Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 Jun 5;15(6):e0233669. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233669

High diversity of mosquito vectors in Cambodian primary schools and consequences for arbovirus transmission

Sebastien Boyer 1,*, Sebastien Marcombe 2, Sony Yean 1, Didier Fontenille 1
Editor: Olle Terenius3
PMCID: PMC7274438  PMID: 32502226

Abstract

Only few data exist in Cambodia on mosquito diversity and their potential role as vectors. Many arboviruses, such as dengue and Japanese encephalitis, are endemic and mostly affect children in the country. This research sets out to evaluate vector relative abundance and diversity in primary schools in Cambodia in an attempt to explain the apparent burden of dengue fever, severe dengue (DEN), Japanese encephalitis (JE), other arboviral diseases and malaria among children, 15 years and under, attending selected primary schools through vector surveys. Entomological surveys were implemented in primary schools in two provinces of Cambodia to assess the potential risk of exposure of schoolchildren to mosquito vector species. Light traps and BG traps were used to collect adult mosquitoes in 24 schools during the rainy and dry seasons of 2017 and 2018 in Kampong Cham and Tboung Khmum provinces. A total of 61 species were described, including Aedes, Culex and Anopheles species. The relative abundance and biodiversity of mosquito species were dependent on the month and school. Of the 37,725 mosquitoes caught during the study, three species accounted for three-quarters of the relative abundance: Culex vishnui, Anopheles indefinitus and Culex quinquefasciatus. More importantly, nearly 90% of the mosquitoes caught in the schools were identified as potential vectors of pathogens including Japanese encephalitis, dengue, and malaria parasites. Our results showed that schools in Cambodia represent a risk for vector-borne disease transmission and highlight the importance of implementing vector control in schools in Cambodia to decrease the risk of transmission.

Introduction

Mosquito-borne pathogens such as arboviruses and malaria parasites are transmitted through a high diversity of species belonging to three genera: Aedes, Anopheles, and Culex. Worldwide, Anopheles mosquitoes are the main vectors of malaria and despite an undeniable improvement of the situation [1], there was still an estimated 219 million cases and 435,000 death worldwide for the year 2017 (WHO [2], malaria report). The genera Aedes and Culex mainly transmit arboviruses responsible for diseases in humans such as dengue fever, yellow fever, West Nile fever, Rift Valley fever, Zika, Chikungunya, and Japanese encephalitis. In recent years, an increase in the burden related to arboviruses has been reported worldwide [3].

In Cambodia, dengue, Chikungunya, Zika, and Japanese encephalitis viruses circulate [4]. Dengue is probably the most important of these diseases and since the massive dengue epidemic in 1995 with more than 400 deaths, the number of cases has been monitored [4]. Major dengue epidemics occurred in 2007 with 39,618 cases (396 deaths) and 2012 with 42,362 cases (189 deaths); the estimated incidence among children less than 7 years-old of age is 41.1/1,000 person-seasons [5] with an incidence of dengue haemorrhagic fever and dengue shock syndrome of 4.1 per 1,000 children under 15 years old [6; 7]. During 2018, the Cambodian capital Phnom Penh faced a high circulation of dengue cases with 9,445 cases including 6 deaths reported by the National Dengue Control Program (Ministry of Health, Phnom Penh, Cambodia). Japanese encephalitis virus is also endemic in Cambodia with an incidence estimated at 0.1 case per 1,000 children under 15 years old [8; 9]. In 2017, malaria incidence was estimated to be between 186,000 and 236,000 cases per year [10].

There are 43 genera and 3,530 mosquito species currently described worldwide [11] and the presence of 20 genera and 243 species is estimated in Cambodia. This estimate is mainly based on institutional collections (Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, Montpellier, France, and Smithsonian Institute, Washington D.C., United States) and on studies implemented before the Khmer rouge period (1975–1979). Except studies specifically targeting dengue and malaria vectors [12, 13, 14], there is no comprehensive study on the biodiversity of other mosquitoes of medical importance in Cambodia. Specifically, there is a lack of knowledge on the Cambodian mosquito diversity potentially present in the school premises. Indeed, the classical infrastructure of school buildings, with open ventilation in the top of the walls allowing mosquitoes to enter the premises to access shade and cooler areas to rest but also to have a potential blood meal.

In this study, schools were chosen to carry out a first inventory based on the fact that schools are areas of high density of children in environments at risk of vector-borne pathogen transmission. In general, children of school attending age are from 4 to 15 years old, are more naive and sensitive to arboviruses and parasites and therefore are at risk to develop associated diseases. The objective of this study was to determine the mosquito species diversity and relative abundance in schools from two provinces of Cambodia known for the circulation of several dengue serotypes, and with potential risk of other arboviruses and parasites.

Materials and methods

Study area

Table 1 shows the characteristics of the schools selected for the study and their GPS coordinates. A total of 24 primary schools located in rural, peri-urban and urban areas were chosen randomly in Kampong Cham and Tboung Khmum provinces (Fig 1). The National Ethics Committee for Health Research of the Ministry of Health of the Kingdom of Cambodia approved the field site access and the permit N° 113NECHR was obtained on 02 May 2017. The study was also fully supported by the National Center for Parasitology, Entomology and Malaria Control, Ministry of Health (Official mail N° 348/17 dated from 28 April 2017), and by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport (Official mail N° 2592 dated from 27 April 2017). Mosquitoes were collected on 4 different dates, every 3 months during both dry and rainy seasons: (1) 5–19 May 2017, (2) 9–17 August 2017, (3) 10–18 November 2017, and (4) 2–14 February 2018. Typically, the month of May represents the end of the dry season, August the rainy season, November the end of the rainy season, and February the dry season.

Table 1. Descriptive data of the 24 schools in Kampong Cham and Tboung Khmum provinces, Cambodia.

Schools Development Pagoda School area (m2) Number of students Number of classrooms Classrooms with traps BG traps CDC Light Traps Latitude Longitude
Rumchek Peri-urban yes 3692 496 12 6 3 3 12˚06.036’ 105˚31.062’
Ro-ang Leu Peri-urban yes 7466 285 7 6 3 3 12˚03.183’ 105˚29.187’
Lvea Peri-urban yes 14191 694 17 6 3 3 12˚20.401’ 105˚17.024’
Sre Praing Peri-urban no 4951 383 10 6 3 3 12˚23.249’ 105˚12.672’
Prek Kak Peri-urban no 9229 568 13 6 3 3 12˚13.466’ 105˚31.845’
Hann Chey Peri-urban no 21550 780 18 6 3 3 12˚08.145’ 105˚31.449’
Wat Thmei Rural no 5051 578 14 6 3 3 12˚04.262’ 105˚25.773’
Paprak Rural yes 14957 393 11 6 3 3 12˚15.617’ 105˚21.769’
Trapaing Russey Rural no 8360 449 11 6 3 3 12˚19.956’ 105˚22.427’
Chamka Andaung Rural no 4467 335 10 6 3 3 12˚20.414’ 105˚10.673’
Sre Preal Rural no 9768 234 10 4 2 2 12˚18.445’ 105˚16.352’
Kbal Damrei Rural no 2811 211 6 3 1 2 12˚07.521’ 105˚08.771’
Chheu Bak Rural no 6804 209 7 4 2 2 12˚11.622’ 105˚09.788’
O Ta Thok Rural yes 2500 191 6 4 2 2 12˚10.403’ 105˚13.721’
Svay Areak Rural no 1857 223 6 4 2 2 12˚05.945’ 105˚08.208’
Svay Prey Rural yes 4280 216 6 6 3 3 12˚01.860’ 105˚07.690’
Koh Pen Rural no 3445 479 14 6 3 3 11˚57.313’ 105˚27.299’
Khvet Thom Urban no 12251 252 12 6 3 3 12˚03.526’ 105˚13.304’
Angkor Urban no 9829 1112 25 6 3 3 12˚00.057’ 105˚26.560’
AngKor Chey Peri-urban no 7090 563 11 6 3 3 11˚53.140’ 105˚44.018’
Toul Vihear Peri-urban no 10047 584 14 6 3 3 11˚57.452’ 105˚31.877’
Punley Rural yes 20586 453 12 6 3 3 11˚49.811’ 105˚43.847’
Steung Penh Rural no 8292 175 6 4 2 2 11˚52.485’ 105˚35.500’
Samrong Borei Rural no 6486 315 10 6 3 3 11˚53.066’ 105˚38.275’

