# Potential of Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) to transmit yellow fever virus in urban areas in Central Africa

Basile Kamgang, Marie Vazeille, Aurélie P Yougang, Armel N Tedjou, Theodel A Wilson-Bahun, Laurence Mousson, Charles S Wondji, Anna-Bella Failloux

► To cite this version:

Basile Kamgang, Marie Vazeille, Aurélie P Yougang, Armel N Tedjou, Theodel A Wilson-Bahun, et al. Potential of Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) to transmit yellow fever virus in urban areas in Central Africa. Emerging microbes & infections, 2019, 8 (1), pp.1636-1641. 10.1080/22221751.2019.1688097. pasteur-02388953

HAL Id: pasteur-02388953

https://pasteur.hal.science/pasteur-02388953

Submitted on 2 Dec 2019

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# Potential of *Aedes albopictus* and *Aedes aegypti* (Diptera: Culicidae) to transmit yellow fever virus in urban areas in Central Africa

Basile Kamgang, Marie Vazeille, Aurélie P. Yougang, Armel N. Tedjou, Theodel A. Wilson-Bahun, Laurence Mousson, Charles S. Wondji & Anna-Bella Failloux

To cite this article: Basile Kamgang, Marie Vazeille, Aurélie P. Yougang, Armel N. Tedjou, Theodel A. Wilson-Bahun, Laurence Mousson, Charles S. Wondji & Anna-Bella Failloux (2019) Potential of *Aedes albopictus* and *Aedes aegypti* (Diptera: Culicidae) to transmit yellow fever virus in urban areas in Central Africa, Emerging Microbes & Infections, 8:1, 1636-1641, DOI: 10.1080/22221751.2019.1688097

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/22221751.2019.1688097

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group, on behalf of Shanghai Shangyixun Cultural Communication Co., Ltd

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Published online: 12 Nov 2019.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

Submit your article to this journal

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

Article views: 288

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

View related articles

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

CrossMark

View Crossmark data

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

OPEN ACCESS

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

Check for updates

# Potential of *Aedes albopictus* and *Aedes aegypti* (Diptera: Culicidae) to transmit yellow fever virus in urban areas in Central Africa

Basile Kamgang ID a, Marie Vazeille b, Aurélie P. Yougang a, c, Armel N. Tedjou a, c, Theodel A. Wilson-Bahun a, d, Laurence Mousson b, Charles S. Wondji ID a, e* and Anna-Bella Failloux ID b*

aDepartment of Medical Entomology, Centre for Research in Infectious Diseases, Yaoundé, Cameroon; bDepartment of Virology, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Arboviruses and Insect Vectors, Paris, France; cDepartment of Animal Biology, Faculty of Sciences, University of Yaoundé I, Yaoundé, Cameroon; dFaculty of Science and Technology, Marien Ngouabi University, Brazzaville, Congo; eVector Biology Department, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK

## ABSTRACT

Yellow Fever (YF) remains a major public health issue in Sub-Saharan Africa and South America, despite the availability of an effective vaccine. In Africa, most YF outbreaks are reported in West Africa. However, urban outbreaks occurred in 2016 in both Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and imported cases were reported in Chinese workers coming back from Africa. In Central Africa, Cameroon and the Republic of Congo host a high proportion of non-vaccinated populations increasing the risk of urban outbreaks. The main vector is *Aedes aegypti* and possibly, *Aedes albopictus*, both being anthropophilic and domestic mosquitoes. Here, we provide evidence that both *Ae. aegypti* and *Ae. albopictus* in Cameroon and the Republic of Congo are able to transmit Yellow fever virus (YFV) with higher rates of infection, dissemination, and transmission for *Ae. aegypti*. We conclude that the potential of both *Aedes* species to transmit YFV could increase the risk of urban YF transmission and urge public health authorities to intensify their efforts to control domestic vectors, and extend vaccine coverage to prevent major YFV outbreak.

