Skip to main content
PLOS Biology logoLink to PLOS Biology
. 2022 Oct 26;20(10):e3001864. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001864

Enhanced mosquito vectorial capacity underlies the Cape Verde Zika epidemic

Noah H Rose 1,2,*,#, Stéphanie Dabo 3,#, Silvânia da Veiga Leal 4, Massamba Sylla 5, Cheikh T Diagne 6, Oumar Faye 6, Ousmane Faye 6, Amadou A Sall 6, Carolyn S McBride 1,2, Louis Lambrechts 3,*
Editor: Nora J Besansky7
PMCID: PMC9604947  PMID: 36288328

Abstract

The explosive emergence of Zika virus (ZIKV) across the Pacific and Americas since 2007 was associated with hundreds of thousands of human cases and severe outcomes, including congenital microcephaly caused by ZIKV infection during pregnancy. Although ZIKV was first isolated in Uganda, Africa has so far been exempt from large-scale ZIKV epidemics, despite widespread susceptibility among African human populations. A possible explanation for this pattern is natural variation among populations of the primary vector of ZIKV, the mosquito Aedes aegypti. Globally invasive populations of Ae. aegypti outside of Africa are considered effective ZIKV vectors because they are human specialists with high intrinsic ZIKV susceptibility, whereas African populations of Ae. aegypti across the species’ native range are predominantly generalists with low intrinsic ZIKV susceptibility, making them less likely to spread viruses in the human population. We test this idea by studying a notable exception to the patterns observed across most of Africa: Cape Verde experienced a large ZIKV outbreak in 2015 to 2016. We find that local Ae. aegypti in Cape Verde have substantial human-specialist ancestry, show a robust behavioral preference for human hosts, and exhibit increased susceptibility to ZIKV infection, consistent with a key role for variation among mosquito populations in ZIKV epidemiology. These findings suggest that similar human-specialist populations of Ae. aegypti in the nearby Sahel region of West Africa, which may be expanding in response to rapid urbanization, could serve as effective vectors for ZIKV in the future.


During 2015-2016, Cape Verde experienced the only documented large-scale Zika virus outbreak in Africa. This study provides an explanation for this puzzling exception by showing that Aedes aegypti mosquitoes in Cape Verde display atypical features, with substantial human-specialist ancestry, robust preference for humans, and enhanced Zika virus susceptibility.


Mosquito-borne arboviruses represent a major and growing threat to public health, causing sickness in over 100 million people every year [1]. Aedes aegypti is the primary vector of the viruses that cause dengue, chikungunya, Zika, and yellow fever across the global tropics, where it has aggressively invaded urban habitats over the last several hundred years [2,3]. The overall ability of mosquitoes to spread arboviruses is well described by the concept of vectorial capacity, which mathematically codifies the key entomological parameters driving transmission [4]. However, burdens of arboviral disease vary considerably across Ae. aegypti’s range, and the factors that lead to differences in the emergence and spread of arboviruses at both local and global scales are incompletely understood [57].

The explosive emergence of Zika virus (ZIKV) in the last 15 years represents an ideal example of the wide variation observed in arbovirus epidemiological dynamics across the global tropics [8]. ZIKV was first isolated from a sentinel monkey in the Zika forest, Uganda, in 1947 [9]. Retrospective serological surveys detected ZIKV circulation in the human population in Mali in the late 1990s [10] and in Gabon in 2007 [11], but no major disease outbreak was reported. The first recorded human epidemic of ZIKV occurred in Yap, Micronesia, in 2007, where Aedes hensilli is thought to have been the main vector [12]. In the following decade, ZIKV rapidly spread across the Pacific to the Americas, where it caused major epidemics vectored by Ae. aegypti, with a particularly severe outbreak in Brazil that culminated in 2016 [8]. These epidemics were associated in many cases with severe clinical outcomes, including Guillain–Barré syndrome and microcephaly in infants caused by ZIKV infection during pregnancy [13]. Across this same period, there has been no corresponding major ZIKV outbreak across Africa [8], despite presumably numerous virus introductions from the ongoing epidemic in the Americas. For example, introduction of ZIKV from Brazil resulted in autochthonous transmission and 4 confirmed cases in Angola in 2016 to 2017 [14,15]. A notable exception to this pattern occurred in Cape Verde, which experienced the first documented Zika epidemic in Africa during 2015 to 2016 following introduction of a ZIKV strain from the Americas [16]. One possible explanation for the lower incidence of Zika in Africa could be preexisting immunity in places where ZIKV has circulated for a longer time, but serological testing from across Africa has consistently found widespread susceptibility to ZIKV in people [17,18].

An alternative explanation for differences in ZIKV emergence and spread could come from variation among mosquito populations. Ae. aegypti originated in Africa, but then spread out of Africa and across the global tropics within the past 500 years [3,19]. Across its invasive range in the Americas and Asia, Ae. aegypti is a remarkably effective vector of arboviruses due to its strong specialization on human hosts and habitats [6,20,21]. This invasive human-specialist form, also known as the Ae. aegypti aegypti (Aaa) subspecies, breeds in artificial water containers and strongly prefers human host odor, allowing it to efficiently spread arboviruses from human to human [6,22,23]. However, throughout most of sub-Saharan Africa, populations of the ancestral subspecies Aedes aegypti formosus (Aaf) maintain a generalist ecology [24]. Aaf populations breed in both natural and human habitats and are attracted to a wide variety of vertebrate hosts [2326]. Beyond its behavioral and ecological differences, Aaf is also less susceptible to ZIKV than Aaa [27]. Overall, the generalist ecology and low ZIKV susceptibility of Aaf may have contributed to hindering ZIKV emergence in Africa until now, despite the high epidemic potential of local ZIKV strains [28].

