi: 10.21956/wellcomeopenres.15961.r33442

Referee response for version 1

Sébastien Boyer 1

The study is important and essential in the Public Health domain, especially in the Republic of Congo where data on vectors are missing, and where doing field study is not that easy.

Even knowing it is difficult to do field studies, from a scientific point of view, there is no replicate in this experiment. The authors went into the field one time in May 2017 and one time in November 2017. It should not be count as two independent samples of the same sites, but it should be considered as one sample during one season, and one sample during the other season. It is better to have a representation of the geographic distribution in the both season to observe if there is a variation than to have some chi-square tests that are not really useful here. It didn’t deserve the study. As I mentioned earlier, I truly think that the data are important here, including the percentage of positive container for each species, but is should be presented per season also, with no replicate.

For representing the data illustrated in the Figure 2, it should be better to represent it by chart by city. Here we didn’t see very well what is the percentage of H1, H2 and H3 in Brazzaville for example. It is the same problem for the proportion of H1 and H2 in Ouesso, H1 and H2 in Oyo and H1and H3 in Lefini. By the way, it is very interesting to observe that these 3 haplotypes are nearby Asia and SouthEast Asia haplotypes.

In total, the study is well realized, and the conclusions are directly dependent of the results. But I suggest 2 only minor changes regarding the presentation of the results, especially for the sampling in May and November.

I also suggest to replace the Figure 2 by a map with the % of each haplotype (circle or histograms) on each city.

I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Wellcome Open Res. 2018 Aug 7.
Basile Kamgang 1

Thank you so much for your comments. Mosquitoes were sampled in May in 8 locations (Brazzaville, Lefini, Ngo, Owando, Makoua, Ouesso, Oyo and Gamboma, and in November in Pointe Noire only) corresponding to rany season in each location. Precision was make in the manuscript.

The number of haplotypes detected per city is presented in supplement Table S2.

Wellcome Open Res. 2018 Jul 23. doi: 10.21956/wellcomeopenres.15961.r33460

Referee response for version 1

Yao Lucien Konan 1

The work is clearly written in a precise way with recent references used.

At the method level, it should be noted the months of mosquito collection were indicated without the seasonal correspondence in the different localities.

In the results, the authors mention productivity of used tires while the larvae and pupae found in the different containers inspected were not counted. They must replace "productive" with "positive".

I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Wellcome Open Res. 2018 Jul 23.
Basile Kamgang 1

I agree with the reviewer that the season was not indicated.

Mosquitoes were collected in May and November 2017 corresponding to the rainy season in nine locations in the Republic of the Congo across the north-south transect.

It is true that the number of pupae and larvae has not been counted, but the number of mosquitoes emerging from each type of larval habitat has been counted.

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Data Availability Statement

    Sequence for Aedes albopictus haplotype H1 cytochrome oxidase subunit I ( COI) gene, partial cds; mitochondrial, GenBank accession number MH025948: http://identifiers.org/ncbigi/GI:1402399558.

    Sequence for A. albopictus haplotype H2 cytochrome oxidase subunit I ( COI) gene, partial cds; mitochondrial, GenBank accession number MH025949: http://identifiers.org/ncbigi/GI:1402399560.

    Sequence for A. albopictus haplotype H3 cytochrome oxidase subunit I ( COI) gene, partial cds; mitochondrial, GenBank accession number MH025950: http://identifiers.org/ncbigi/GI:1402399562.


    Articles from Wellcome Open Research are provided here courtesy of The Wellcome Trust

    RESOURCES