The presented protocol can determine the vector competence of Aedes aegypti mosquito populations for a given virus, such as Zika, in a containment setting.
The procedures presented describe a generalized methodology to infect Aedes aegypti mosquitoes with Zika virus under laboratory conditions to determine the rate of infection, disseminated infection, and potential transmission of the virus in the mosquito population in question. These procedures are widely utilized with various modifications in vector competence evaluations globally. They are important in determining the potential role that a given mosquito (i.e., species, population, individual) may play in the transmission of a given agent.
Vector competence is defined as the ability at the level of species, population, and even an individual, of a given arthropod such as a mosquito, tick, or phlebotomine sand fly, to acquire and transmit an agent biologically with replication or development in the arthropod1,2. With respect to mosquitoes and arthropod-borne viruses (i.e., arboviruses), the agent is imbibed from a viremic host by a female mosquito. Following ingestion, the virus must productively infect one of a small population of midgut epithelial cells3, overcoming various physiological obstacles such as proteolytic degradation by digestive enzymes, the presence of the microbiota (midgut infection barrier, or MIB), and the secreted peritrophic matrix. Infection of the midgut epithelium must be followed by replication of the virus and eventual escape from the midgut into the mosquito’s open circulatory system, or hemolymph, which represents the onset of a disseminated infection overcoming the midgut escape barrier (MEB). At this point the virus can establish infections of secondary tissues (e.g., nerves, muscles, and fat bodies) and continue to replicate, although such secondary replication may not be strictly necessary for the virus to infect the acinar cells of the salivary glands (overcoming the salivary gland infection barrier). Egress from the salivary gland acinar cells into their apical cavities and then movement into the salivary duct enables inoculation of the virus into subsequent hosts on biting, and completes the transmission cycle1,2,4,5,6,7.
Given this well-characterized and generally conserved mechanism of spread within a mosquito vector, laboratory vector competence assessments are often methodologically similar, although differences in protocols do exist1,2. Generally, after oral virus exposure, mosquitoes are dissected so that individual tissues such as the midgut, legs, ovaries, or salivary glands can be assayed for viral infection, disseminated infection, disseminated infection/potential transovarial transmission, and disseminated infection/potential transmission competence, respectively8. The mere presence of a virus in the salivary glands, however, is not definitive evidence of transmission capability, given evidence of a salivary gland escape/egress barrier (SGEB) in some vector/virus combinations1,2,4,5,7,9. The standard method to prove transmission competence remains mosquito transmission to a susceptible animal10,11,12. However, given that for many arboviruses this necessitates the use of immunocompromised murine models13,14,15,16, this method is often cost-prohibitive. A commonly used alternative is the collection of the mosquito saliva, which can be analyzed by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) or an infectious assay to demonstrate the presence of the viral genome or infectious particles, respectively. It is worth noting that such in vitro saliva collection methods may overestimate12 or underestimate17 the amount of virus deposited during in vivo feeding, indicating that such data must be interpreted with caution. Nonetheless, the in vitro method is highly valuable when analyzed from the perspective of the mere presence of virus in the saliva, indicating transmission potential.
Two major approaches exist for determining the role of mosquito vectors in arboviral disease outbreaks. The first method involves field surveillance, in which mosquitoes are collected in the context of active transmission18,19,20,21,22,23,24. However, given that infection rates are typically quite low (e.g., the estimated 0.061% infection rate of mosquitoes in areas of active Zika virus (ZIKV) circulation in the United States21), incrimination of potential vector species can be heavily biased by trapping methodology25,26 and random chance (e.g., sampling one infected individual out of 1,600 uninfected)21. Taking this into account, a given study may not acquire sufficient mosquitoes in both raw numbers or species diversity to accurately sample mosquitoes involved in transmission. In contrast, vector competence analyses are undertaken in a laboratory setting, allowing for strict control of parameters such as oral dose. Although not fully capable of representing the true complexity of mosquito infection and transmission capability in a field setting, these laboratory assessments remain powerful tools in the field of arbovirology.