Although most populations of Ae. aegypti in Africa remain generalists with ancestral Aaf features [24], there is one region of Africa where human-specialist populations thrive: in the West African Sahel, south of the Sahara Desert. Here, there is little natural habitat for generalists across the long dry seasons. Instead, human-specialist populations of Ae. aegypti breed in human water storage containers and show both strong attraction to human hosts and high susceptibility to ZIKV infection [24,27]. Although these populations have a human-specialist ecology and likely descended from the original human-specialist population that spread out of Africa [24,29], they show a mixed genomic signature that reflects their lack of physical isolation from nearby generalists, with some degree of ancestry shared with human-specialist populations outside of Africa, as well as a strong contribution from nearby West African generalist populations [24]. Outside of the West African Sahel, a similar Aaa-like genomic signature can be found in Angola and coastal Kenya; however, these populations have otherwise distinct ancestries and histories [24,30]. In densely populated urban areas across Africa, Ae. aegypti populations can also have substantial human-specialist ancestry and show increased attraction to human hosts relative to nearby rural populations [24].

Cape Verde is a group of small islands off the coast of West Africa, close to the contact zone between human-specialist Ae. aegypti populations in the West African Sahel and the more widespread African generalist populations. The genomic background and vector status of Ae. aegypti in Cape Verde has not been comprehensively characterized to date, but the 2015 to 2016 epidemic indicates that local mosquito populations are presumably effective ZIKV vectors [16]. There are no other known ZIKV vectors besides Ae. aegypti in Cape Verde; Ae. caspius is present but is not a known ZIKV vector [31,32]. Ae. aegypti was first observed in Cape Verde in 1931, and mitochondrial DNA analyses suggest that it may have been recently introduced from West Africa [32,33]. However, genome-wide patterns of ancestry and corresponding patterns of host preference and arbovirus susceptibility remain unknown. Here, we use genomic analysis, behavioral assays, and experimental infections to test the hypothesis that Cape Verdean Ae. aegypti mosquitoes are more effective ZIKV vectors than the Aaf populations that predominate across most of Africa. We find that a population of Ae. aegypti recently sampled in Praia, Cape Verde (CPV) shows a strong genome-wide signature of human-specialist ancestry, similar to that seen in nearby human-specialist populations in the West African Sahel and not in generalist populations found across most of Africa. We identify a correspondingly robust preference for human hosts and a higher ZIKV susceptibility than generalist counterparts.

We sequenced the genomes of 15 individual Ae. aegypti specimens from the CPV population to 20× average sequencing depth (detailed experimental procedures are described in S1 Text). These individuals showed the strongest genomic affinity with West African Aaf populations, as 64% of average genome-wide ancestry across individuals was attributable to this ancestry component (Fig 1A, dark blue). However, CPV also contained a substantial amount of Aaa ancestry (23%; Fig 1A, red). This signature suggests that these populations may be derived from, or share a common history with, nearby human-specialist populations in the West African Sahel, where similar levels of Aaa ancestry are associated with strong preference for humans and increased susceptibility to ZIKV [24,27]. For example, human-preferring populations of Ae. aegypti from Thiès and Ngoye, Senegal have 22% and 37% Aaa ancestry, respectively, across the same single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) panel. Interestingly, unlike nearby West African populations, CPV contained substantial East/Central African ancestry (14%; Fig 1A, light blue). Similar patterns of ancestry have been observed in Libreville, Gabon (Fig 1A), and Luanda, Angola [30].

Fig 1. Enhanced ZIKV vectorial capacity of Ae. aegypti in Cape Verde.

Fig 1

(A) In Cape Verde, Ae. aegypti has substantial human-specialist ancestry (23% on average, red). Pie charts show population averages for ADMIXTURE (K = 3) fractions of ancestry from human specialists (red), West African generalists (dark blue), and East/Central African generalists (light blue), in populations across Ae. aegypti’s native range in sub-Saharan Africa. Ancestry estimates for Cape Verde (CPV) are newly generated, whereas non-CPV estimates are reanalyzed from [24]. The human-specialist component dominates Ae. aegypti populations outside of Africa (e.g., Santarem, Brazil). Inset bar chart shows individual fractions of ancestry from the same 3 ancestry components in CPV, calculated across the same set of SNPs. CPV also shows ancestry from the East/Central African component (light blue), unlike nearby West African populations. The base layer of the map is from https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/maps/index.html__;!!JFdNOqOXpB6UZW0!sDKfbulNRVtMqxn5q2Db55SN93DxP6cPYdDUDB-Xy-GHDAIhO8GAhHf5FEJstypYbq4eF3PhXs9wPufm5y4eFCa5$. (B) In Cape Verde, Ae. aegypti shows a robust preference for human hosts. Preference indices are calculated from beta-binomial analysis of repeated 2-port live host olfactometer trials (4 trials of 87 to 102 females for each colony). CPV was tested alongside a generalist field-derived Ae. aegypti colony from Zika, Uganda (ZIK), a human-specialist colony from Ngoye, Senegal (NGO), and a human-specialist colony from Orlando, Florida (ORL). Error bars show 95% confidence intervals. (C) In Cape Verde, Ae. aegypti displays higher ZIKV susceptibility than a generalist colony, similar to human-specialist colonies. Dose–response curves represent the proportion of ZIKV-infected mosquitoes 7 days post-oral challenge as a function of the blood meal titers expressed in log10-transformed focus-forming units (FFU)/ml. Susceptibility was assessed for 2 ZIKV strains representing the African lineage (Senegal 2011, right) and the Asian lineage (Cambodia 2010, left). CPV was tested alongside a reference ZIKV-resistant colony from Gabon, a reference ZIKV-susceptible colony from Guadeloupe, and a colony from Ngoye, Senegal (NGO) with intermediate ZIKV susceptibility. Lines are logistic regression fits for each mosquito colony. The raw experimental data plotted in the figure are provided in S1 Data.