**ARTICLE HISTORY** Received 20 July 2019; Revised 11 October 2019; Accepted 28 October 2019

**KEYWORDS** *Aedes aegypti*; *Aedes albopictus*; yellow fever virus; vector competence; Central Africa

## Background

Yellow fever (YF) is a mosquito borne viral disease endemic in South America and Sub-Saharan African countries. Clinical signs vary from a fever with aches and pains to severe liver disease with bleeding and yellowing skin (jaundice), for which there is no specific treatment. Despite the availability of an effective vaccine, which can offer a lifelong immunity, numerous cases of YF are still being reported. Indeed, a modelling study based on African data sources estimated that the burden of YF during 2013 was 84 000–170 000 severe cases and 29 000–60 000 deaths [1]. Yellow fever virus (YFV, *Flavivirus*, *Flaviviridae*) is transmitted to humans and non-human primates mainly by bites of infected mosquitoes belonging to *Aedes* and *Haemagogus* genera. This virus primarily circulates in the forest between non-human primates and sylvatic *Aedes* spp. mosquitoes (e.g. *Ae. africanus*) in Africa and *Haemagogus* spp. in South America [2]. Nevertheless, YF can spread widely in urban environments when transmitted from human to human by the anthropophilic mosquitoes, *Aedes aegypti* [3] or potentially, *Aedes albopictus* [4,5]. Indeed, between 2015 and 2016 in

Central Africa, major urban YF outbreaks occurred in Angola and Democratic Republic of Congo with 7,334 suspected cases, of which 962 have been confirmed, and 393 deaths [6]. *Aedes aegypti* was suspected as the main YFV vector involved during the Angola outbreak due to its high densities reported across the country [7]. On the other hand, recent studies on entomological surveillance in Central Africa particularly in Cameroon [8] and the Republic of Congo [9], where sporadic cases of YF were frequently reported, showed that *Ae. aegypti* is present in all urban environments while *Ae. albopictus* introduced in 2000s has a distribution limited under 6°N latitude. In sympatric areas, *Ae. albopictus* tends to be the most prevalent species by replacing the resident species *Ae. aegypti* [8–10]. In Cameroon, the first isolation of YFV was in 1990 during an outbreak with 180 cases, of which 125 fatalities [11]. The suspected mosquito vectors were *Ae. aegypti*, *Ae. furcifer*, and *Ae. luteocephalus*. From 2010 to 2016, 13,837 suspected cases of YF were reported of which 109 cases were confirmed with 66% mostly in rural areas [7]. The epidemiological importance of both vectors in urban YFV transmission in Central Africa has not been assessed precisely up to now. As

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

the vector competence is one of the key parameters to assess the pathogen transmission, we undertook a study aimed at establishing the ability of *Ae. aegypti* and *Ae. albopictus* populations collected in different urban settings in Central Africa to transmit YFV strain isolated in West Africa.

## Material and methods

### Ethics statement

This study was approved by the Cameroonian national ethics committee for human health research N°2017/05/ 911/CE/CNERSH/SP. Oral consent to inspect the potential breeding sites was obtained in the field in household or garage owners. The Institut Pasteur animal facility received accreditation from the French Ministry of Agriculture to perform experiments on live animals in compliance with the French and European regulations on care and protection of laboratory animals (EC Directive 2010/63, French Law 2013-118, 6 February 2013). All experiments were approved by the Ethics Committee and registered under the reference APAFIS6573-201606l412077987 v2.

### Mosquito sampling

Larvae and pupae were collected from August 2017 to April 2018 in several locations in Central Africa including the Republic of Congo (Brazzaville) and Cameroon (Yaoundé, Douala, Tibati and Bénoué National Park). Each of these locations has been previously described [8,9] except Bénoué National Park (8°20′N, 13°50′E); it is a biosphere reserve located in Northern part of Cameroon on the Bénoué River plain, at the foot of the Adamawa plateau. In Benoué park, *Aedes* larvae were collected across the park in tree holes (1), tin cans (15), used tires (2) and discarded chair (1). For other locations, mosquitoes were collected in peri-urban and downtown in a minimum of 20 containers per environment. Immature stages of *Aedes* were transported in the insectary and pooled together according to the city and raised until adults before morphological identification using criteria established by Jupp (1996) [12]. Adult mosquitoes were pooled together according to the location, species and reared at 28°±1°C under 12 h dark:12 h light cycle and 80% relative humidity. Eggs obtained (Table 1) were transported to the Institut Pasteur in Paris, reared to adult stage and used to challenge with YFV.