Based on various vector competence analyses with ZIKV in several mosquito species, populations, and methods27,28,29,30,31,32, as well as a recent review of vector competence assessments1, we describe here several of the protocols associated with a typical vector competence workflow. In these experiments, three Ae. aegypti populations from the Americas (the city of Salvador, Brazil; the Dominican Republic; and the lower Rio Grande Valley, TX, USA) were exposed to a single strain of ZIKV (Mex 1-7, GenBank Accession: KX247632.1) at 4, 5, or 6 log10 focus-forming units (FFU)/mL doses by way of artificial bloodmeals. Subsequently, they were analyzed for evidence of infection, disseminated infection, and transmission competence after various times of extrinsic incubation (2, 4, 7, 10, and 14 days) by means of dissection and a cell culture-based infectious assay. Although the present workflow/protocols are optimized for ZIKV, many elements are directly translatable to other mosquito-borne arboviruses in arthropod containment and biosafety levels 2 and 3 (ACL/BSL2 or ACL/BSL3).
All procedures performed in these protocols were performed in full compliance with protocols approved by the Institutional Biosafety Committee and the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston.
1. Amplify ZIKV in Vero cells
2. Preparation of artificial bloodmeals
3. Backtitration of bloodmeals/plaque assay
4. Administration of bloodmeals
5. Sample acquisition and processing
6. Detection of ZIKV by infectious assay
Three populations of Ae. aegypti from the Americas (Salvador, Brazil; the Dominican Republic; and the Rio Grande Valley, TX, USA) were exposed to an outbreak strain of ZIKV from the Americas (ZIKV Mex 1-7, Chiapas State, Mexico, 2015) over a range of bloodmeal titers (4, 5, and 6 log10 FFU/mL) presented in a washed human erythrocyte-based artificial bloodmeal. At days 2, 4, 7, 10, and 14 postinfection, subsets of mosquitoes were processed to determine infection, dissemination, and potential transmission rates.
At a bloodmeal titer of 4 log10 FFU/mL of ZIKV Mex 1−7, Ae. aegypti from Salvador, Brazil were infected at rates of 12.5% and 11.1% after 4 and 14 days of extrinsic incubation, respectively, with no evidence of disseminated infection observed in the assayed legs, and no virus detected in the saliva (Figure 1a). Increasing the titer to 5 log10 FFU/mL resulted in a marginal increase in infectivity with rates of 22.2%, 33.3%, and 22.2% on days 4, 10, and 14 postinfection, respectively. Similar to what was observed in the cohort exposed to 4 log10 FFU/mL, no disseminated infections or transmission competence was observed at any time point (Figure 1b). At the highest examined titer (6 log10 FFU/mL) no infections were identified after 2 days of incubation, but infections were observed at all other time points, peaking at 88.9% by 10 days of extrinsic incubation. ZIKV was detected in the legs of mosquitoes examined at 10 and 14 days postinfection (22.2% and 66.7%, respectively), indicating that ZIKV had disseminated into the hemocoel, although infectious ZIKV was observed in saliva at these time points (Figure 1c).
The Ae. aegypti population from the Dominican Republic proved the most susceptible to ZIKV infection and were transmission competent after exposure to all tested bloodmeal titers. Some level of infection was observed at all time points at all three tested doses, with the lowest rate observed 2 days postinfection at 4 log10 FFU/mL (25%) (Figure 1d). With bloodmeal titers of 5 log10 and 6 log10 FFU/mL conditions infection rates peaked at 100%, with 100% infection observed as early as 4 days postinfection in the population of mosquitoes exposed to 6 log10 FFU/mL ZIKV (Figure 1e,f). Mosquitoes fed all three doses demonstrated dissemination by 7 days postinfection, peaking at 44.4% (4 log10 FFU/mL, 14 days postinfection), 88.9% (5 log10 FFU/mL, 1 and 14 days postinfection), and 100% (6 log10 FFU/mL, 10 days postinfection). Transmission-competence was observed after all three doses (11.1%, 22.2%, and 22.2% at 4, 5, and 6 log10 FFU/mL respectively), but only following a 14 day extrinsic incubation period (EIP) (Figure 1d−f).