We used live host 2-port olfactometer trials to assay host preference in CPV relative to previously characterized human-specialist (Aaa) and generalist (Aaf) populations. A CPV colony was initiated from field-collected eggs and used in all subsequent laboratory assays within 2 generations of colonization. In the behavioral assays, we placed female mosquitoes from different laboratory colonies into a 50 × 50 × 80 cm chamber, where they used host odor to choose between 2 exit holes, one leading to a human host, and one leading to a guinea pig. We used guinea pigs because of their good temperament and history of use in similar experiments that have reliably separated Aaa and Aaf [22,24,25]. However, previous work has shown that olfactometer trials using alternative hosts (e.g., chicken, quail, laboratory rat, African grass rat) can recover the same behavioral variation [22,24,25]. Similarly, although these trials were carried out with a 31-year-old European-American male (the same human host used for most trials in our earlier study; [24]), previous work indicates that variation in host preference across the AaaAaf continuum are consistent in trials with human hosts of different ethnicities, sexes, and ages [24,25]. Across olfactometer trials, we found strong evidence for variation among test colonies in preference for humans (GLMM likelihood-ratio test: P = 0.001). CPV showed a robust preference for human odor (Fig 1B) and was significantly more likely to seek humans than the reference Aaf strain from Uganda (ZIK; Fig 1B, GLMM: P = 0.0002), which preferred the guinea pig odor (Fig 1B). CPV showed similar levels of preference to Senegalese human specialists (NGO; Fig 1B) but was not as strongly attracted to humans as the human-specialist laboratory strain ORL, originally derived from Florida (Fig 1B, GLMM: P = 0.0005).

We performed experimental infections to assess the ZIKV susceptibility of the CPV colony using previously characterized colonies from Gabon and Guadeloupe as references [27]. The Aaf colony from Gabon is poorly susceptible, whereas the Aaa colony from Guadeloupe and the NGO colony are highly susceptible. The CPV colony showed higher susceptibility to ZIKV strains from both the Asian lineage (Cambodia 2010 strain) and the African lineage (Senegal 2011 strain) relative to the Aaf colony from Gabon (Fig 1C). Using the less infectious Cambodia 2010 ZIKV strain, the CPV colony was significantly more susceptible than the colony from Gabon (CPV: 50% oral infectious dose [OID50] = 6.42 log10 focus-forming units [FFU]/ml, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.97 to 6.71; Gabon: OID50 = 7.25 log10 FFU/ml, 95% CI = 6.88 to 7.63), whereas it was similar in susceptibility to the NGO colony and the Aaa colony from Guadeloupe (NGO: OID50 = 6.41 log10 FFU/ml, 95% CI = 5.80 to 6.74; Guadeloupe: OID50 = 6.18 log10 FFU/ml, 95% CI = undetermined to 6.24) (Fig 1C). Using the more infectious Senegal 2011 ZIKV strain, the CPV colony was also significantly more susceptible than the colony from Gabon (CPV: OID50 = 4.79 log10 FFU/ml, 95% CI = 4.29 to 5.09; Gabon: OID50 = 6.28 log10 FFU/ml, 95% CI = 5.90 to 6.86) and similar in susceptibility to the NGO and Guadeloupe colonies (NGO: OID50 = 4.96 log10 FFU/ml, 95% CI = 4.63 to 5.24; Guadeloupe: OID50 = 5.09 log10 FFU/ml, 95% CI = 4.79 to 5.39) (Fig 1C). In all cases, human-specialist ancestry was associated with increased susceptibility to ZIKV, as expected. Our earlier study showed that higher ZIKV susceptibility (measured by the infection rate) was associated with enhanced potential to transmit ZIKV from a viremic host [27].

Overall, Ae. aegypti in Cape Verde appears to be an effective vector of ZIKV, showing substantial human-specialist ancestry, and, correspondingly, both robust preference for humans and increased intrinsic susceptibility to ZIKV relative to generalist Aaf populations that predominate in Africa. These observations may help explain why Cape Verde experienced a major ZIKV epidemic in 2015 to 2016, while other African nations did not experience similar outbreaks. Other factors such as human population density and mosquito abundance could also play an important role in driving differences in the spread of ZIKV; however, Praia is a relatively small city of about 150,000 inhabitants where the recorded mosquito abundances are not unusually high [32]. An important role for mosquito population variation is also consistent with ZIKV circulation in Angola in 2016 to 2017, where the Ae. aegypti population has a similar genomic signature [30]. Only 4 ZIKV cases were confirmed by direct virus detection, but they provided evidence of autochthonous transmission in Angola following ZIKV introduction from Brazil [14,15]. A key future research question is whether the elevated human-specialist ancestry of Ae. aegypti in Angola is associated with differences in behavior and ZIKV susceptibility, as observed in Cape Verde.

Ae. aegypti in Cape Verde had very similar levels of preference for humans and ZIKV susceptibility to human-specialist Ae. aegypti from Ngoye, Senegal. This raises the question of why corresponding ZIKV outbreaks were not observed in Senegal in 2015 to 2016, or perhaps in locations with human-specialist Ae. aegypti in coastal Kenya. It is possible that such outbreaks simply went unnoticed by public health surveillance systems due to misdiagnosis and/or underreporting. A large variety of factors affect arbovirus transmission, including variation in human immunity, climate factors, levels of urbanization, and the success of control efforts [34]. One important difference could be patterns of trade and travel related to historical relationships between nations. The 3 Portuguese-speaking nations of Brazil, Cape Verde, and Angola were closely linked during the transatlantic slave trade, which is thought to have driven the introduction of human-specialist populations of Ae. aegypti to the Americas [3]. In the present day, these nations are still closely linked through trade and migration [35], and ZIKV was likely introduced to Cape Verde from northeastern Brazil [16]. The Aaa-like ancestry that we observed in Cape Verdean Ae. aegypti showed evidence of contributions from both West Africa and the species’ invasive range (S1 Fig); the latter signal could reflect gene flow from Brazil, although more comprehensive sampling of the Americas and the west coast of Africa would be necessarily to pinpoint the precise sources of the observed ancestry.