### Virus strain

YFV was isolated from a human case in Senegal in 1979 (YFV S79; accession number: MK060080) [13]. YFV S79 was passaged twice on newborn mice and two

<table><caption>**Table 1.** Origin of *Ae. aegypti* and *Ae. albopictus* used for vector competence.</caption><thead><tr><td>Location</td><td>Species</td><td>Generation</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Yaoundé</td><td><i>Ae. albopictus</i></td><td>G2</td></tr><tr><td>Tibati</td><td><i>Ae.albopictus</i></td><td>G2</td></tr><tr><td>Douala</td><td><i>Ae. albopictus</i></td><td>G2</td></tr><tr><td>Brazzaville</td><td><i>Ae. albopictus</i></td><td>G5</td></tr><tr><td>Yaoundé</td><td><i>Ae. aegypti</i></td><td>G2</td></tr><tr><td>Bénoué Parc</td><td><i>Ae. aegypti</i></td><td>G4</td></tr><tr><td>Brazzaville</td><td><i>Ae. aegypti</i></td><td>G2</td></tr><tr><td>Douala</td><td><i>Ae. aegypti</i></td><td>G2</td></tr></tbody></table>

times on C6/36 cells. Viral stocks were produced on *Aedes albopictus* C6/36 cells.

### Challenge mosquitoes with YFV

For each population, six batches of 60 7–10 day-old females were challenged with an infectious blood meal containing 1.4 mL of washed rabbit erythrocytes and 700 µL of viral suspension. The blood meal was supplemented with adenosine 5'-triphosphate (ATP) as a phagostimulant at a final concentration of 1 mM and provided to mosquitoes at a titer of 10⁷ focus-forming unit (FFU)/mL using a Hemotek membrane feeding system (Hemotek Ltd, Blackburn, UK). Mosquitoes were allowed to feed for 20 min through a piece of pork intestine covering the base of a Hemotek feeder maintained at 37°C. Fully engorged females were transferred in cardboard containers and maintained with 10% sucrose under controlled conditions (28±1°C, relative humidity of 80%, light:dark cycle of 12h:12 h) for up to 21 days with mosquito analysed at 14 and 21 days post-infection (dpi). 21–32 mosquitoes were examined at each dpi.

### Infection, dissemination and transmission assays

For each mosquito examined, body (abdomen and thorax) and head were tested respectively for infection and dissemination rates at 14 and 21 dpi per population when the number permitted. For this, each part was ground individually in 300 µL of L15 medium (Invitrogen, CA, USA) supplemented with 2% fetal serum bovine (FBS), and centrifuged at 10,000×g for 5 min at +4°C. The supernatant was processed for viral titration. Saliva was collected from individual mosquitoes at 21 dpi using the forced salivation technique as described previously [14]. Briefly, mosquitoes were cool anesthetized, wings and legs of each mosquito were removed and the proboscis inserted into a tip of 20 µL containing 5 µL of FBS. After 30 min, FBS containing saliva was added to 45 µL of L15 medium for titration. Transmission rates were assessed only at 21 dpi based on previous studies demonstrated that higher transmission rates were reported at this time point [15].
<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

Infection rate (IR) refers to the proportion of mos-
quitoes with infected body (i.e. abdomen and thorax)
among tested mosquitoes. Disseminated infection
rate (DIR) corresponds to the proportion of mosqu-
toes with infected head among the previously detected
infected mosquitoes (i.e. virus positive abdomen/
thorax). Transmission rate (TR) represents the pro-
portion of mosquitoes with infectious saliva among
mosquitoes with disseminated infection. Vector com-
petence can be summarized by the transmission
efficiency (TE) which was calculated as the proportion
of mosquitoes with infectious saliva among all mosqu-
toes tested [16].

Viral titration by focus forming assay

Samples were titrated by focus fluorescent assay on C6/36 *Ae. albopictus* cells [17]. Body, head and saliva suspensions were serially diluted in L15 medium supplemented with 2% of FBS and inoculated onto cells in 96-well plates. After an incubation of 5 days at 28° C, samples were fixed with 0.1 mL/well of formaldehyde 3.6% in phosphate buffer saline (PBS) during 20 min at room temperature. Then, plates were stained using antibodies specific to YFV (Bio-techne, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA) as the primary antibody and conjugated Alexa Fluor 488 goat anti-mouse IgG as the second antibody (Life Technologies, California, USA). Titers were expressed as FFU/mL.

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed with R software
v 3.5.2 (R Core Team, Vienna, Austria). Qualitative

variables were expressed as proportion and compared
using Fisher's exact test the RVAideMemoire package
and quantitative variables by mean and compared
using non-parametric test of Kruskal-Wallis because
of non-normal distribution. *P-value* <0.05 was con-
sidered as statistically different.