The Ae. aegypti population from the Rio Grande Valley, TX, proved to be relatively refractory to infection with ZIKV. Mosquitoes exposed to bloodmeal titers of 4 log10 FFU/mL, were infected as early as 4 days postinfection, with infection rates between 22.2% and 44.4%. With these exposure conditions, disseminated infections were observed at 14 days postinfection at a rate of 11.1%, and no transmission competence was observed (Figure 1g). A ten-fold increase in bloodmeal titer produced a largely similar result, with infections observed starting 4 days postexposure (33.3% and 44.4%), while disseminated infections were found after 14 days of extrinsic incubation at a rate of 22.2% (Figure 1h). Finally, in the cohort exposed to a 6 log10 FFU/mL bloodmeal, infection was observed beginning from the 2 day postinfection time point (22.2%) and reached peaks at 4, 10, and 14 days postinfection (66.7%). Disseminated infections in this condition began to be observed at 7 days postinfection (11.1%) and peaked at 44.4% at 14 days postinfection. Only a single mosquito (11.1%) was observed to be transmission capable at 10 days postinfection (Figure 1i).
Figure 1: Representative vector competence data of various Ae. aegypti populations for ZIKV Mex 1−7. (a−c) Vector competence of Ae. aegypti from Salvador, Brazil (F2). (d−f) Vector competence of Ae. aegypti from the Dominican Republic (F6). (g−i) Vector competence of Ae. aegypti from the Rio Grande Valley, TX (F4). (a,d,g) Ae. aegypti exposed to 4 log10 FFU/mL of ZIKV Mex 1-7. (b,e,h) Ae. aegypti exposed to 5 log10 FFU/mL of ZIKV Mex 1-7. (c,f,i) Ae. aegypti exposed to 6 log10 FFU/mL of ZIKV Mex 1-7. At each time point (2, 4, 7, 10, and 14 days postinfection) a subset of mosquitos was collected and sampled. Infection, dissemination, and transmission rates are presented as the number of positive carcass/leg/saliva samples over the number of mosquitos assayed at that time point. Infection represented in blue, disseminated infections represented in green, and transmission rate represented in red. Data in this figure are modified from Roundy and Azar et al.32. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
The methods described here provide a generalized workflow to conduct vector competence analyses. As a general framework, many of these methodologies are conserved throughout the literature. However, there is substantial room for modifications (reviewed in Azar and Weaver1). Virus (e.g., viral lineage, storage of challenge virus, viral passage history), entomology (e.g., laboratory colonization of mosquito populations, innate immunity, the mosquito microbiome/virome), and experimental variables (e.g., bloodmeal composition, sequential blood feeding, and incubation temperature) are all known to affect vector competence. Methodological variability in competence studies has proven problematic in the context of the ZIKV outbreak because it has precluded formal meta-analyses1,33.
Within this general methodology, the importance of the appropriate starvation of mosquitoes and bloodmeal makeup cannot be overstated. Dehydration is known to drive blood feeding behavior of mosquitos in laboratory paradigms34, underscoring the value of sugar and water starvation prior to offering an infectious bloodmeal. While deprivation of sugar for 36–48 h and water for 2–4 h prior to exposure to the bloodmeal is well tolerated by Ae. aegypti, it is worth noting that these mosquitoes are notoriously easy to work with in laboratory conditions2. Such aggressive regimens of starvation may not be nearly as well tolerated by other mosquito species, necessitating some degree of in-house optimization. Likewise, bloodmeal contents may be informed by host preference. For example, using human blood to prepare a bloodmeal for anthropophilic mosquitos like Ae. aegypti is entirely appropriate, but human bloodmeals made for ornithophilic species such as Culex quinquefasciatus may prove less effective35. Additionally, with respect to bloodmeal assembly, the use of relatively fresh blood products is highly advisable to minimize hemolysis of erythrocytes.