Further linking Cape Verde to arbovirus systems outside of West Africa, we observed substantial ancestry in Cape Verdean Ae. aegypti from the East/Central Aaf ancestry component that is nearly absent from most of West Africa, but common further south, including in Angola [30]. This finding suggests a more complex history for Ae. aegypti in Cape Verde than a simple introduction from nearby Senegalese populations. Instead, the Ae. aegypti population in Cape Verde may have experienced incoming gene flow from populations further south, possibly through trade with Angola. Improved genomic sampling from Angola and other parts of Southern and Central Africa could clarify the precise origins of this signal. Overall, our results suggest that the genetic makeup of vector populations may be shaped by historical relationships and patterns of human activity in addition to ecological factors and spatial proximity.

Further highlighting a role for human activities, ecological projections based on United Nations estimates of human population growth suggest that many urban populations of Ae. aegypti may shift towards a human-specialist ecology in the coming decades [24,36]. Presently, levels of Aaa ancestry in these cities are not as high as those observed in Cape Verde (e.g., Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso: 9%) [24]. However, as this proportion increases, such cities may be at increased risk of ZIKV outbreaks.

The mechanisms underlying variation in ZIKV susceptibility in Ae. aegypti are still unknown. Given the generally mild effects of arboviruses on Ae. aegypti’s fitness [37], these differences may not be adaptive on the part of the mosquito host—instead, they may reflect indirect consequences of other physiological or immune adaptations through pleiotropy or genetic linkage, genetic drift between mosquito lineages, and/or viral adaptation. A previous genetic mapping study detected a signal of association between the second Ae. aegypti chromosome and differences in ZIKV susceptibility, but the corresponding genomic region is large, making it difficult to identify causal genes [27]. Future efforts to identify the specific genes driving these differences could provide key tools for monitoring and managing the risk of ZIKV outbreaks in the future.

Taken together, our results are consistent with a prominent role for variation among vector populations in shaping the emergence and spread of arboviruses, especially in Ae. aegypti’s native range of Africa, where vector populations vary widely in ecology, behavior, and genomics [38]. This population-level variation is not static but is directly shaped by human-driven processes like rapid urbanization [24]. For this reason, comprehensive characterization of population differences in vector status, and proactive surveillance of changing mosquito populations will play an important role in managing and reducing burdens of mosquito-borne disease.

Ethics statement

Wild Ae. aegypti eggs from Cape Verde were collected and exported with permission from the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment (authorization No. 988, dated 23 October 2020), in compliance with the Nagoya protocol. Mosquito colony maintenance at Princeton University used direct blood feeding on human arms, which was determined to not meet the definition of human subjects research (Princeton University IRB Non-Human-Subjects Research Determination #6870). Experimental mosquito infections at Institut Pasteur used human blood samples to prepare artificial infectious blood meals. Healthy blood donor recruitment was organized by the local investigator assessment using medical history, laboratory results, and clinical examinations. Biological samples were supplied through the participation of healthy adult volunteers at the ICAReB biobanking platform (BB-0033-00062/ICAReB platform/Institut Pasteur, Paris/BBMRI AO203/[BIORESOURCE]) of the Institut Pasteur in the CoSImmGen and Diagmicoll protocols, which had been approved by the French Ethical Committee Ile-de-France I. The Diagmicoll protocol was declared to the French Research Ministry under reference 343 DC 2008–68 COL 1. All adult subjects provided written informed consent.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. ADMIXTURE analysis of Cape Verdean Ae. aegypti indicates a complex mosaic of ancestries.

We previously found that when specifying 6 ancestry components (K = 6), ADMIXTURE identified 2 distinct human-specialist ancestry components—a putatively ancestral African human-specialist component (marked in orange) and a globally invasive component corresponding to human-specialist lineages that left Africa and spread across the global tropics (marked in red) [24]. Human-specialist ancestry in Cape Verde includes substantial contributions from each of these components—this may reflect gene flow from both the invasive range (likely Brazil) and the west coast of Africa (likely Senegal and/or Angola). However, more extensive sampling from both the Americas and native range would be necessary to conclusively identify precise source populations. The base layer of the map is from https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/maps/index.html__;!!JFdNOqOXpB6UZW0!sDKfbulNRVtMqxn5q2Db55SN93DxP6cPYdDUDB-Xy-GHDAIhO8GAhHf5FEJstypYbq4eF3PhXs9wPufm5y4eFCa5$.

(TIF)

S1 Text. Detailed description of experimental procedures.

(DOCX)

S1 Data. Raw experimental data plotted in Fig 1B and 1C.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We thank Catherine Lallemand for assistance with mosquito rearing. We are grateful to Diego Ayala, Christophe Paupy, and Davy Jiolle for initially providing the mosquito colony from Gabon; Anubis Vega-Rúa for initially providing the mosquito colony from Guadeloupe; and John-Paul Mutebi for initially providing the mosquito colony from Zika, Uganda. We thank Maria da Luz Lima Mendonça for facilitating the mosquito sampling in Cape Verde. We are grateful to the volunteers and the ICAReB staff for the human blood supply.

Abbreviations

CI

confidence interval

FFU

focus-forming unit

GLMM

generalized linear mixed model

SNP

single-nucleotide polymorphism

ZIKV

Zika virus

Data Availability

The raw sequencing data are available in the Sequence Read Archive repository under accession number PRJNA882905. The raw experimental data plotted in Fig 1B–1C are provided in the S1 Data file.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under ZikaPLAN grant agreement no. 734584 (to LL), Agence Nationale de la Recherche (grant ANR-18-CE35-0003-01 to LL), the French Government’s Investissement d’Avenir program Laboratoire d’Excellence Integrative Biology of Emerging Infectious Diseases (grant ANR-10-LABX-62-IBEID to LL), and the US National Institutes of Health (grant NIDCD R00-DC012069 to CSM). NHR was supported by a Helen Hay Whitney Postdoctoral Fellowship. CSM is a New York Stem Cell Foundation – Robertson Investigator. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