Results

Infection and disseminated infection rates in Ae.
albopictus and Ae. aegypti

Mosquitoes were analysed at two time points follow-
ing the infectious blood meal when the number of
mosquitoes was sufficient: 14 and 21 days post infec-
tion (dpi) (Figures 1 and 2). At 14 dpi, no significant
difference of infection rate (IR) and disseminated
infection rate (DIR) was found between *Ae. albopic-
tus* populations, respectively *P* = 0.89 and *P* = 0.18
(Fisher's exact test) (Figure 1A). Besides, in *Ae.
aegypti*, IRs were significantly different (Fisher's
exact test: *P*=0.01) ranging from 37.5% in Yaoundé
to 79.2% in Brazzaville (Figure 2A) while DIRs
were not significantly different (Fisher's exact test:
*P* = 0.49). When considering all populations of same
species, IRs for *Ae. aegypti* (mean = 54.9%) was sig-
nificantly higher than *Ae. albopictus* (mean = 30.7%)
(Fisher's exact test: *P* = 0.02) while DIRs were not sig-
nificantly different (*Ae. aegypti*: mean = 56.8% and
*Ae. albopictus*: mean = 54.5%). At 21 dpi, IRs for
*Ae. albopictus* ranged from 16.8% in Douala to
54.5% in Tibati and were not statistically different
(Figure 1B; Fisher's exact test: *P*=0.08). In *Ae. albo-
pictus*, DIRs ranged from 0 for Douala population
suggesting no dissemination to 55% in Brazzaville

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Infection, disseminated infection, transmission rates and transmission efficiency of *Ae. albopictus* from Central Africa to yellow fever virus. (A) Infection and disseminated infection rates at 14 days post-infection (dpi). (B) Infection, disseminated infection, transmission rates and transmission efficiency at 21 dpi. 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. TE: the proportion of mosquitoes with infectious saliva among all analysed ones.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Infection, disseminated infection, transmission rates and transmission efficiency of *Ae. aegypti* from Central Africa to yellow fever virus. (A) Infection and disseminated infection rates at 14 days post-infection (dpi). (B) Infection, disseminated infection, transmission rates and transmission efficiency at 21 dpi. 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. TE: the proportion of mosquitoes with infectious saliva among all analysed ones.</figcaption></figure>

population. Meanwhile, for three populations where
viral dissemination was reported, no statistical differ-
ence was found (Figure 1B; Fisher's exact test: P =
0.34). In *Ae. aegypti*, IRs varied between 31.2%
(Douala) and 66.7% (Bénoué, Brazzaville) and were
not statistically different (Fisher's exact test: P =
0.11). DIRs were not significantly different (Fisher's
exact test: P = 0.14) ranging from 40% (Douala) to
81.2% (Brazzaville) (Figure 2B). Overall, at 21 dpi,
IRs were higher for *Ae. aegypti* (54.5%) than for
*Ae. albopictus* (16.7%) (Fisher's exact test: P = 0.005)
while for DIRs, no significant difference was reported
between both species (Fisher's exact test: P > 0.5).
When considering the two mosquito species from a
same location, IRs and DIRs were not significantly
different (Fisher's exact test: P > 0.05) except for IRs
of *Ae. aegypti* and *Ae. albopictus* from Brazzaville at
14 dpi (P = 0.013).

Transmission rate and transmission
efficiency

Our analysis showed that YFV was able to replicate,
disseminate and be excreted in saliva of both *Ae. albopictus* and *Ae. aegypti* (Figures 1B and 2B). However, in *Ae. albopictus*, YFV was detected only in saliva of Brazzaville population. In contrast, in *Ae. aegypti*, YFV was found in saliva of all tested populations with transmission rate (TR) and transmission efficiency (TE) ranging from 11.1% (Yaoundé) to 50% (Douala) and 3.2% (Yaoundé) to 25% (Brazzaville) respectively. Collectively, *Ae. aegypti* exhibited a higher TE (10.4%) than *Ae. albopictus* populations (2.2%) (Fisher's exact test: *P* = 0.03). In *Ae. aegypti*, viral titers varied significantly from Yaoundé population to Brazzaville

population (Figure 2; Chi-squared = 7.91; df = 3; P =
0.04). In *Ae. albopictus* Brazzaville population, viral
load in saliva was higher than in some *Ae. aegypti*
populations (Figure 3).