One of the greatest limitations of vector competence assessment as a whole and the procedures described herein is that these studies are largely limited to investigating viruses using mosquitoes that can be maintained in laboratory conditions. Ae. aegypti, while a highly relevant vector for a multitude of pathogens of clinical importance, also happens to be one of the easiest mosquitoes to rear and maintain in laboratory colonies1,31,36,37. Unsurprisingly, the competence of Ae. aegypti populations is often therefore the best characterized among common vector mosquitoes2. This is particularly problematic in the context of arboviruses that maintain both enzootic and urban transmission cycles38,39,40, as vector competence is generally only conducted in the context of the more tractable urban mosquitoes.
The authors have nothing to disclose.
We acknowledge the staff of the World Reference Center for Emerging Viruses and Arboviruses (WRCEVA): Dr. Robert Tesh, Hilda Guzman, Dr. Kenneth Plante, Dr. Jessica Plante, Dionna Scharton, and Divya Mirchandani, for their tireless work in curating and providing many of the viral strains used for our and other groups’ vector competence experiments. The presented work was funded by the McLaughlin Fellowship Fund (SRA) and NIH grants AI120942 and AI121452.
3mL Standard Reservoir | R37P30 | Hemotek Ltd | Insectary Equipment |
7/32" Stainless Steel 440 Grade C Balls | 4RJH9 | Grainger | Grinding Media |
Acetone, Histological Grade, Fisher Chemicals, Poly Bottle, 4L, 4/Case | A16-P4 | FisherScientific | Fixative |
Adenosine 5'-triphospate disodium salt hydrat, microbial, BioReagent, suitable for cell culture | A6419-1G | MilliporeSigma | Reagent |
Anti-Flavivirus Group Antigen Antibody, clone D1-4G2-4-15 | MAB10216 | MilliporeSigma | Primary Antibody for focus forming assay |
Anti-Mouse IgG (H+L) Antibody, Human Serum Adsorbed and Peroxidase-Labeled, 1.0mL/Bottle | 5450-0011 | KPL/Seracare | Secondary Antibody for focus forming assay |
Bleach | NC0427256 | FisherScientific | Decontamination |
Corning, Cell Culture Treated Flasks, 150cm2, Vented Cap, Case of 50 | 10-126-34 | FisherScientific | Cell culture consumable |
Costar Cell Culture Plates, 24-well, 5/bag, 100/case, Corning | 07-200-740 | FisherScientific | Cell culture consumable |
Costar Cell Culture Plates, 96-well, 5/bag, 100/case, Corning | 07-200-91 | FisherScientific | Cell culture consumable |
Crystal Violet | C0775-100G | MilliporeSigma | Stain |
Eppendorf Snap Cap Microcentrifuge Safe-Lock 2mL Tubes, 500/Case | 05-402-7 | FisherScientific | Plastic consumable |
Falcon 15mL Conical Centrigue Tubes | 14-959-70C | FisherScientific | Plastic consumable |
Falcon 50mL Conical Centrigue Tubes | 14-959-49A | FisherScientific | Plastic consumable |
Falcon Disposable Polystyrene Serological 10mL Pipets, 200/Case | 13-675-20 | FisherScientific | Plastic consumable |
Falcon Disposable Polystyrene Serological 1mL Pipets, 1000/Case | 13-675-15B | FisherScientific | Plastic consumable |
Falcon Disposable Polystyrene Serological 25mL Pipets, 200/Case | 13-675-30 | FisherScientific | Plastic consumable |
Falcon Disposable Polystyrene Serological 5mL Pipets, 200/Case | 13-675-22 | FisherScientific | Plastic consumable |