Fig 1. Map representing the spatial distribution of the 24 schools sampled in Kampong Cham and Tboung Khmum provinces, Cambodia.

Fig 1

Adult mosquito collection and identification

Sixty-five BG-sentinel traps® (Biogents, Regensburg, Germany) and 66 CDC light traps® (JWHock, Gainsville, USA) were used to collect adult mosquitoes. BG-sentinel traps were used with a lure designed by BioGents ® Company consisting of a combination of substances such as lactic acid, ammonia, and fatty acids that can be found on human skin [15]. Traps were set up during 24 hours inside classrooms with 1 trap per classroom. Following the traditional Cambodian construction, all classes of all schools have openings in the tops of each wall to let the air circulates and reduce the high temperatures occurring during the daytime, allowing the free circulation of mosquitoes. Depending on the size of the schools and the number of classrooms, three (or less) BG traps and three (or less) CDC light traps were used with a limit of a total of six traps per school (Table 1). After each collection, mosquitoes were conserved in an electric icebox at +4°C and first identified in the field the same day. Then, samples were brought back to the laboratory, still at +4°C, in Phnom Penh for a second identification. In the field and in the laboratory, mosquitoes were identified under stereomicroscope and microscope using morphological mosquito identification keys from Southeast Asia countries [16; 17].

Statistical analysis

The association of the different parameters characterizing the schools and the period of collection, i.e. month, school, urbanization, presence of pagoda, school area, the number of classroom and children in the school and the relative densities of mosquito populations (i.e. all mosquitoes, all vector mosquitoes, Japanese encephalitis virus vectors, Dengue virus vectors, malaria plasmodium vectors) in the considered schools, were tested by a generalized linear mixed model using Template Model Builder with the assignation of ‘school’ as random variables, in order to determine the main significant factors. After verification of residual normality (Shapiro-test) and correction of the surdispersion, the results of the model and test were obtained. A supplementary analysis was implemented to represent the month effect on dengue vectors (Kruskal-Wallis test).

Results

Relative abundance and diversity of mosquito species

The list of the genera and mosquito taxa collected during the four collection sessions in the 24 schools is presented in Table 2. A total of 35,725 mosquitoes belonging to at least 55 mosquito species were collected. They were composed of 10 genera: Aedeomyia (1 species), Aedes (4), Anopheles (18), Armigeres (1), Coquillettidia (3) Culex (16), Lutzia (3), Mansonia (2), Mimomyia (4), Uranotaenia (4). On average, 25 ± 4 mosquito species were found in all the schools, representing an important biodiversity of species compared to the 243 number of species already described in Cambodia. The genera Aedes, Anopheles, Culex and, Mansonia were collected in the 24 schools, and there were at least 8 different genera in 21 out of 24 schools. The genus Culex represented 71.7% of the total mosquitoes collected (25,609 mosquitoes/35,725) with 16 species identified. Sixteen Anopheles species (18.6%; 6,643/35,725), and 5 Aedes species (3.9%; 1,393/35,725) were collected (Table 2). The 3 most abundant species were Cx. vishnui (18,422 mosquitoes, 51.6%), An. indefinitus (4,614; 12.9%) and Cx. quinquefasciatus (2,976; 8.3%), representing together 72.8% of all the mosquitoes caught during the 4 collections. These 3 species were present in all the 24 schools. Nine other species were also collected in all the schools: Ae. aegypti, Ae. albopictus, An. peditaeniatus, Cx. bitaeniorhynchus, Cx. brevipalpis, Cx. fuscocephala, Cx. gelidus, Cx. tritaeniorhynchus and Ms. uniformis. Schools with the largest number of species were Sre paing (37 species), Paprak (32) and Khvet Thom (30). The 2 schools with the least mosquito species were Ta Thok and Svay Areak, with 16 species each: they were the only two schools with less than 21 mosquito species. In August 2017, during the rainy season, we recorded the largest relative abundance of mosquitoes (10,196) with the highest number of species (48 species), while at the end of the dry season, May 2017, yielded the lowest relative abundance (6,713; 38 species). During the November (2017) and February (2018) collection sessions, the lowest number of mosquito species (35) was collected.

Table 2. Mosquito species caught during 4 trapping sessions in Kampong Cham and Tboung Khmum provinces, Cambodia, in May, August and November 2017, and February 2018.