Discussion

Yellow fever virus is circulating in Central Africa where
massive outbreaks have been reported recently in
Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo [6] in
spite of the availability of an effective vaccine. In this
study, we assessed the ability of *Ae. aegypti* and *Ae.
albopictus* collected in different ecological settings in
Cameroon and the Republic of Congo to transmit
YFV isolated from a human case in Senegal. Our analy-
sis showed that YFV was able to replicate, disseminate
and be excreted in saliva of both *Ae. aegypti* and *Ae.
albopictus* from Central Africa at 21 dpi. High levels
of infection and disseminated infection rates were
reported in both species from different locations.
YFV was only detected in saliva of a single population
of *Ae. albopictus* from Brazzaville (Congo) at 21 dpi
with a transmission rate comparable to that found for
*Ae. albopictus* populations from South France and
Morocco [4,18], suggesting a low potential of this
species to sustain an active viral transmission. Further-
more, YFV was found at 21 dpi in saliva of all popu-
lations of *Ae. aegypti* from different ecological
settings, indicating a higher epidemiological risk
related to this mosquito in urban areas. Interestingly,
transmission rate reported in *Ae. aegypti* populations
was similar to those reported in previous studies
undertaken in Carbo Verde [19], Brazil [20] and Gua-
deloupe [15] using the same YFV strain (Senegal 1979).
The unique *Ae. albopictus* population in which virus
<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** Yellow fever virus titers in saliva of *Ae. aegypti* and *Ae. albopictus* at 21 days post-infection. The bars indicate the confidence interval of the mean for viral load in each population.</figcaption></figure>

was detected has a higher viral load than many other *Ae. aegypti* populations tested suggesting that in some areas, *Ae. albopictus* could intervene in YFV transmission. This result is quite alarming since *Ae. albopictus* has been found most prevalent in some rural [21], urban and peri-urban environments [8–10] in Central Africa. Interestingly, *Ae. albopictus* has been found naturally infected by YFV in Brazil and could serve as bridge vector for transferring enzootic YFV at the urban-forest/rural interface in Central Africa into cities as suggested previously in Brazil [22]. However, other factors should be considered to determine if a mosquito species can act as a vector under natural conditions: mosquito lifespan, trophic preferences or vector abundance [23]. Likewise, bacterial symbionts of mosquitoes have been shown to alter the vector competence to arboviruses [24]; *Ae. albopictus* from Brazzaville might have undergone changes in bacteria composition as the 5th generation in the laboratory was used for experimental infections.

Our experiment is the first one establishing the vector competence of *Ae. aegypti* and *Ae. albopictus* towards YFV in Central Africa. We showed that *Ae. albopictus* in a populated city like Brazzaville, can experimentally transmit YFV at 21 dpi suggesting a potential of this species to participate in YFV transmission but perhaps too late to pose an immediate threat for the region. However, YFV can evolve by becoming more adapted for a higher transmission by an unusual vector species [5]. Further studies using a local strain of YFV circulating in Central Africa are

needed to validate these results. Our findings support the efforts needed in vector surveillance and control, and vaccine coverage to prevent major YFV outbreak as reported recently in Angola.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the populations of different collection sites for their collaboration during the field works. BK, CSW and ABF designed the experiments. BK performed the research. MV and LM provided a technical help. ANT, APY, TAWB helped in mosquito collections; BK, CSW and ABF wrote the paper with contribution from all other authors.

## Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

## Funding

This study was supported by a Wellcome Trust Training Fellowship in Public Health and Tropical Medicine [grant number 204862/Z/16/Z] awarded to BK. The funders had no role in study design, data collection or analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

## ORCID

Basile Kamgang ID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8883-4557

Charles S. Wondji ID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0791-3673

Anna-Bella Failloux ID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6890-0820
<figure><img src="image_25.png" /></figure>

## References

[1] Garske T, Van Kerkhove MD, Yactayo S, et al. Yellow fever in Africa: estimating the burden of disease and impact of mass vaccination from outbreak and serological data. PLoS Med. 2014 May;11(5):e1001638.

[2] Barrett AD, Higgs S. Yellow fever: a disease that has yet to be conquered. Annu Rev Entomol. 2007;52:209–229.

[3] WHO. A global strategy to eliminate yellow fever epidemics 2017–2026. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018 Jan.

[4] Amraoui F, Vazeille M, Failloux AB. French *Aedes albopictus* are able to transmit yellow fever virus. Euro Surveillance. 2016 Sep 29;21(39).

[5] Amraoui F, Pain A, Piorkowski G, et al. Experimental Adaptation of the yellow fever virus to the mosquito *Aedes albopictus* and potential risk of urban epidemics in Brazil, South America. Sci Rep. 2018 Sep 25;8 (1):14337.