Falcon Standard Tissue Culture Dishes | 08-772B | FisherScientific | Plastic consumable |
Fetal Bovine Serum-Premium, 500mL | S11150 | Atlanta Biologicals | Cell culture reagent |
Fisherbrand Economy Plain Glass Microscope Slides | 12-550-A3 | FisherScientific | Immobilization of Mosquitos |
FU1 Feeder | FU1-0 | Hemotek Ltd | Insectary Equipment; feeding units |
Gibco DPBS with Calcium and Magnesium, 10 x 500mL Bottles | 140-040-182 | FisherScientific | Cell culture reagent |
Gibco Fungizone, Amphotericin B, 250μg/mL, 50mL/Bottle | 15-290-026 | Fisher Scientific | Cell culture reagent |
Gibco Penicillin-Streptomycin (10,000 U/mL), 100mL/Bottle, 20 Bottles/Case | 15-140-163 | FisherScientific | Cell culture reagent |
Gibco, Tryptsin-EDTA (.25%), Phenol red, 20 x 100mL Bottles | 25-200-114 | FisherScientific | Cell culture reagent |
Gibcom DMEM, High Glucose, 10 x 500mL Bottles | 11-965-118 | FisherScientific | Cell culture reagent |
Human Blood, Unspecified Gender, Na-Citrate, 1 Unit | 7203706 | Lampire | Bloodmeal preparation |
InsectaVac Aspirator | 2809B | Bioquip | Insectary Equipment |
Methanol, Certified ACS, Fisher Chemicals, Amber Glass Bottle, 4L, 4/Case | A412-4 | FisherScientific | Fixative |
Methyl cellulose, viscosity: 3,500-5,600 cP, 2 % in water(20 °C), 250g/Bottle | M0512-250G | MilliporeSigma | Cell culture reagent |
Micro-chem Plus Disinfectant Detergent | C849T34 | Thomas Scientific | Decontamination; working dilution of dual quaternary ammonium |
Mineral Oil, BioReagent, for molecular biology | M5904-5X5ML | MilliporeSigma | Immobilization of Mosquitos |
O-rings | OR37-25 | Hemotek Ltd | Insectary Equipment |
Plastic Plugs | PP5-250 | Hemotek Ltd | Insectary Equipment |
PS6 Power Unit (110-120V) | PS6120 | Hemotek Ltd | Insectary Equipment; power source |
Rubis Forceps, Offset blades, superfine points | 4525 | Bioquip | Insectary Equipment |
Sarstedt Inc, 2mL Screw Cap Microtube, Conical Bottom, O-ring Cap, Sterile, 1000/Case | 50-809-242 | FisherScientific | Plastic consumable |
Sucrose, BioUltra, for molecular biology | 84097-250G | MilliporeSigma | Reagent |
ThermoScientific, ART Barrier Low Retention 1000μL Pipette Tips, 100 tips/Rack, 8 Racks/Pack, 4 Packs/Case | 21-402-487 | FisherScientific | Plastic consumable |
ThermoScientific, ART Barrier Low Retention 200μL Pipette Tips, 96 tips/Rack, 10 Racks/Pack, 5 Packs/Case | 21-402-486 | FisherScientific | Plastic consumable |
ThermoScientific, ART Barrier Low Retention 20μL Pipette Tips, 96 tips/Rack, 10 Racks/Pack, 5 Packs/Case | 21-402-484 | FisherScientific | Plastic consumable |
ThermoScientific, ART Barrier Low Retention, Extended Reach 10μL Pipette Tips, 96 tips/Rack, 10 Racks/Pack, 5 Packs/Case | 21-402-482 | FisherScientific | Plastic consumable |
TissueLyser II | 85300 | QIAGEN | Homogenization |
TrueBlue Peroxidase Substrate Kit, 200mL | 5510-0030 | Seracare | Developing solution for focus forming assay |
Vero | CCL-81 | American Type Culture Collection | Mammalian cell line to amplify virus and conduct infectious assay |
Vero C1008 [Vero 76, clone E6, Vero E6] | CRL-1586 | American Type Culture Collection | Mammalian cell line to amplify virus and conduct infectious assay |