Mosquito species May August November February Total (%) Potential Vectors
Aedeomyia (1)              
  Aedeomyia catasticta 34 8 8 151 201 0.56%  
Aedes (5)          
  Aedes aegypti 389 164 33 188 774 2.17% DENV, ZIKV, CHIKV, JEV, RVFV, WNV, YFV, RRV
  Aedes albopictus 139 162 54 40 395 1.11% DENV, ZIKV, CHIKV, JEV, RVFV, WNV, YFV, RRV
  Aedes lineatopennis 2 1 1 14 18 0.05%  
  Aedes malayensis 0 2 0 0 2 0.01% DENV
  Aedes vexans 2 1 1 2 6 0.02% ZIKAV, JEV, RVFV
  unidentified Aedes 83 29 25 61 198 0.55%  
Anopheles (19)          
  Anopheles annularis 0 2 1 0 3 0.01%  
  Anopheles argyprous 0 2 0 0 2 0.01%  
  Anopheles barbirostris 1 3 6 11 21 0.06% MAL
  Anopheles barbumbrosus 10 1 49 21 81 0.23% MAL
  Anopheles campestris 2 22 2 5 31 0.09% MAL
  Anopheles crawfordi 0 0 6 0 6 0.02%  
  Anopheles hodgkini 0 4 0 0 4 0.01%  
  Anopheles indefinitus 1543 842 971 1258 4614 12.92%  
  Anopheles nitidus 3 45 1 4 53 0.15%  
  Anopheles peditaeniatus 19 332 280 156 787 2.20%  
  Anopheles phillippinensis 0 9 0 0 9 0.03% MAL
  Anopheles separatus 0 2 0 0 2 0.01%  
  Anopheles sinensis 2 21 37 46 106 0.30% MAL
  Anopheles subticus 4 1 0 0 5 0.01%  
  Anopheles tessellatus 3 10 0 0 13 0.04%  
  Anopheles vagus 50 27 0 0 77 0.22% MAL, JEV
  unidentified Anopheles 114 53 529 133 829 2.32%  
Armigeres (1)          
  Armigeres subalbatus 185 108 53 43 389 1.09% DENV, JEV
  Armigeres sp 1 1 2 22 26 0.07%  
Coquilletidia (2)          
  Coquillettidia crassipes 56 27 3 8 94 0.26%  
  Coquillettidia ochracea 4 23 3 5 35 0.10%  
  Coquillettidia sp1 1 7 2 1 11 0.03%  
Culex (15)          
  Culex bitaeniorhynchus 33 324 25 48 430 1.20% JEV, RVFV
  Culex brevipalpis 678 360 146 73 1257 3.52%  
  Culex fuscocephala 35 106 90 354 585 1.64% JEV
  Culex gelidus 27 228 110 546 911 2.55% JEV, RRV
  Culex hutchinsoni 0 0 0 8 8 0.02%  
  Culex malayi 8 9 0 1 18 0.05%  
  Culex nigropunctatus 4 59 29 12 104 0.29%  
  Culex quinquefasciatus 1215 745 314 702 2976 8.33% ZIKAV, JEV, RVFV, WNV, RRV
  Culex sinensis 0 28 0 0 28 0.08%  
  Culex sitiens 0 5 0 0 5 0.01%  
  Culex tritaeniorhynchus 150 320 49 33 552 1.55% JEV, RVFV, WNV
  Culex vishnui.g 1708 5670 5243 5801 18422 51.57% JEV
  Culex whitmorei 0 12 0 0 12 0.03%  
  Culex sp1 24 5 4 2 35 0.10%  
  Culex sp2 2 32 21 4 59 0.17%  
  Culex sp3 0 0 0 4 4 0.01%  
  unidentified Culex 46 96 24 37 203 0.57%  
Lutzia (2)          
  Lutzia fuscana 3 5 0 60 68 0.19%  
  Lutzia halifaxii 0 1 0 0 1 0.00%  
  Lutzia vorax 0 1 0 0 1 0.00%  
  Lutzia sp 0 1 0 0 1 0.00%  
Mansonia (2)          
  Mansonia annulifera 5 45 5 0 55 0.15%  
  Mansonia uniformis 325 360 180 65 930 2.60% RVFV, WNV, RRV
  Mansonia sp 1 0 2 1 4 0.01%  
Mimomyia (3)          
  Mimoyia aurea 0 0 1 0 1 0.00%  
  Mimomyia elegans 6 5 1 5 17 0.05%  
  Mimomyia hybrida 5 9 0 0 14 0.04%  
  Mimomyia luzonensis 4 26 13 61 104 0.29%  
  Mimomyia sp 9 15 2 4 30 0.08%  
Uranotaenia (8)          
  Uranotaenia micans 0 0 1 0 1 0.00%  
  Uranotaenia nivipleura 0 0 4 2 6 0.02%  
  Uranotaenia rampae 29 11 3 1 44 0.12%  
  Uranotaenia subnormalis/latelaris 3 0 1 2 6 0.02%  
  unidentified Uranotaenia 3 3 25 8 39 0.11%  
Unidentified specimen 0 0 2 0 2 0.01%  
Total 6970 10390 8362 10003 35725    

DENV = Dengue virus, ZIKV = Zika virus, CHIKV = Chikungunya virus, JEV = Japanese Encephalitis virus, RVFV = Rift Valley Fever virus, WNV = West Nile Virus, YFV = Yellow Fever virus, RRV = Ross River virus, MAL = Plasmodium spp.

Mosquito vector species and pathogen transmission risk

Of all the 61 mosquito species collected, at least 17 species are considered as potential vectors of pathogens (Table 2): Ae. aegypti, Ae. albopictus, Ae. vexans, An. barbirostris, An. indefinitus, An. vagus, Armigeres subalbatus, Cx. bitaeniorhynchus, Cx. fuscocephala, Cx. gelidus, Cx. quinquefasciatus, Cx. sitiens, Cx. tritaeniorhynchus, Cx. vishnui, Mansonia uniformis and Tripteroides powelli. Among these species, we identified vectors of Plasmodium spp. (0.93%), dengue virus (4%), Zika virus (12%), Chikungunya virus (3%), Japanese Encephalitis virus (71%), Rift Valley Fever virus (17%), West Nile Fever virus (16%), Yellow fever virus (3%), and Ross River virus (17%). The 17 potential vector species represented 86.5% (25,206/29,155) of all the mosquitoes collected during the 4 entomological missions. The proportion was 77%, 87%, 85% and 91% in May, August, November and February, respectively (Table 2).

The generalized linear mixed model with random-school effect showed only a month effect. For all vectors and JEV vectors, there are significantly less mosquitoes in May, that represents the driest month, and the last one before the rainy season (S1 Table in S1 File). All other factors characterizing the school environment were not significant.

Only the DENV vector abundance was significantly different for all the months. There were significantly more DENV vectors in schools in November (end of the rainy season) with 29.7 vectors per school and less in February (dry season) with 5.9 (Fig 2). In May and August, respectively, the average was 18.1 and 11.3 DENV vectors per school. The interaction of the effects of months and schools for DENV vectors’ relative abundance is represented on Fig 3. The important relative abundance of DENV vectors in May is observed within all the schools, especially in Ta Prok and Soupheas schools (see Fig 1 for name schools). The more constant relative abundance of DENV along the year is observed along the Mekong River.

Fig 2. Relative abundance of Dengue virus vectors caught in 24 schools during 4 different months.

Fig 2

Average comparison of the number of mosquitoes / night / school was tested with a Kruskal-Wallis tests (ns meaning non significant with p > 0.05; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001).

Fig 3. Spatial and temporal distribution of the relative abundance of dengue virus vectors in the 24 schools in Kampong Cham and Tboung Khmum provinces, Cambodia.

Fig 3

The maps representing the distribution of all mosquitoes, all vectors, JEV vectors and Plasmodium sp. vectors highlight the significant distribution of the different vectors regarding the different schools (Fig 4). As an illustration, JEV vectors are present in important relative density in the majority of schools (with only 3 schools recording less than 100 mosquitoes with a minimum average of 67 JEV vectors per 4 days), especially important in three schools mainly in Angkor (relative density of 1,021 JEV vectors per 4 days), Koh Penh (796) and Punley (648) schools (Fig 4C).

Fig 4.

Fig 4

Spatial distribution of the relative abundance of (A) all mosquitoes, (B) vector mosquitoes, (C) JEV vectors and (D) Plasmodium sp. vectors in the 24 schools in Kampong Cham and Tboung Khmum provinces, Cambodia.

Discussion

Diversity of mosquito species

There was a large overall diversity of mosquito species caught across all schools and even reached 61 different mosquito species in one school. Based on the various specimens deposited in institutions for collections (IRD and Smithsonian), we estimated that at least 243 mosquito species are present in Cambodia. This estimate of the mosquito fauna biodiversity is important, but it may be underestimated as neighboring countries such as Thailand officially recorded 384 species [18]. Other neighboring countries such as Lao PDR and Vietnam have described recently 170 and 191 taxa, respectively [19; 20; 21], but as in Cambodia they are probably underestimating the mosquito diversity. By collecting 61 species in 24 schools during our study, representing 23% of the country’s species, we probably underestimate the number of mosquito species present in schools in Cambodia. Insofar as the majority of the species collected have been previously incriminated as vectors of pathogens of public health importance, a global inventory of the biodiversity of mosquitoes in schools should be undertaken in Cambodia and control strategies developed.