[6] Kraemer MUG, Faria NR, Reiner Jr. RC, et al. Spread of yellow fever virus outbreak in Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo 2015–16: a modeling study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2017 Mar;17(3):330–338.

[7] Marquetti Fernández MC, Hidalgo Flores Y, Lamothe Nuviola D. Longitudinal spatial distribution of *Aedes aegypti* (Diptera: Culicidae) during the yellow fever epidemic in Angola, 2016. Glob J Zool. 2019;4 (1):0001–0006.

[8] Tedjou AN, Kamgang B, Yougang AP, et al. Update on the geographical distribution and prevalence of *Aedes aegypti* and *Aedes albopictus* (Diptera: Culicidae), two major arbovirus vectors in Cameroon. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019 Mar 18;13(3):e0007137.

[9] Kamgang B, Wilson-Bahun TA, Irving H, et al. Geographical distribution of *Aedes aegypti* and *Aedes albopictus* (Diptera: Culicidae) and genetic diversity of invading population of *Ae. albopictus* in the Republic of the Congo. Wellcome Open Res. 2018;3:79.

[10] Kamgang B, Ngoagouni C, Manirakiza A, et al. Temporal patterns of abundance of *Aedes aegypti* and *Aedes albopictus* (Diptera: Culicidae) and mitochondrial DNA analysis of *Ae. albopictus* in the Central African Republic. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7(12):e2590.

[11] Vicens R, Robert V, Pignon D, et al. [Yellow fever epidemic in the extreme North of Cameroon in 1990: first yellow fever virus isolation in Cameroon]. Bull World Health Organ. 1993;71(2):173–176.

[12] Jupp PG. Mosquitoes of Southern Africa. Culicinae and Toxorhynchitinae. Hartebeespoort: Ekogilde; 1996 Mar - Apr.

[13] Rodhain F, Hannoun C, Jousset FX, et al. [Isolation of the yellow fever virus in Paris from 2 imported human cases]. Bull Soc Pathol Exot Filiales. 1979 Sep-Dec;72 (5-6):411–415.

[14] Dubrulle M, Mousson L, Moutailler S, et al. Chikungunya virus and *Aedes* mosquitoes: saliva is infectious as soon as two days after oral infection. PLoS One. 2009;4(6):e5895.

[15] Yen PS, Amraoui F, Vega Rua A, et al. *Aedes aegypti* mosquitoes from Guadeloupe (French West Indies) are able to transmit yellow fever virus. PloS one. 2018;13(9):e0204710.

[16] Chouin-Carneiro T, Vega-Rua A, Vazeille M, et al. Differential Susceptibilities of *Aedes aegypti* and *Aedes albopictus* from the Americas to Zika virus. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016 Mar;10(3):e0004543.

[17] Payne AF, Binduga-Gajewska I, Kauffman EB, et al. Quantitation of flaviviruses by fluorescent focus assay. J Virol Methods. 2006 Jun;134(1-2):183–189.

[18] Amraoui F, Ben Ayed W, Madec Y, et al. Potential of *Aedes albopictus* to cause the emergence of arboviruses in Morocco. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019 Feb;13(2): e0006997.

[19] Vazeille M, Yebakima A, Lourenco-de-Oliveira R, et al. Oral receptivity of *Aedes aegypti* from Cape Verde for yellow fever, dengue, and chikungunya viruses. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2013 Jan;13(1):37–40.

[20] Couto-Lima D, Madec Y, Bersot MI, et al. Potential risk of re-emergence of urban transmission of yellow fever virus in Brazil facilitated by competent *Aedes* populations. Sci Rep. 2017 Jul 7;7(1):4848.

[21] Paupy C, Kassa Kassa F, Caron M, et al. A chikungunya outbreak associated with the vector *Aedes albopictus* in remote villages of Gabon. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2012 Feb;12(2):167–169.

[22] Pereira Dos Santos T, Roiz D, Santos de Abreu FV, et al. Potential of *Aedes albopictus* as a bridge vector for enzootic pathogens at the urban-forest interface in Brazil. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2018 Nov 28;7 (1):191.

[23] Kramer LD, Ebel GD. Dynamics of flavivirus infection in mosquitoes. Adv Virus Res. 2003;60:187–232.

[24] Jupatanakul N, Sim S, Dimopoulos G. The insect microbiome modulates vector competence for arboviruses. Viruses. 2014 Nov 11;6(11):4294–4313.