References

  • 1.WHO. WHO | Vector-borne diseases [Internet]. WHO. 2020. [cited 2017 Apr 3]. Available from: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs387/en/. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Christophers SR. Aedes aegypti: The Yellow Fever Mosquito. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1960. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Powell JR, Gloria-Soria A, Kotsakiozi P. Recent history of Aedes aegypti: vector Genomics and Epidemiology records. Bioscience. 2018;68(11):854–860. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biy119 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Smith DL, Battle KE, Hay SI, Barker CM, Scott TW, McKenzie FE. Ross, Macdonald, and a Theory for the Dynamics and Control of Mosquito-Transmitted Pathogens. PLoS Pathog. 2012;8(4):e1002588. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1002588 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Black WC, Bennett KE, Gorrochótegui-Escalante N, Barillas-Mury CV, Fernández-Salas I, de Lourdes MM, et al. Flavivirus susceptibility in Aedes aegypti. Arch Med Res. 2002;33(4):379–388. doi: 10.1016/s0188-4409(02)00373-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Brady OJ, Hay SI. The global expansion of dengue: how Aedes aegypti mosquitoes enabled the first pandemic arbovirus. Annu Rev Entomol. 2020;65:191–208. doi: 10.1146/annurev-ento-011019-024918 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Weaver SC, Charlier C, Vasilakis N, Lecuit M. Zika, Chikungunya, and Other Emerging Vector-Borne Viral Diseases. Annu Rev Med. 2018;69:395–408. doi: 10.1146/annurev-med-050715-105122 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Musso D, Ko AI, Baud D. Zika Virus Infection—After the Pandemic. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(15):1444–1457. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1808246 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Dick GW, Kitchen SF, Haddow AJ. Zika virus (I). Isolations and serological specificity. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1952;46(5):509–520. doi: 10.1016/0035-9203(52)90042-4 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Diarra I, Nurtop E, Sangaré AK, Sagara I, Pastorino B, Sacko S, et al. Zika virus circulation in Mali. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26(5):945. doi: 10.3201/eid2605.191383 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Grard G, Caron M, Mombo IM, Nkoghe D, Ondo SM, Jiolle D, et al. Zika Virus in Gabon (Central Africa)– 2007: A New Threat from Aedes albopictus? PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014;8(2):e2681. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002681 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Duffy MR, Chen TH, Hancock WT, Powers AM, Kool JL, Lanciotti RS, et al. Zika Virus Outbreak on Yap Island, Federated States of Micronesia. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(24):2536–2543. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0805715 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Krauer F, Riesen M, Reveiz L, Oladapo OT, Martínez-Vega R, Porgo TV, et al. Zika Virus Infection as a Cause of Congenital Brain Abnormalities and Guillain–Barré Syndrome: Systematic Review. PLoS Med. 2017;14(1):e1002203. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002203 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hill SC, Vasconcelos J, Neto Z, Jandondo D, Zé-Zé L, Aguiar RS, et al. Emergence of the Asian lineage of Zika virus in Angola: an outbreak investigation. Lancet Infect Dis. 2019;19(10):1138–1147. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(19)30293-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kraemer MU, Brady OJ, Watts A, German M, Hay SI, Khan K, et al. Zika virus transmission in Angola and the potential for further spread to other African settings. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2017;111(11):527–529. doi: 10.1093/trstmh/try001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Faye O, de Lourdes MM, Vrancken B, Prot M, Lequime S, Diarra M, et al. Genomic epidemiology of 2015–2016 Zika virus outbreak in Cape Verde. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26(6):1084. doi: 10.3201/eid2606.190928 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kayiwa JT, Nankya AM, Ataliba IJ, Mossel EC, Crabtree MB, Lutwama JJ. Confirmation of Zika virus infection through hospital-based sentinel surveillance of acute febrile illness in Uganda, 2014–2017. J Gen Virol. 2018;99(9):1248. doi: 10.1099/jgv.0.001113 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Willcox AC, Collins MH, Jadi R, Keeler C, Parr JB, Mumba D, et al. Seroepidemiology of dengue, Zika, and yellow fever viruses among children in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2018;99(3):756. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.18-0156 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Gloria-Soria A, Ayala D, Bheecarry A, Calderon-Arguedas O, Chadee DD, Chiappero M, et al. Global genetic diversity of Aedes aegypti. Mol Ecol. 2016;25(21):5377–5395. doi: 10.1111/mec.13866 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Clements AN. The Biology of Mosquitoes. Volume 2: Sensory Reception and Behavior. Wallingford: CABI Publishing; 1999. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.McBride CS. Genes and Odors Underlying the Recent Evolution of Mosquito Preference for Humans. Curr Biol. 2016;26(1):R41–R46. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2015.11.032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.McBride CS, Baier F, Omondi AB, Spitzer SA, Lutomiah J, Sang R, et al. Evolution of mosquito preference for humans linked to an odorant receptor. Nature. 2014;515(7526):222–227. doi: 10.1038/nature13964 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Petersen J. Behavioral Differences in Two Sub-species of Aedes Aegypti (L.)(diptera, Culicidae) in East Africa. PhD Thesis, University of Notre Dame; 1977.
  • 24.Rose NH, Sylla M, Badolo A, Lutomiah J, Ayala D, Aribodor OB, et al. Climate and Urbanization Drive Mosquito Preference for Humans. Curr Biol. 2020;30(18):3570–79.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2020.06.092 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Gouck HK. Host preferences of various strains of Aedes aegypti and A. simpsoni as determined by an olfactometer. Bull World Health Organ. 1972;47(5):680. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Xia S, Dweck HK, Lutomiah J, Sang R, McBride CS, Rose NH, et al. Larval sites of the mosquito Aedes aegypti formosus in forest and domestic habitats in Africa and the potential association with oviposition evolution. Ecol Evol. 2021;11(22):16327–16343. doi: 10.1002/ece3.8332 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Aubry F, Dabo S, Manet C, Filipović I, Rose NH, Miot EF, et al. Enhanced Zika virus susceptibility of globally invasive Aedes aegypti populations. Science. 2020;370(6519):991–996. doi: 10.1126/science.abd3663 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Aubry F, Jacobs S, Darmuzey M, Lequime S, Delang L, Fontaine A, et al. Recent African strains of Zika virus display higher transmissibility and fetal pathogenicity than Asian strains. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):1–14. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-21199-z . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Crawford JE, Alves JM, Palmer WJ, Day JP, Sylla M, Ramasamy R, et al. Population genomics reveals that an anthropophilic population of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes in West Africa recently gave rise to American and Asian populations of this major disease vector. BMC Biol. 2017;15:16. doi: 10.1186/s12915-017-0351-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kotsakiozi P, Evans BR, Gloria-Soria A, Kamgang B, Mayanja M, Lutwama J, et al. Population structure of a vector of human diseases: Aedes aegypti in its ancestral range. Africa Ecol Evol. 2018;8(16):7835–7848. doi: 10.1002/ece3.4278 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Alves J, Gomes B, Rodrigues R, Silva J, Arez AP, Pinto J, et al. Mosquito fauna on the Cape Verde Islands (West Africa): an update on species distribution and a new finding. J Vector Ecol. 2010;35(2):307–312. doi: 10.1111/j.1948-7134.2010.00087.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Campos M, Ward D, Morales RF, Gomes AR, Silva K, Sepúlveda N, et al. Surveillance of Aedes aegypti populations in the city of Praia, Cape Verde: Zika virus infection, insecticide resistance and genetic diversity. Parasit Vectors. 2020;13(1):1–11. doi: 10.1186/s13071-020-04356-z . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Salgueiro P, Serrano C, Gomes B, Alves J, Sousa CA, Abecasis A, et al. Phylogeography and invasion history of Aedes aegypti, the Dengue and Zika mosquito vector in Cape Verde islands (West Africa). Evol Appl. 2019;12(9):1797–1811. doi: 10.1111/eva.12834 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Mordecai EA, Ryan SJ, Caldwell JM, Shah MM, LaBeaud AD. Climate change could shift disease burden from malaria to arboviruses in Africa. Lancet Planet Health. 2020;4(9):e416–e423. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30178-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Baganha MI. The Lusophone migratory system: patterns and trends. Int Migr. 2009;47(3):5–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Gerland P, Raftery AE, Ševčíková H, Li N, Gu D, Spoorenberg T, et al. World population stabilization unlikely this century. Science. 2014;346(6206):234–237. doi: 10.1126/science.1257469 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Lambrechts L, Saleh MC. Manipulating mosquito tolerance for arbovirus control. Cell Host Microbe. 2019;26(3):309–313. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2019.08.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Weetman D, Kamgang B, Badolo A, Moyes CL, Shearer FM, Coulibaly M, et al. Aedes mosquitoes and Aedes-borne arboviruses in Africa: current and future threats. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(2):220. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15020220 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Paula Jauregui, PhD