Little is known on the epidemiological importance of schools in arbovirus and other pathogen transmission. There are only few studies worldwide, describing the mosquito biodiversity in these specific places, thus making it difficult to compare with our results (i.e. number and index). For example, a study implemented in Thailand in 2012 in classrooms only showed the numbers of Ae. aegypti collected without describing the other potential vector species present. The authors described the presence of 66 adult Ae. aegypti collected in 10 schools from 50 classrooms, after the use of vacuum aspirators for 15 minutes per room [22]. The total number of mosquitoes (278) was very low compared to our methods, likely due to the methodology used, even if the proportion of Ae. aegypti (24%) is higher [22]. In Colombia, during a surveillance carried out in 34 schools, adult mosquitoes were collected twice a year during 10 minutes with electric aspirators in 191 and 188 classrooms in 2 municipalities, and 9 mosquito species were formally described including Aedes, Anopheles, Culex and other genera. [23]. However, due to the geography, climate and other factors, it seems incoherent to compare our results to those of Colombia, where 324 mosquito species from 28 genera were recently described [24].

Diversity and relative abundance of mosquito potential vector species

Children spend their time at school during the day and consequently these specific places are most likely to be considered as hot spots for transmission of vector borne-diseases. In our study, almost nine out of ten mosquitoes could be considered as a potential vector and confirms the interest of carrying out surveillance or even vector control in and around schools in highly endemic diseases areas. It should also be noted that 17 species present in the 24 schools can be considered as a potential vectors.

The presence of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus in the 24 schools and during the 4 collection sessions implemented throughout the year illustrates the role that these species could play in the maintenance and transmission of viruses such as dengue in schools in general. In Thailand, Ae. aegypti was also collected in all rural, semi-rural and semi-urban schools [22]. Moreover, in the studies carried out in Thailand and Colombia, in both cases the majority of Ae. aegypti females were collected in the classrooms, as in our study, and many mosquitoes were positive for the dengue by PCR detection confirming their possible role [23; 22]. Moreover, these mosquitoes are known for their diurnal biting activity, increasing the chance to play a key role in schools for the transmission or maintenance of dengue fever in endemic areas.

A large majority of JEV vectors was observed with the notable presence of Cx. vishnui, Cx. quinquefasciatus, Cx. gelidus and also of considered secondary vectors such as Cx. fuscocephala, Cx. tritaeniorhynchus and Cx. bitaeniorhynchus. The proportion of these vectors (70%) in schools is comparable to the relative density found in a study of mosquito dynamics in rural and peri-urban areas in Cambodia (Boyer Pers. Com.). The presence of large numbers of these vectors in classrooms could also explain the high endemicity of Japanese encephalitis in Cambodia [8]. The large number of JEV vector species caught in classrooms suggests an anthropophagic behavior, and yet the main vectors of JEV are often considered to be highly zoophilic, accidentally biting humans [25, 26; 27; 28]. With their presence within the classrooms, the consideration of these species as opportunistic [28] seems more appropriate in Cambodia. However, contrary to Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus, Culex spp. biting time is described as being nocturnal, which may minimize the importance of these potential mosquitoes in the transmission.

Also considered as night biting mosquitoes, 6 secondary vector species of Plasmodium spp. were described in 20 of the 24 schools, namely An. barbirostris, An. barbumbrosus, An. campestris, An. philippinensis, An. sinensis and An. vagus. Considering the total number of these mosquitoes (325 mosquitoes representing only 0.91%), their role as only secondary vectors, the fact that malaria transmission occurs in the forest in Cambodia [29], the risk of malaria transmission is considered very low. Nevertheless, it is important to describe their presence in schools for any future evolution or dynamic of Plasmodium transmission.

Conclusion

The important biodiversity of mosquitoes discovered in schools in Cambodia is relevant and can represent a research axis, especially on the association between the different surrounding ecotypes (forest, culture, rice fields and urbanity) and the presence of specific mosquito species or vectors. Spatio-temporal analysis to study landscapes and weather effects should be considered to understand the distribution and abundance of different species in schools.

Such diversity was unexpected and inevitably leads to a diversity of potential vectors. The diversity of vectors, their dynamics, relative abundance, and distribution must be analyzed with mosquito behavioral studies to estimate the risk of transmission by evaluating the vector–schoolchildren/teachers contact. To be exhaustive, a screening of pathogens carried by mosquitoes in schools should be implemented. The importance of JEV and DENV vectors in schools is in accordance with the main diseases circulating in Cambodia and affecting children. These findings are of particular importance and will help to recommend appropriate vector control strategies and program activities regarding specific locations such as schools and their environmental settings. Moreover, the description of the important presence of vectors in schools is an important step prior to vector control and for testing the implementation of new control methods adapted to schools.

Supporting information

S1 Data. List of mosquito species caught in the different schools.

(XLSX)

S1 File. Results of Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) using Template Model Builder (TMB) using Family Poisson with ‘school’ as a random effect reflecting the random choice of the schools on all mosquitoes, all vector mosquitoes, Japanese encephalitis virus vectors, Dengue virus vectors and Plasmodium spp. Vectors.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors really want to thank the technicians that did the sampling in the field, Suor Kimhuor, Chhum Moeun, Chhuoy Kalyan and the different field authorities including all the Directors and Teachers of the 24 primary schools. The authors also would like to thank Sylvaine Jego for statistical advices, Vincent Herbreteau for the help for mapping, and Richard Paul for correcting the manuscript.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

The study was supported by ECOMORE 2 project, coordinated by Institut Pasteur and financially supported by AFD (Agence Française pour le Développement). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Bhatt S, Weiss DJ, Cameron E, Bisanzio D, Mappin B, Dalrymple U, et al. The effect of malaria control on Plasmodium falciparum in Africa between 2000 and 2015. Nature. 2015. 526(7572):207 10.1038/nature15535 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.World Health Organization. World malaria report 2018. World Health Organization; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Morens DM, Folkers GK, Fauci AS. The challenge of emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases. Nature. 2004. 430(6996):242 10.1038/nature02759 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Suaya JA, Shepard DS, Chang MS, Caram M, Hoyer S, Socheat D, et al. Cost‐effectiveness of annual targeted larviciding campaigns in Cambodia against the dengue vector Aedes aegypti. Trop Med Int Health. 2007. 12(9):1026–36. 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2007.01889.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Vong S, Khieu V, Glass O, Ly S, Duong V, Huy R, et al. Dengue incidence in urban and rural Cambodia: results from population-based active fever surveillance, 2006–2008. PLoS Neg Trop Dis. 2010. 4(11):e903. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Huy R, Buchy P, Conan A, Ngan C, Ong S, Ali R, et al. National dengue surveillance in Cambodia 1980–2008: epidemiological and virological trends and the impact of vector control. Bull World Health Organ. 2010. 88:650–7. 10.2471/BLT.09.073908 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Arima Y, Matsui T. Epidemiologic update of dengue in the Western Pacific Region, 2010. Western Pac Surveill Response J. 2011. 2(2):4 10.5365/WPSAR.2011.2.2.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Touch S, Hills S, Sokhal B, Samnang C, Sovann L, Khieu V, et al. Epidemiology and burden of disease from Japanese encephalitis in Cambodia: results from two years of sentinel surveillance. Trop Med Int Health. 2009. 14(11):1365–73. 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2009.02380.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Turner P, Suy K, Sar P, Miliya T, Hong NTT, Hang VTT, et al. The aetiologies of central nervous system infections in hospitalised Cambodian children. BMC Infect Dis. 2017. 17(1):806 10.1186/s12879-017-2915-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.World Health Organization. World dengue report 2018. World Health Organization; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Levin ML. Medical entomology for students. Emerg Infect Dis. 2014. 20(8):1428. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Laurent BS, Oy K, Miller B, Gasteiger EB, Lee E, Sovannaroth S, et al. Cow-baited tents are highly effective in sampling diverse Anopheles malaria vectors in Cambodia. Malar J. 2016. 15(1):440 10.1186/s12936-016-1488-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Boyer S, Lopes S, Prasetyo D, Hustedt J, Sarady AS, Doum D, et al. Resistance of Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) Populations to Deltamethrin, Permethrin, and Temephos in Cambodia. Asia Pac J Public Health. 2018. 30(2):158–66. 10.1177/1010539517753876 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Vantaux A, Samreth R, Piv E, Khim N, Kim S, Berne L, et al. Contribution to malaria transmission of symptomatic and asymptomatic parasite carriers in Cambodia. Journal Infect Dis, 2018. 217(10):1561–68. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Roiz D, Roussel M, Muñoz J, Ruiz S, Soriguer R, Figuerola J. Efficacy of mosquito traps for collecting potential West Nile mosquito vectors in a natural Mediterranean wetland. Am J Trop Med Hyg, 2012. 86(4):642–48. 10.4269/ajtmh.2012.11-0326 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Rattanarithikul R, Harrison BA, Panthusiri P, Coleman RE. Illustrated keys to the mosquitoes of Thailand I. Background; geographic distribution; lists of genera, subgenera, and species; and a key to the genera. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2005. 36(S1):1–80. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Stojanovich CJ, Scott HG, Communicable Disease Center, United States Army Special Epidemiologic Team. Illustrated Key to Mosquitoes of Vietnam. Atlanta Ga: US Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Communicable Disease Center, editors. 1965 [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Tsukamoto M, Miyagi I, Toma T, Sucharit S, Tumrasvin W, Khamboonruang C, et al. The mosquito fauna of Thailand (Diptera: Culicidae): An annotated checklist. Jpn J Trop Med Hyg. 1987. 15(4):291–326. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Rueda LM, Vongphayloth K, Pecor JE, Sutherland IW, Hii J, Debboun M, et al. Mosquito fauna of Lao People’s Democratic Republic, with special emphasis on the adult and larval surveillance at Nakai district, Khammuane province. US Army Med Dep J. 2015. Jul-Sep:25–32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Motoki MT, Vongphayloth K, Rueda LM, Miot EF, Hiscox A, Hertz JC, et al. (2019). New records and updated checklist of mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) from Lao People's Democratic Republic, with special emphasis on adult and larval surveillance in Khammuane Province. J Vector Ecol. 2019. 44(1):76–88. 10.1111/jvec.12331 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Bui P, Darsie RF Jr. Tentative checklist of the mosquitoes of Vietnam employing new classification for tribe Aedini (Diptera, Culicidae). J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2008. 24(2):187–93. 10.2987/5665.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ratanawong P, Kittayapong P, Olanratmanee P, Wilder-Smith A, Byass P, Tozan Y, et al. Spatial variations in dengue transmission in schools in Thailand. PloS One. 2016. 11(9):e0161895 10.1371/journal.pone.0161895 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Olano VA, Matiz MI, Lenhart A, Cabezas L, Vargas SL, Jaramillo JF, et al. Schools as potential risk sites for vector-borne disease transmission: Mosquito vectors in rural schools in two municipalities in Colombia. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2015. 31(3):212–22. 10.2987/moco-31-03-212-222.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Rozo-Lopez P, Mengual X. Updated list of the mosquitoes of Colombia (Diptera: Culicidae). 2015. Biodivers Data J. 3:e4567. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Hurlbut HS. The pig-mosquito cycle of Japanese encephalitis virus in Taiwan. J Med Entomol. 1964. 1(3):301–307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Mitchell CJ, Chen PS, Boreham PFL. Host-feeding patterns and behaviour of 4 Culex species in an endemic area of Japanese encephalitis. Bull World Health Organ. 1973. 49(3):293 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Mwandawiro C, Boots M, Tuno N, Suwonkerd W, Tsuda Y, Takagi M. Heterogeneity in the host preference of Japanese encephalitis vectors in Chiang Mai, northern Thailand. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2000. 94(3):238–42. 10.1016/s0035-9203(00)90303-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Reuben R, Thenmozhi V, Samuel PP, Gajanana A, Mani TR (1992). Mosquito blood feeding patterns as a factor in the epidemiology of Japanese encephalitis in southern India. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1992. 46(6):654–63. 10.4269/ajtmh.1992.46.654 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Delacollette C, Souza CD, Christophel E, Thimasarn K, Abdur R, Bell D, et al. Malaria trends and challenges in the Greater Mekong subregion. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2009. 40(4):674–91. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Olle Terenius

18 Sep 2019

PONE-D-19-20103

High diversity of mosquito vectors in Cambodian primary schools and consequences for arboviruses transmission

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Boyer,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Note that both reviewers have concern about the English and therefore I request that you consult either a native speaker or a proofreading company before re-submission.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Nov 02 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable 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. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled '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.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Olle Terenius

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

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

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

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why

3. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a) You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b) If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

4. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: REVIEW COMMENTS MANUSCRIPT NUMBER PONE-D-19-20103; High Diversity of Mosquito vectors in Cambodia primary schools and consequences for arbovirus transmission

Overall general comments

• The research sets out to evaluate the vector abundance and diversity in primary schools in part of Cambodia in an attempt to explain the apparent burden of dengue fever, severe dengue (DEN), Japanese encephalitis (JE), other arboviruses and parasites like malaria among children, 15 years and below attending selected primary schools through vector surveys.

• In the introduction the study is well justified and rationalized. The data collection tools though not exhaustive (lacking in the survey of school environment for breeding sites) were appropriate and the data generated was adequate to address the set objective.

• On the analysis of data, emphasis has been placed on expressing the diversity indices. The initial objective of explaining the burden of dengue and other arboviruses using the vector data in the diverse schools was clouded by the overemphasis on diversity indices. Additionally, interpretation of the diversity indices to explain the specific disease burden was not clearly brought (how will these indices inform decision towards reducing disease burden?). However, abundance of specific species to explain transmission of the target diseases, DEN, JE and malaria has been articulated

• Key data sets mentioned in the manuscript (table 2) could not be found in the submitted manuscript hence the data referred to could not be verified to confirm the claims.

• There is mention of an attempt to relate school characteristics (supposedly, the physical structures of the schools) to vector data but the table (table 1) referred to, which describes the characteristics could not be found in the manuscript. In addition, the data analysis presented in the results made no reference to the said school characteristics and weather there was any correlation to the vector data abundance or diversity.

Based on the above important major observation, the authors need to work further on the manuscript to improve on the listed issues and gaps before it can be considered further.

Specific comments Major

Abstract

• The abstract is too thin on specific information that would be needed to get the real picture of what was found in terms of the specific target diseases. The information has been overgeneralized.

• The conclusion missed the key point of how the data explains burden of the target diseases and what can be done about it. There was focus on biodiversity as a conclusion.

Introduction

• The introduction has relevant information that pertains to the subject of investigation but its presentation is marred by numerous grammatical mistakes. It is suggests that if the authors are not usual English writers, they may need to identify someone to edit the manuscript for grammar.

• Apart from Dengue, there is little information on the other arbovirus diseases like CHIK and JE and how they impacts on the population under 15. How is the incidence of DEN, CHIK and JE in the general population that suggests that children are disproportionately affected to rationalize focus on this age group.

Methods

• How were the school characteristics classified and how were these used to define vector distribution and /or abundance?

• How were the mosquitoes handled after trapping before identification? Were they identified in the field or in the lab? How were they transported? The methodology is very scanty with information.

• Where were the CDC traps located within the school?

Results

• As you discuss your data, explain how diversity indices measured (simpson and Shannon) influence the risk of dengue, JE or malaria transmission which seemed to have informed the selection of schools as implementation sites, arising from the burden of DEN and JE among children 15ys and below.

• The tables detailing the data described.in the results is not accessible.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript entitled “High diversity of mosquito vectors in Cambodian primary schools and consequences for arboviruses transmission” determined the mosquito diversity and abundance in 24 schools from two different provinces in Cambodia during the dry and rainy seasons in 2017-2018. The authors evaluated the mosquito diversity using light traps and BG traps Shannon and Simpson indexes. In the abstract, 61 species were described in schools, including Aedes, Anopheles and Culex genus. The manuscript proposal is interesting and promising to Cambodia authorities, especially because the authors mention that there are few data available on mosquito diversity in the country. However, the present manuscript needs to be thoroughly rewritten and more details should be given regarding experimental design, data analysis, results (e.g., Tables 1 and 2 are not present in the manuscript version that was sent to me), among others.

The authors should be more didactic in the analysis section: what were the independent variables? The authors mention that they analyze the data using a “The influences of parameters on Shannon and Simpson indexes were first determined by a general linear model with a stepwise method (lines 99-100)”. What was the model? Was it a GLM? What probability distribution was used? What are the “parameters” that authors mention? Why did they use two models to analyze the same data? How the authors managed to overcome pseudoreplication problems that are common with this kind of study? This section is confusing and is not clear. The authors should rethink their analysis strategy and probably update their results. The results are also very confusing as the authors use absolute abundance, relative abundance, the diversity indexes for the schools and seasons interchangeably and do not give depth to their analysis. They should focus on their results separating by sections. The results could be more explored, and they are not suitable for PloS One such as they are presented. I suggest the authors to explore a spatial approach in their data so that they have more interesting material. The discussion and conclusion sections are very interesting but should be updated after a new batch of analysis are done. Also, there are lots English mistakes and typos that need revision.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

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

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

PLoS One. 2020 Jun 5;15(6):e0233669. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233669.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


3 Dec 2019

PLOS ONE. ONE-D-19-20103 : High diversity of mosquito vectors in Cambodian primary schools and consequences for arbovirus transmission

ANSWERS TO EDITORIAL COMMENTS AND REVIEWERS

ANSWER TO EDITORIAL COMMENTS

1. Journal requirements

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

We changed the formatting of the main body and of the authors’ affiliation.

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why

LINES 79-84:

You can now find the following sentences: “The National Ethics Committee for Health Research of the Ministry of Health of the Kingdom of Cambodia approved the field site access and the permit N° 113NECHR was obtained on 02 May 2017. The study was also fully supported by the National Center for Parasitology, Entomology and Malaria Control, Ministry of Health (Official mail N° 348/17 dated from 28 April 2017), and by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport (Official mail N° 2592 dated from 27 April 2017).”

3. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a) You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b) If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

The figure 1 is a homemade map with no copyright. This map was never copyrighted until now and was never publish. We did not use any satellite image or copyrighted background. We did ourselves this vectorial map by using a public administrative contour map. And we recorded school location by using a GPS.

4. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files.

Tables 1 & 2 were incorporated in the main manuscript in the Results part.

We also add a Table 3 directly in the manuscript

ANSWER TO REVIEWERS’ COMMENTS

For the overall general comments, Reviewer 1 emphases our introduction and Reviewer 2 the discussion and conclusion, recommending to focus on Public Health areas. It seems that the biodiversity indices that we wanted to introduce through this article, bring too much perturbation to this article. We removed these common indices of biodiversity, but still talking about the unexpected biodiversity of mosquito species we found inside class rooms. Overall we add 3 tables in the text, we removed 4 figures and replaced them by 3 other.

Reviewer #1:

Overall general comments

• The research sets out to evaluate the vector abundance and diversity in primary schools in part of Cambodia in an attempt to explain the apparent burden of dengue fever, severe dengue (DEN), Japanese encephalitis (JE), other arboviruses and parasites like malaria among children, 15 years and below attending selected primary schools through vector surveys.

• In the introduction the study is well justified and rationalized. The data collection tools though not exhaustive (lacking in the survey of school environment for breeding sites) were appropriate and the data generated was adequate to address the set objective.

• On the analysis of data, emphasis has been placed on expressing the diversity indices. The initial objective of explaining the burden of dengue and other arboviruses using the vector data in the diverse schools was clouded by the overemphasis on diversity indices. Additionally, interpretation of the diversity indices to explain the specific disease burden was not clearly brought (how will these indices inform decision towards reducing disease burden?).

We deleted the results parts and the figures and maps related to the diversity indices that are not related to the different diseases and induced more confusion. But, we keep a result and discussion part on the diversity, even if we decrease the importance of this part, in order to illustrate also the huge diversity of mosquito species in the schools.

I am totally agree that there is no relationship between the diversity of all mosquito species and the different diseases.

However, abundance of specific species to explain transmission of the target diseases, DEN, JE and malaria has been articulated.

• Key data sets mentioned in the manuscript (table 2) could not be found in the submitted manuscript hence the data referred to could not be verified to confirm the claims.

We are truly sorry with this major problem. AS usual, we add the tables as Excel files. But, in PLOS ONE, they ask to add the tables inside the text. It seems that the editors didn’t check it and send you the file without the tables. We feel terribly sorry for the reviewers, and also a little disappointed against the editors work.

• There is mention of an attempt to relate school characteristics (supposedly, the physical structures of the schools) to vector data but the table (table 1) referred to, which describes the characteristics could not be found in the manuscript. In addition, the data analysis presented in the results made no reference to the said school characteristics and weather there was any correlation to the vector data abundance or diversity.

These analysis were not made yet. The characterization of the landscape is very difficult and takes time. Regarding the objective characteristics obtained in the schools, such as the characteristics of the school, we wrote lines 108-117 “The association of the different parameters characterizing the schools and the period of collection, i.e. month, school, urbanization, district, province, presence of pagoda, school area, the number of classroom and children in the school and the relative densities of mosquito populations (i.e. all mosquitoes, all vector mosquitoes, Japanese encephalitis virus vectors, Dengue virus vectors, malaria plasmodium vectors) in the considered schools, were tested by a stepwise algorithm model, with backward elimination of non-significant parameters until a final minimum adequate model containing only significantly associated variables, in order to determine the main significant factors with the confirmation of residuals following the normality. A deeper characterization of month and school effects and their comparisons was carried out by using a Kruskal-Wallis test”.

Based on the above important major observation, the authors need to work further on the manuscript to improve on the listed issues and gaps before it can be considered further.

As you recommended, we reoriented the manuscript in regards of the observations you highlighted. Particularly, we focused more on the vector species, and we developed the conclusion on the possible ways of research.

Specific comments Major

Abstract

• The abstract is too thin on specific information that would be needed to get the real picture of what was found in terms of the specific target diseases. The information has been overgeneralized.

In the abstract we add few sentences. A first sentence related to the main picture: “The research sets out to evaluate the vector relative abundance and diversity in primary schools in part of Cambodia in an attempt to explain the apparent burden of dengue fever, severe dengue (DEN), Japanese encephalitis (JE), other arboviruses and parasites like malaria among children, 15 years and below attending selected primary schools through vector surveys.”.

And we also add one sentence on the main results in terms of Public Health problematic: “Our results showed that schools in Cambodia represent a potential risk of vector born disease transmission and highlight the importance to implement vector control in schools in Cambodia to decrease the risk of transmission.”

• The conclusion missed the key point of how the data explains burden of the target diseases and what can be done about it. There was focus on biodiversity as a conclusion.

In the conclusion as at the end of the abstracts, we focused now mainly on the importance of implementing new methods for vector controls.

Introduction

• The introduction has relevant information that pertains to the subject of investigation but its presentation is marred by numerous grammatical mistakes. It is suggests that if the authors are not usual English writers, they may need to identify someone to edit the manuscript for grammar.

The article was read again by a French native speaker that lived in U.S., and then, the article was read by an entomologist, Dr. Richard Paul, who is a English native speaker.

• Apart from Dengue, there is little information on the other arbovirus diseases like CHIK and JE and how they impacts on the population under 15. How is the incidence of DEN, CHIK and JE in the general population that suggests that children are disproportionately affected to rationalize focus on this age group.

We choose to let these information in the Discussion part. But we had a sentence regarding the incidence of Dengue in children in Cambodia. About Japanese encephalitis, there is no data in Cambodia on the incidence of JEV in the population, incidence of JEV in children, neither a repartition of percentage children/total population. The only recent study is on the causes of acute meningoencephalitis in children population (with 24.4% of JEV). But there is no global data to add in the introduction.

Methods

• How were the school characteristics classified and how were these used to define vector distribution and /or abundance?

The school characteristics are group in Table 1. You did not have this Table 1 in the previous version of the manuscript. I am sorry for that. Now, you can have access to these data. They were tested but none of them was influencing the data. There is another huge work to do for each species related to each factors, including temperature and spatial effect, but this is another huge analysis work that we need to begin.

• How were the mosquitoes handled after trapping before identification? Were they identified in the field or in the lab? How were they transported? The methodology is very scanty with information.

LINES 95-105, we specified and detailed more our field protocol:

“Traps were set up during 24 hours inside classrooms with 1 trap per classroom. Following the traditional Cambodian construction, all classes of all schools have openings in the tops of each wall to let the air circulates and reduce the high temperatures occurring during the daytime, allowing the free circulation of mosquitoes. Depending on the size of the schools and the number of classrooms, three (or less) BG traps and three (or less) CDC light traps were used with a limit of a total of six traps per school (Table 1). After each collection, mosquitoes were conserved in an electric icebox at +4°C and first identified in the field the same day. Then, samples were brought back to the laboratory, still at +4°C, in Phnom Penh for a second identification. In the field and in the laboratory, mosquitoes were identified under stereomicroscope and microscope using morphological mosquito identification keys from Southeast Asia countries (Rattanarithikul et al. 2005; Stojanovich, and Scott 1966).”

• Where were the CDC traps located within the school?

As writing in the previous sentence: “inside the classrooms”. But we also precised why : “raps were set up during 24 hours inside classrooms with 1 trap per classroom. Following the traditional Cambodian construction, all classes of all schools have openings in the tops of each wall to let the air circulates and reduce the high temperatures occurring during the daytime, allowing the free circulation of mosquitoes.” (LINES 95-99)

Results

• As you discuss your data, explain how diversity indices measured (simpson and Shannon) influence the risk of dengue, JE or malaria transmission which seemed to have informed the selection of schools as implementation sites, arising from the burden of DEN and JE among children 15ys and below.

• The tables detailing the data described.in the results is not accessible.

The diversity (as far as I know) did not influence the risks of dengue, Japanese encephalitis and so on. It doesn’t mean it didn’t, but I don’t think so, and it was never prove. As I wrote before, regarding the comments of the reviewers, we removed the parts on the biodiversity indices to focus on the vector species.

And again, I really want to apologize for the absence of the table within the manuscript.

Reviewer #2:

The manuscript entitled “High diversity of mosquito vectors in Cambodian primary schools and consequences for arboviruses transmission” determined the mosquito diversity and abundance in 24 schools from two different provinces in Cambodia during the dry and rainy seasons in 2017-2018. The authors evaluated the mosquito diversity using light traps and BG traps Shannon and Simpson indexes. In the abstract, 61 species were described in schools, including Aedes, Anopheles and Culex genus. The manuscript proposal is interesting and promising to Cambodia authorities, especially because the authors mention that there are few data available on mosquito diversity in the country. However, the present manuscript needs to be thoroughly rewritten and more details should be given regarding experimental design, data analysis, results (e.g., Tables 1 and 2 are not present in the manuscript version that was sent to me), among others.

Following the recommendations, Tables 1, 2 & 3 are now included within the body text of the article. As for the reviewer #1, I really want to apologize for the absence of the 2 previous tables. Generally, the tables are add in Excel files, but PLOS asked to put into the text. Deeply sorry for that inconvenient.

Following recommendations, some details were added in Material and Methods sections for experimental design, data analysis and also in the results part, as detailed before and below.

The authors should be more didactic in the analysis section: what were the independent variables? The authors mention that they analyze the data using a “The influences of parameters on Shannon and Simpson indexes were first determined by a general linear model with a stepwise method (lines 99-100)”. What was the model? Was it a GLM?

Yes. It was written ‘general linear model’ meaning GLM.

What probability distribution was used? We used the What are the “parameters” that authors mention? Why did they use two models to analyze the same data? How the authors managed to overcome pseudoreplication problems that are common with this kind of study? This section is confusing and is not clear. The authors should rethink their analysis strategy and probably update their results.

The section statistical analysis was totally rewritten. You can no find lines 119-126:

“The influences of the different parameters characterizing the schools and the period of capture, i.e. month, school, urbanization, district, province, presence of pagoda, school area, the number of classroom and children in the school, the population in the considered village, were tested by first a general linear model (glm) with the confirmation of residuals following the normality, (2) then by a stepwise algorithm model to determine the main significant factors. None were significant except the month and school effects. A deeper characterization of month and school effects and their comparisons were realized by using a Kruskal-Wallis test.”

A Table 3 was added in the Result section to update the results, and discussed them.

The results are also very confusing as the authors use absolute abundance, relative abundance, the diversity indexes for the schools and seasons interchangeably and do not give depth to their analysis. They should focus on their results separating by sections. The results could be more explored, and they are not suitable for PloS One such as they are presented. I suggest the authors to explore a spatial approach in their data so that they have more interesting material. The discussion and conclusion sections are very interesting but should be updated after a new batch of analysis are done. Also, there are lots English mistakes and typos that need revision.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS ONE Reviews.docx

Decision Letter 1

Olle Terenius

17 Mar 2020

PONE-D-19-20103R1

High diversity of mosquito vectors in Cambodian primary schools and consequences for arboviruses transmission

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Boyer,

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

Please respond to the reviewers' comments. Additional experiments are not needed, but adjustment of the modelling can be warranted.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by May 01 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable 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. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled '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.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Olle Terenius

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

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

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

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

Reviewer #4: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #3: Authors have collected mosquitoes in school and have observed high diversity. Some of mosquitoes collected are known to be vectors. However, authors don't report any evidence of presence of parasite or virus in mosquitoes collected but have largely discussed the transmission risk in schools. Since it is possible (not too difficult) to detect parasites (e.g. Plasmodium spp) and virus (e.g. DENV and other) in mosquitoes, I strongly suggest to authors to pool mosquitoes collected per species per school in order to search parasites and virus in these mosquitoes. Then, authors would be more consistent with there conclusion.

Reviewer #4: Overall, this manuscript is very important in providing the mosquito diversity in the country especially because authors mention that there are few data available on mosquito diversity in the country. In understanding that it might be referenced a lot in the future once published - it is important to make sure the manuscript is well written, the data analysis is appropriately and well performed, and the recommendations for vector control options are very clearer.

Anyway, authors have attempted to the large extent to address reviewers' comments. However, more work still need to be done, especially on the data analysis and recommendations of what needs and can be done.

Given that there are so many random effects – I would have expected the analysis to be done using a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) which takes into account random effects in addition to the usual fixed effects rather than using GLM. The statistician should check the analysis and the numbers presented. It might be the case that the characterization of the landscape is very difficult and takes time but incorporation of seasonality shouldn't take time.

This manuscript could have been strong if the study also looked at the breeding sites in school surroundings and its correlations with mosquitoes caught in the classroom.

Authors should provide a clear recommendations of the vector control options and their justification. The options should be discussed in the discussion section stating why they are expected to work, how they will be implemented? etc? Especially in such a setting (i.e., classroom - school environment)

**********

7. 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 #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

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

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

PLoS One. 2020 Jun 5;15(6):e0233669. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233669.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


20 Apr 2020

PLOS ONE. ONE-D-19-20103 R1: High diversity of mosquito vectors in Cambodian primary schools and consequences for arbovirus transmission

ANSWERS TO REVIEWERS

Reviewer #3

Authors have collected mosquitoes in school and have observed high diversity. Some of mosquitoes collected are known to be vectors. However, authors don't report any evidence of presence of parasite or virus in mosquitoes collected but have largely discussed the transmission risk in schools. Since it is possible (not too difficult) to detect parasites (e.g. Plasmodium spp) and virus (e.g. DENV and other) in mosquitoes, I strongly suggest to authors to pool mosquitoes collected per species per school in order to search parasites and virus in these mosquitoes. Then, authors would be more consistent with their conclusion.

We agree with the reviewer comments about virus/parasites detection in the mosquitoes collected. This is mainly a financial issue. We hope to have more projects in the future to be able to detect what is really circulating. Even if the entomological surveillance is difficult, with an estimation of less than 1 positive mosquito on 1,000 mosquitoes estimated, even during outbreak (few examples exist: Rift Valley fever in Madagascar, Zika in French Guyana…).

One sentence was added in the conclusion line 265: “To be exhaustive, a screening of pathogens carried by mosquitoes in schools should be implemented”.

Reviewer #4

Overall, this manuscript is very important in providing the mosquito diversity in the country especially because authors mention that there are few data available on mosquito diversity in the country. In understanding that it might be referenced a lot in the future once published - it is important to make sure the manuscript is well written, the data analysis is appropriately and well performed, and the recommendations for vector control options are very clearer.

Anyway, authors have attempted to the large extent to address reviewers' comments. However, more work still need to be done, especially on the data analysis and recommendations of what needs and can be done.

Given that there are so many random effects – I would have expected the analysis to be done using a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) which takes into account random effects in addition to the usual fixed effects rather than using GLM. The statistician should check the analysis and the numbers presented. It might be the case that the characterization of the landscape is very difficult and takes time but incorporation of seasonality shouldn't take time.

Thank you for this remark. The reviewer was right: We indeed go back to the data by using glmm (function glmmTMB) in R, and observe significant effects, even if slight when looking at the data.

In fact, we have randomly selected our schools at the beginning, without taking into account the representativeness of all the schools in the region studied according to different parameters (number of students, pop dependent on this school, primary / college, urban / rural,% patients with the virus in the study area (or 5 km away, etc.). This is why we considered that the school is random. In fact, by putting the school in random effect, the GLMM calculated a regression for each school and the coefficients estimated for the other variables without the school bias.

At the end of the analysis, we repeat a shapiro.test on the residues, and we found a better result with residuals closer to normal. We also test the overdistention (surdispersion) of data and corrected it.

To summary, we finally did a glm analysis by taking schools as random effect.

The other random effect could have be the month of capture because, for organizational reasons, we did samplings every 3 months. So we also tested the month as a random factor. But there was no difference in the quality of the model (almost the same AIC) and we chose to include the month in the variables to be able to study its effect.

For the other point, as the observational study is on only one year, we are not able to study the seasonality as there is no replicates in time. We hope to be able to work on a several years’ observation database.

We precised in the text (Material and Method part, Statistical Analysis section) which analysis we did. We changed all this part. Regarding the results, we added the statistical effect in the text. Moreover we add a Supplementary file for the results of the analysis.

This manuscript could have been strong if the study also looked at the breeding sites in school surroundings and its correlations with mosquitoes caught in the classroom.

We also agree with that. We observed few breeding sites (in toilets schools, and few plastic garbage) for looking more specifically at Dengue vectors, but we did not do a complete characterization of all breeding sites in 24 schools (logistic and financial reasons). Also, this would have been another full study.

Authors should provide a clear recommendations of the vector control options and their justification. The options should be discussed in the discussion section stating why they are expected to work, how they will be implemented? etc? Especially in such a setting (i.e., classroom - school environment)

We remained global regarding recommendations for vector control because we did not study or characterize the insecticide resistance of the most dominant species, furthermore, we did not study their biology including the breeding sites as mentioned earlier.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS ONE ReviewsSM.docx

Decision Letter 2

Olle Terenius

12 May 2020

High diversity of mosquito vectors in Cambodian primary schools and consequences for arboviruses transmission

PONE-D-19-20103R2

Dear Dr. Boyer,

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

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

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

With kind regards,

Olle Terenius

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

Reviewer #4: I Don't Know

**********

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

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #3: The main comment of my review was relative to the detection of parasites in mosquitoes collected. Authors declared that they are agree with my comment and have added a sentence in the conclusion.

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

7. 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 #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Acceptance letter

Olle Terenius

20 May 2020

PONE-D-19-20103R2

High diversity of mosquito vectors in Cambodian primary schools and consequences for arbovirus transmission

Dear Dr. Boyer:

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

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

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Olle Terenius

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data. List of mosquito species caught in the different schools.

    (XLSX)

    S1 File. Results of Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) using Template Model Builder (TMB) using Family Poisson with ‘school’ as a random effect reflecting the random choice of the schools on all mosquitoes, all vector mosquitoes, Japanese encephalitis virus vectors, Dengue virus vectors and Plasmodium spp. Vectors.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLOS ONE Reviews.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLOS ONE ReviewsSM.docx

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES