Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Mar 23;14(3):e0008163.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008163. eCollection 2020 Mar.

Different populations of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) from Central Africa are susceptible to Zika virus infection

Basile Kamgang  1 , Marie Vazeille  2 , Armel Tedjou  1   3 , Aurélie P Yougang  1   3 , Theodel A Wilson-Bahun  1   4 , Laurence Mousson  2 , Charles S Wondji  1   5 , Anna-Bella Failloux  2
Affiliations

Different populations of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) from Central Africa are susceptible to Zika virus infection

Basile Kamgang et al. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. .

Abstract

Zika virus (ZIKV) is a Flavivirus (Flaviviridae) transmitted to humans mainly by the bite of an infected Aedes mosquitoes. Aedes aegypti is the primary epidemic vector of ZIKV and Ae. albopictus, the secondary one. However, the epidemiological role of both Aedes species in Central Africa where Ae. albopictus was recently introduced is poorly characterized. Field-collected strains of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus from different ecological settings in Central Africa were experimentally infected with a ZIKV strain isolated in West Africa. Mosquitoes were analysed at 14- and 21-days post-exposure. Both Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus were able to transmit ZIKV but with higher overall transmission efficiency for Ae. aegypti (57.9%) compared to Ae. albopictus (41.5%). In addition, disseminated infection and transmission rates for both Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus varied significantly according to the location where they were sampled from. We conclude that both Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus are able to transmit ZIKV and may intervene as active Zika vectors in Central Africa. These findings could contribute to a better understanding of the epidemiological transmission of ZIKV in Central Africa and develop suitable strategy to prevent major ZIKV outbreaks in this region.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Map of Cameroon vegetation showing the sampling sites.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Infection, dissemination, transmission rates and transmission efficiency of Ae. albopictus from Central Africa.
A) Infection and dissemination rates at 14 days post-exposure (dpe). B) Infection, dissemination, transmission rates and transmission efficiency at 21 dpe. Error bars show the 95% confidence interval. In brackets, the number of mosquitoes examined. IR: the proportion of mosquitoes with infected body among engorged mosquitoes; DIR: the proportion of mosquitoes with infected head among mosquitoes with infected body; TR: the proportion of mosquitoes with infectious saliva among mosquitoes with infected head. The lowercase letter on the top of some indices indicates the significant difference for pairwise comparisons. When the same letter is shared by several populations, this indicates that the difference is significant (P<0.05) between them.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Infection, dissemination, transmission rates and transmission efficiency of Ae. aegypti from Central Africa.
A) Infection and dissemination rates at 14 days post-exposure (dpe). B) Infection, dissemination, transmission rates and transmission efficiency at 21 dpe. Error bars show the 95% confidence interval. In brackets, the number of mosquitoes examined. IR: the proportion of mosquitoes with infected body among engorged mosquitoes; DIR: the proportion of mosquitoes with infected head among mosquitoes with infected body; TR: the proportion of mosquitoes with infectious saliva among mosquitoes with infected head. The lowercase letter on the top of some indices indicates the significant difference for pairwise comparisons. When the same letter is shared by several populations, this indicates that the difference is significant (P<0.05) between them.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Zika virus titres in saliva of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus at 21 days post-exposure.
The bars indicate the confidence interval of the mean for viral load in each population.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Dick GW, Kitchen SF, Haddow AJ. Zika virus. I. Isolations and serological specificity. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 1952;46(5):509–20. 10.1016/0035-9203(52)90042-4 . - DOI - PubMed
    1. Haddow AD, Schuh AJ, Yasuda CY, Kasper MR, Heang V, Huy R, et al. Genetic characterization of Zika virus strains: geographic expansion of the Asian lineage. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2012;6(2):e1477 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001477 . - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Faye O, Freire CC, Iamarino A, Faye O, de Oliveira JV, Diallo M, et al. Molecular evolution of Zika virus during its emergence in the 20(th) century. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2014;8(1):e2636 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002636 . - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Marchette NJ, Garcia R, Rudnick A. Isolation of Zika virus from Aedes aegypti mosquitoes in Malaysia. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 1969;18(3):411–5. 10.4269/ajtmh.1969.18.411 . - DOI - PubMed
    1. Duffy MR, Chen TH, Hancock WT, Powers AM, Kool JL, Lanciotti RS, et al. Zika virus outbreak on Yap Island, Federated States of Micronesia. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2009;360(24):2536–43. 10.1056/NEJMoa0805715 . - DOI - PubMed

Publication types