25 Jul 2022

Dear Dr. Lambrechts,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Enhanced mosquito vectorial capacity underlying the Cape Verde Zika epidemic" for consideration as a Short Reports by PLOS Biology.

Your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editorial staff, as well as by an academic editor with relevant expertise, and I am writing to let you know that we would like to send your submission out for external peer review.

However, before we can send your manuscript to reviewers, we need you to complete your submission by providing the metadata that is required for full assessment. To this end, please login to Editorial Manager where you will find the paper in the 'Submissions Needing Revisions' folder on your homepage. Please click 'Revise Submission' from the Action Links and complete all additional questions in the submission questionnaire.

Once your full submission is complete, your paper will undergo a series of checks in preparation for peer review. After your manuscript has passed the checks it will be sent out for review. To provide the metadata for your submission, please Login to Editorial Manager (https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology) within two working days, i.e. by Jul 27 2022 11:59PM.

If your manuscript has been previously peer-reviewed at another journal, PLOS Biology is willing to work with those reviews in order to avoid re-starting the process. Submission of the previous reviews is entirely optional and our ability to use them effectively will depend on the willingness of the previous journal to confirm the content of the reports and share the reviewer identities. Please note that we reserve the right to invite additional reviewers if we consider that additional/independent reviewers are needed, although we aim to avoid this as far as possible. In our experience, working with previous reviews does save time.

If you would like us to consider previous reviewer reports, please edit your cover letter to let us know and include the name of the journal where the work was previously considered and the manuscript ID it was given. In addition, please upload a response to the reviews as a 'Prior Peer Review' file type, which should include the reports in full and a point-by-point reply detailing how you have or plan to address the reviewers' concerns.

During the process of completing your manuscript submission, you will be invited to opt-in to posting your pre-review manuscript as a bioRxiv preprint. Visit http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/preprints for full details. If you consent to posting your current manuscript as a preprint, please upload a single Preprint PDF.

Feel free to email us at plosbiology@plos.org if you have any queries relating to your submission.

Kind regards,

Paula

Paula Jauregui, PhD,

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

pjaureguionieva@plos.org

Decision Letter 1

Paula Jauregui, PhD

15 Sep 2022

Dear Dr. Lambrechts,

Thank you for your patience while your manuscript "Enhanced mosquito vectorial capacity underlying the Cape Verde Zika epidemic" went through peer-review at PLOS Biology. Your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editors, an Academic Editor with relevant expertise, and by several independent reviewers.

In light of the reviews, which you will find at the end of this email, we are pleased to offer you the opportunity to address the comments from the reviewers in a revision that we anticipate should not take you very long. We will then assess your revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments with our Academic Editor aiming to avoid further rounds of peer-review, although might need to consult with the reviewers, depending on the nature of the revisions.

You will see that all the reviewers agree that this is an interesting work and that your data supports your conclusions. Reviewer #3 comments that the title and title of figure 1 are inaccurate due to the use of vectorial capacity, however, both the Academic Editor and reviewer #1 have commented on this and agree that the vectorial capacity use in the manuscript is correct. Please address the rest of the reviewers' concerns.

Please also address the following editorial and policy requests:

1. DATA POLICY:

You may be aware of the PLOS Data Policy, which requires that all data be made available without restriction: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability. For more information, please also see this editorial: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001797

Note that we do not require all raw data. Rather, we ask that all individual quantitative observations that underlie the data summarized in the figures and results of your paper be made available in one of the following forms:

A) Supplementary files (e.g., excel). Please ensure that all data files are uploaded as 'Supporting Information' and are invariably referred to (in the manuscript, figure legends, and the Description field when uploading your files) using the following format verbatim: S1 Data, S2 Data, etc. Multiple panels of a single or even several figures can be included as multiple sheets in one excel file that is saved using exactly the following convention: S1_Data.xlsx (using an underscore).

B) Deposition in a publicly available repository. Please also provide the accession code or a reviewer link so that we may view your data before publication.

Regardless of the method selected, please ensure that you provide the individual numerical values that underlie the summary data displayed in the following figure panels as they are essential for readers to assess your analysis and to reproduce it: Figure 1ABC.

NOTE: the numerical data provided should include all replicates AND the way in which the plotted mean and errors were derived (it should not present only the mean/average values).

Please also ensure that figure legends in your manuscript include information on where the underlying data can be found, and ensure your supplemental data file/s has a legend.

Please ensure that your Data Statement in the submission system accurately describes where your data can be found.

2. We suggest a minor modification of the title: "Enhanced mosquito vectorial capacity underlies the Cape Verde Zika epidemic".

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within 1 month. Please email us (plosbiology@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns, or would like to request an extension.

At this stage, your manuscript remains formally under active consideration at our journal; please notify us by email if you do not intend to submit a revision so that we withdraw the manuscript.

**IMPORTANT - SUBMITTING YOUR REVISION**

Your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer. Please submit the following files along with your revised manuscript:

1. A 'Response to Reviewers' file - this should detail your responses to the editorial requests, present a point-by-point response to all of the reviewers' comments, and indicate the changes made to the manuscript.

*NOTE: In your point-by-point response to the reviewers, please provide the full context of each review. Do not selectively quote paragraphs or sentences to reply to. The entire set of reviewer comments should be present in full and each specific point should be responded to individually.

You should also cite any additional relevant literature that has been published since the original submission and mention any additional citations in your response.

2. In addition to a clean copy of the manuscript, please also upload a 'track-changes' version of your manuscript that specifies the edits made. This should be uploaded as a "Revised Article with Changes Highlighted " file type.

*Resubmission Checklist*

When you are ready to resubmit your revised manuscript, please refer to this resubmission checklist: https://plos.io/Biology_Checklist

To submit a revised version of your manuscript, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' where you will find your submission record.

Please make sure to read the following important policies and guidelines while preparing your revision:

*Published Peer Review*

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. Please see here for more details:

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/05/plos-journals-now-open-for-published-peer-review/

*Protocols deposition*

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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

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

Sincerely,

Paula

---

Paula Jauregui, PhD,

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

pjaureguionieva@plos.org

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

REVIEWS:

Reviewer #1: Arbovirus.

Reviewer #2: Aedes genomics and evolution.

Reviewer #3: Vector biology, arbovirus.

Reviewer #1: see attached

Reviewer #2: This manuscript describes the higher vector competence of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes from Cape Verde to Zika viruses and their higher preference to blood feed on humans with respect to other African mosquitoes. This report appears to be a simple complement of a recent work authored by the same first author (Rose et al., 2020).

While I agree that preference for humans is a factor that can contribute to higher vector competence of Cape Verde mosquitoes, I do not agree on the (exclusive) emphasis put on it on this manuscript. Please see below main comments, which will hopefully help authors to provide a less skewed and more comprehensive hypothesis on the occurrence of the 2015-2016 Zika outbreak in Cape Verde.

Lines 57-60. This sentence is exaggerated and negates all the work done by scientists as Ross and McDonald. Factors that influence the emerge and spread of vector-borne disease, including arboviruses, have well been understood and codified into the vectorial capacity equation. These factors include vector density and extrinsic incubation period besides vector competence, which appears to be the focus of this manuscript. I would agree that factors that influence vector competence are still poorly characterised and that preference to feed on humans influences the blood-feeding rate, which is another parameter already codified into the standard equation of vectorial capacity produced by Ross and MacDonald.

Lines 85-99. Are Aedes species other than Ae. aegypti found in Cape Verde, mimicking a similar situation as in Yap?

Line 101-103 and 187-189. The Sahel region is quite extensive and ranges from Senegal, Mali, Burkina Faso, Nigeria, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad and Ethiopia. African populations of Ae. aegypti that were analysed and found to be human specialists by Rose et al. 2020 are limited to few populations in Senegal, to my knowledge. These populations are also cited in this ms (line 142). Ae. aegypti populations from Kenya and Angola have a completely different genetic ancestry than those from Senegal as described by several papers from the group of Jeffrey Powell, thus cannot be equated to human-specialist populations from Senegal.

Line 158-162: In this experiment, mosquitoes from Cape Verde showed stronger preference to seek humans than the Aaf strain from Uganda, as shown in Fig. 1B. However, in the supplementary methods Rose et al. described the use of 31 European-American male human individuals as host to perform the behavioural trials, while no African human individuals were included, not even from Cape Verde. Although the evaluation on humans preference from Africa and out of Africa mosquitoes is not strictly one of the main goals of this study, they did not mention whether there is any biological reason suggesting that the strong human preference observed in Fig. 1B will not change regardless of the human host's geographical origin and/or whether such preference will vary with African people.

Lines 185-187. I agree with the authors that preference for humans and high intrinsic susceptibility to Zika virus of mosquitoes from Cape Verde with respect to Aaf populations are important factors that could have contributed to the Cape Verde ZIKV epidemics of 2015-2016, but also the density of both hosts and vectors are important. Any information on abundance and distribution of vectors in Cape Verde and human density? Please discuss.

Line 202-208. Among the populations analysed by Rose et al. 2020, there is a Brazilian population and this hypothesis could be easily tested. In the ancestry plot shown in Fig. 1, how much is the ancestry linking Cape Verde with Brazil vs other Ae. aegypti populations tested in Rose et al. 2020?

Reviewer #3: This manuscript aims to answer the question, why have large-scale Zika virus outbreaks not occurred in Africa. The authors provide provocative evidence to suggest that the underlying genetics of Aedes aegypti in Africa may be playing an important role. Aedes aegypti originated in Africa where it still persists today as a forest dwelling form (Aedes aegypti formosus) and an urban form (Aedes aegypti aegypti). As Aedes aegypti aegypti spread through the equatorial tropics it has become a predominately human-biting mosquito. However, in most of Africa, Aedes aegypti populations contain significant formosus genetic signatures. Aedes aegypti formosus has more catholic feeding preferences and has been shown to have reduced vector competence to Zika virus compared to Aedes aegypti aegypti populations from the Americas (for example). Interestingly, Aedes aegypti from Cape Verde, Africa —which experienced a large-scale ZIKV outbreak in 2015-2016—have a substantial Aedes aegypti aegypti genetic ancestry. The authors show that mosquitoes derived from Cape Verde populations have a stronger preference for human host odors similar to other human-specialist populations of Aedes aegypti. In addition, they show that mosquitoes derived from Cape Verde populations have significantly higher Zika virus infection rates than mosquitoes with different genetic backgrounds from Africa. All of which could portend future risk of Zika virus outbreaks for the African continent due to urbanization and expansion of mosquitoes with a similar genetic background as those found in Cape Verde. This manuscript is written well and the results mostly support the conclusions. In addition, this serves as an interesting foundation for extensive follow-up work.

My primary concern is with the title of the manuscript and the title to figure 1. It is inaccurate to state that mosquitoes from Cape Verde have "enhanced vectorial capacity" for Zika virus. Vectorial capacity is the basic reproductive rate of a vector-borne pathogen. Vectorial capacity and vector competence cannot be used interchangeably. Vectorial capacity takes into account all of the environmental, behavioral, cellular, and biochemical factors that influence the association between a vector, the pathogen transmitted by the vector, and the vertebrate host to which the pathogen is transmitted. Here, the authors assessed host preference and mosquito vector competence—two components of overall vectorial capacity but these are not sufficient to quantitatively determine whether one population of mosquitoes has enhanced vectorial capacity compared to another population.

In addition, some text should be devoted to justify using infection rates as a proxy for vector competence and limitations relevant to the random and inefficient nature of mosquito transmission. Indeed, it has been previously shown that Aedes aegypti with poor competence but high population density have been capable of sustaining outbreaks of arboviral diseases like yellow fever virus. Also, infection data are only from a single timepoint, why was day 7 chosen?

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rose review 2022 cape verde.docx

Decision Letter 2

Paula Jauregui, PhD

3 Oct 2022

Dear Dr. Lambrechts,

Thank you for the submission of your revised Short Reports "Enhanced mosquito vectorial capacity underlies the Cape Verde Zika epidemic" for publication in PLOS Biology. On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor, Nora Besansky, I am pleased to say that we can in principle accept your manuscript for publication, provided you address any remaining formatting and reporting issues. These will be detailed in an email you should receive within 2-3 business days from our colleagues in the journal operations team; no action is required from you until then. Please note that we will not be able to formally accept your manuscript and schedule it for publication until you have completed any requested changes.

Please take a minute to log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information to ensure an efficient production process.

PRESS

We frequently collaborate with press offices. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. If the press office is planning to promote your findings, we would be grateful if they could coordinate with biologypress@plos.org. If you have previously opted in to the early version process, we ask that you notify us immediately of any press plans so that we may opt out on your behalf.

We also ask that you take this opportunity to read our Embargo Policy regarding the discussion, promotion and media coverage of work that is yet to be published by PLOS. As your manuscript is not yet published, it is bound by the conditions of our Embargo Policy. Please be aware that this policy is in place both to ensure that any press coverage of your article is fully substantiated and to provide a direct link between such coverage and the published work. For full details of our Embargo Policy, please visit http://www.plos.org/about/media-inquiries/embargo-policy/.

Thank you again for choosing PLOS Biology for publication and supporting Open Access publishing. We look forward to publishing your study. 

Sincerely, 

Paula

---

Paula Jauregui, PhD,

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

pjaureguionieva@plos.org

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. ADMIXTURE analysis of Cape Verdean Ae. aegypti indicates a complex mosaic of ancestries.

    We previously found that when specifying 6 ancestry components (K = 6), ADMIXTURE identified 2 distinct human-specialist ancestry components—a putatively ancestral African human-specialist component (marked in orange) and a globally invasive component corresponding to human-specialist lineages that left Africa and spread across the global tropics (marked in red) [24]. Human-specialist ancestry in Cape Verde includes substantial contributions from each of these components—this may reflect gene flow from both the invasive range (likely Brazil) and the west coast of Africa (likely Senegal and/or Angola). However, more extensive sampling from both the Americas and native range would be necessary to conclusively identify precise source populations. The base layer of the map is from https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/maps/index.html__;!!JFdNOqOXpB6UZW0!sDKfbulNRVtMqxn5q2Db55SN93DxP6cPYdDUDB-Xy-GHDAIhO8GAhHf5FEJstypYbq4eF3PhXs9wPufm5y4eFCa5$.

    (TIF)

    S1 Text. Detailed description of experimental procedures.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Data. Raw experimental data plotted in Fig 1B and 1C.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rose review 2022 cape verde.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rose_et_al_response_to_reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The raw sequencing data are available in the Sequence Read Archive repository under accession number PRJNA882905. The raw experimental data plotted in Fig 1B–1C are provided in the S1 Data file.


    Articles from PLOS Biology are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES