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

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

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

## To cite this version:

Basile Kamgang, Marie Vazeille, Armel N Tedjou, Aurélie P Yougang, Theodel A Wilson-Bahun, et al. Different populations of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) from Central Africa are susceptible to Zika virus infection. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 2020, 14 (3), pp.e0008163. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008163. pasteur-02641395

HAL Id: pasteur-02641395

https://pasteur.hal.science/pasteur-02641395

Submitted on 28 May 2020

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published 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_2.png" /></figure>
RESEARCH ARTICLE

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

Basile Kamgang<sup>1*</sup>, Marie Vazeille<sup>2</sup>, Armel Tedjou<sup>1,3</sup>, Aurélie P. Yougang<sup>1,3</sup>, Theodel

A. Wilson-Bahun<sup>1,4</sup>, Laurence Mousson<sup>2</sup>, Charles S. Wondji<sup>1,5</sup>, Anna-Bella Failloux<sup>2</sup>

1 Centre for Research in Infectious Diseases, Department of Medical Entomology, Yaoundé, Cameroon,

2 Institut Pasteur, Department of Virology, Unit of Arboviruses and Insect Vectors, Paris, France,

3 Department of Animal Biology, Faculty of Sciences, University of Yaoundé I, Yaoundé, Cameroon,

4 Faculty of Science and Technology, Marien Ngouabi University, Brazzaville, Congo, 5 Vector Biology Department, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom

* basile.kamgang@crid-cam.net, kamgang_d@yahoo.fr

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

## 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.

## Author summary

Zika virus (ZIKV), isolated for the first time in Uganda in 1947, is transmitted to human beings mainly by the bite of an infected mosquitoes belonging to the *Aedes* genus notably *Ae. aegypti* and *Ae. albopictus*. Both *Aedes* species are present in Central Africa, however their epidemiological role is poorly characterized. Here, we assessed the ability of *Ae. aegypti* and *Ae. albopictus* collected in different ecological settings in Central Africa to transmit a ZIKV strain isolated in West Africa. Analysis showed that both *Ae. aegypti* and *Ae. albopictus* are able to transmit ZIKV but with higher overall transmission efficiency for *Ae. aegypti* compared to *Ae. albopictus*. In addition, disseminated infection and transmission rates for both *Aedes* species varied significantly according to the sampling

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

OPEN ACCESS

**Citation:** Kamgang B, Vazeille M, Tedjou A, Yougang AP, Wilson-Bahun TA, Mousson L, et al. (2020) Different populations of *Aedes aegypti* and *Aedes albopictus* (Diptera: Culicidae) from Central Africa are susceptible to Zika virus infection. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 14(3): e0008163. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008163

**Editor:** Michael J Turell, INDEPENDENT RESEARCHER, UNITED STATES

**Received:** September 5, 2019

**Accepted:** February 21, 2020

**Published:** March 23, 2020

**Copyright:** © 2020 Kamgang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

**Data Availability Statement:** All relevant data are within the manuscript.

**Funding:** This study was primarily supported by the Wellcome Trust Training Fellowship in Public Health and Tropical Medicine (204862/Z/16/Z) awarded to BK. It was partly supported by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under ZIKAlliance grant agreement no. 734548, and the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program
under grant agreement No 731060 (Infravec2, Research Infrastructures for the control of vector-borne diseases; http://infravec2.eu/), and the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program under EVAg grant agreement no. 653316 (https://www.european-virus-archive.com/). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

**Competing interests:** The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

location. Overall, our result suggests that in Central Africa, *Ae. aegypti* is more competent to transmit ZIKV than *Ae. albopictus* although parameters such as the feeding behaviour, longevity and mosquito densities can modulate pathogens transmission in nature. 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.

## Introduction

Zika virus (ZIKV) is a recently emerged, mosquito-borne virus belonging to the *Flavivirus* genus isolated initially from a sentinel monkey, at the Zika forest in Uganda in 1947 [1]. For decades, only sporadic circulation of ZIKV was documented in Africa and South East Asia [2] with two main genotypes; African and Asian genotypes [3, 4]. Nevertheless, major epidemics were reported in Micronesia in 2007 [5], the Pacific region in 2013–2014 [6–8], and Brazil in 2015, the starting point of the unprecedented outbreak affecting several countries and territories in the Americas [9]. During the same period, ZIKV transmission was reported in some African countries such as Cabo Verde [10], Guinea Bissau [11], and Angola [12]. Because of the association of ZIKV with microcephaly [13], Guillain-Barré syndrome [14], and myelitis [15], ZIKV was declared as a Public Health emergency of International concern in 2016 [16]. ZIKV can be transmitted by sexual intercourse, blood transfusion, and from mother to child (breast milk and in utero) or by physical contacts [17]. However, vertebrates including humans are mainly infected through the bite of an infected mosquitoes belonging to the *Aedes* genus. Two main transmission cycles are well documented: (i) a sylvatic cycle between non-human primates and arboreal canopy-dwelling mosquitoes including *Ae. africanus*, *Ae. furcifer*, *Ae. luteocaphalus*, *Ae. opok*, and *Ae. vittatus* mainly in Africa and (ii) an urban cycle between humans and domestic mosquitoes such as *Ae. aegypti* and *Ae. albopictus* [18, 19]. Both epidemic vectors, *Ae. aegypti* and *Ae. albopictus*, are well established in Africa where *Ae. aegypti* is native [20]. While *Ae. albopictus* originated from Asia, it was reported for the first time in Central Africa in early 2000 in Cameroon [21] and has progressively colonized almost all countries in the region where it tends to supplant the resident species *Ae. aegypti* [22–25]. Interestingly, the first ZIKV strain isolated from *Ae. albopictus* was in Gabon (Central Africa) in mosquitoes collected in urban areas [26], highlighting the potential role of this species as a ZIKV vector in the region. In contrast, *Ae. aegypti* has never been found naturally infected with ZIKV in the Central African region. However, from a study with blood donors showing that ZIKV is circulating in Cameroon, nearly 5–10% of people from six towns have been exposed to ZIKV infections [27]. The vector competence of natural *Aedes* populations from Central Africa has remained unclear. It has been demonstrated that the level of vector competence varies according to mosquito populations and ZIKV strains [28–31]. To fill this gap, we assessed the ability of *Ae. aegypti* and *Ae. albopictus* populations from Central Africa to transmit a ZIKV strain isolated in West Africa.

## 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 from household or business occupants. The Institut Pasteur animal
facility has 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, February 6th, 2013). All experiments were approved by the Ethics Committee #89 and registered under the reference APAFIS#6573-201606l412077987 v2.

## Mosquito collections

Mosquitoes were sampled as immature stages from August 2017 to April 2018 in several locations (Table 1) in Central Africa including Brazzaville in the Republic of Congo, and Yaoundé, Douala, Tibati, Maroua and Benoué National Park in Cameroon (Fig 1). Detailed characteristics of each collection site are presented in previous studies [22, 23, 32]. Larvae/pupae of *Aedes* mosquitoes collected from a minimum of 20 containers per site were transported to insectaries and pooled together according to the city and maintained until adults before morphological identification. Adults from same location and species were reared at 28°±1°C under 12h dark: 12h light cycle and 80% relative humidity. Eggs obtained (Table 1) were transported to the Institut Pasteur in Paris, reared to adult stage under controlled insectary conditions and used to challenge with ZIKV.

## Zika virus strain used

The ZIKV strain (*Ae. taylori*-tc/SEN/1984/41662-DAK) was isolated in December 1984 from *Ae. taylori* mosquito in Dakar, Senegal (GenBank accession number: KU955592) [33]. The strain was provided by EVAg (https://www.european-virus-archive.com/). The strain was passaged four times on BHK-21 cells and freeze-dried before the shipment. Upon receipt, the sample was re-suspended in 400 µL of distilled water. The viral stock for mosquito infections was prepared after two passages of the isolate on Vero CCL-81 cells (ATCC, VA, USA) maintained at 37°C. Once cytopathic effect was detected (60–72 h after infection), supernatants were collected and adjusted to 10% fetal bovine serum (Life Technologies, CA, USA), aliquoted into 1.5 mL samples, and frozen at -80°C until thawed and used to prepare the blood-virus suspensions used to expose mosquitoes to ZIKV. The viral titre was estimated by serial 10-fold dilutions on Vero cells expressed in pfu (plaque-forming units)/mL.

## Challenged of mosquitoes with ZIKV

For each population, six batches of 60, 7–10 day-old females were exposed to an infectious blood meal containing 1.4 mL of washed rabbit erythrocytes and 700 µL of viral suspension.

<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 urban</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 urban</td><td><i>Ae. aegypti</i></td><td>G2</td></tr><tr><td>Yaoundé rural</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>Maroua</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>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008163.t001
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig 1. Map of Cameroon vegetation showing the sampling sites.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008163.g001

The blood meal was supplemented with adenosine 5'-triphosphate (ATP) as a phagostimulant at a final concentration of 5 mM. The titre of infectious blood-meals provided to mosquitoes was $10^7$ pfu/mL using a Hemotek membrane feeding system (Hemotek Ltd., Blackburn, UK). Mosquitoes were allowed to feed for 20 min through a pork intestine membrane covering the
base of a Hemotek feeder maintained at 37°C. Fully engorged females were sorted on wet ice, transferred to cardboard containers covered by mosquito netting, and fed *ad libitum* with 10% sucrose under controlled conditions (28±1°C, relative humidity of 80%, light: dark cycle of 12h: 12h).

## Vector competence indices

For each mosquito examined, body (abdomen and thorax), and head were tested respectively for infection and dissemination rates at 14 and 21 days post-exposure (dpe). For this purpose, each part was ground individually in 300 µL of DMEM 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 as described below. Saliva was collected from individual mosquitoes using techniques of forced salivation as described previously [34]. Briefly, mosquitoes were cool anesthetized, wings and legs of each mosquito were removed, and the proboscis inserted into a plastic pipette tip of 20 µL containing 5 µL of FBS. After 30 minutes, FBS containing saliva was mixed with 45 µL of DMEM for titration.

Infection rate (IR) refers to the proportion of mosquitoes with infected body (abdomen and thorax) among tested mosquitoes. Disseminated infection rate (DIR) corresponds to the proportion of mosquitoes with infected head among the previously detected infected mosquitoes (i.e. virus-positive abdomen/thorax). Transmission rate (TR) represents the proportion of mosquitoes with infectious saliva among mosquitoes with disseminated infection. Vector competence can be summarised by the transmission efficiency (TE) which was calculated as the proportion of mosquitoes with infectious saliva among total of mosquitoes tested [28].

## Viral titration

Body and head suspensions were serially diluted and inoculated onto monolayers of Vero cells in 96-well plates. Cells were incubated for 7 days at 37°C then stained with a solution of crystal violet (0.2% in 10% formaldehyde and 20% ethanol). Presence of viral particles was assessed by detection of cytopathic effect (CPE). Saliva was titrated on monolayers of Vero cells in 6-well plates incubated 7 days under an agarose overlay. Saliva titres were expressed as pfu/saliva.

## Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed with R software. Qualitative variables were expressed as proportion and compared using Fisher's exact test and quantitative variables by mean and compared using non-parametric test of Kruskal-Wallis because of non-normal distribution. Pairwise comparisons were performed using Fisher's exact test for proportions and Kruskal-Wallis test for means. For multiple comparisons, the Bonferroni correction was applied. *P*-value <0.05 was considered as statistically different.

## Results

### Infection and dissemination rates in *Ae. albopictus* and *Ae. aegypti*

To determine whether *Ae. aegypti* (six populations) or *Ae. albopictus* (four populations) were more likely to sustain ZIKV outbreak in Central Africa, the ability of the virus to replicate and disseminate were examined at 14 and 21 dpe as well as ZIKV particles secreted in saliva (only at 21 dpe) (Figs 2 and 3).

When tested at 14 dpe, both the Douala and Brazzaville populations of *Ae. albopictus* were highly susceptible to infection and dissemination with ZIKV (Fig 2A), and at 21 dpe, all four populations were susceptible. However, the Douala (96%) population was significantly more
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

**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.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008163.g002

susceptible (Fisher's exact test: *P* = 0.02) than the one from Tibati (63%) (Fig 2B). Dissemination rates ranged from 55% for Yaoundé to 89% for Brazzaville populations (Fig 2B), but these rates were not significantly different (Fisher's exact test: *P* = 0.11).

For *Ae. aegypti*, no significant variation was found for infection rate (IR) and disseminated infection rate (DIR) at 14 dpe (Fig 3A). Meanwhile, at 21 dpe, DIR varied significantly (Fisher's exact test: *P* = 0.02) from 76% to 90% according to the population origin; however, no

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

**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.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008163.g003
significant variation was reported for IR (Fig 3B). Pairwise comparisons for DIR revealed sig-
nificant difference (Fisher's exact test: *P* < 0.04) between Bénoué population and all other pop-
ulations tested except Douala and Yaoundé urban populations. Overall, while IR were similar
(Fisher's exact test: *P* > 0.107) for *Ae. aegypti* (94 and 90%) and *Ae. albopictus* (88 and 82%)
when tested at 14 or 21 dpe, respectively, DIR was significantly higher (Fisher's exact test:
*P* < 0.009) in *Ae. aegypti* (91% and 88.4%) than in *Ae. albopictus* (69 and 73%) when tested
at 14 or 21 dpe, respectively.

Transmission rate and efficiency

In *Ae. albopictus*, transmission rate (TR) and transmission efficiency (TE) varied according to the population tested (Fig 2B). For the TR, pairwise comparisons revealed a significant difference (Fisher's exact test: *P* = 0.007) between Douala (39%) population and Yaoundé urban (100%) population; however, for other comparisons no significant difference (Fisher's exact test: *P* > 0.05) was reported. While, for the TE no significant difference (Fisher's exact test: *P* = 0.37) (Figs 2B and 3B) was reported between populations after pairwise comparisons. Similarly, in *Ae. aegypti*, TR varied significantly (Fisher's exact test: *P* = 0.0014) according to the population with lowest TR reported in two populations from northern part of Cameroon, Bénoué (56%) and Maroua (43%) (Fig 3B). Pairwise comparisons showed a significant difference (Fisher's exact test: *P* < 0.021) between Maroua and Yaoundé (urban and rural) populations. Contrary to *Ae. albopictus*, the TE for *Ae. aegypti* was significantly different (Fisher's exact test: *P* < 0.0001) according to the population origin. Pairwise comparisons indicated significant differences (Fisher's exact test: *P* < 0.01) between Bénoué population and both Yaoundé populations (urban and rural), and between Maroua and both Yaoundé populations also. When all populations of each species were analysed together, *Ae. aegypti* (56%) exhibited higher TEs than *Ae. albopictus* (42%) (Fisher's exact test: *P* = 0.02). Overall, ZIKV titres were significantly higher in *Ae. aegypti* compared to *Ae. albopictus* (Chi-squared test: χ² = 6.4527, df = 1, *P* = 0.01). In *Ae. aegypti*, significant differences in viral loads were reported according to population (Chi-squared test: χ² = 21.406, df = 5, *P* = 0.01) with lowest titres in Maroua population, and highest in Brazzaville population. While in *Ae. albopictus*, no significant variation of ZIKV titres was observed (Chi-squared test: χ² = 2.65, df = 3, *P* = 0.44) (Fig 4).

Discussion

The first evidence of ZIKV circulation was reported in Africa [1]. In Central Africa, ZIKV cir-
culation in human populations was confirmed in Cameroon, Central African Republic (CAR),
and Gabon [18]. As an example, in Cameroon, 2 to 10% blood donors were ZIKV-positive
[27]. In Central Africa, exposure to ZIKV has also been confirmed in animals, monkeys and
bats [18], and ZIKV was detected in two mosquito species in CAR (Ae. africanus and Ae. opok)
[35], and Ae. albopictus in Gabon in 2007 [26]. Up to now, no data on vector competence to
ZIKV is available for mosquitoes from Central Africa.

In this study, we assessed for the first time the ability of *Ae. aegypti* and *Ae. albopictus*
collected in different ecological settings in Central Africa to transmit a ZIKV strain isolated
from sylvatic mosquitoes, *Ae. africanus*, collected in Dakar in 1984. We demonstrated that this
ZIKV strain was able to replicate, disseminate, and be secreted in saliva of both *Ae. aegypti* and
*Ae. albopictus*. The results of these experiments indicate that ZIKV could be transmitted dur-
ing blood feeding. Our analysis showed high infection, dissemination, and transmission rates
in both species which is in agreement with previous experiments using ZIKV from the African
lineage [36–39]. Disseminated infection and transmission rates varied significantly according
to *Ae. aegypti* and *Ae. albopictus* populations. This result is consistent with previous studies
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>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.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008163.g004

showing the level of infection varied among mosquito populations [28, 30]. Overall, transmission efficiency and ZIKV titre in saliva were significantly higher in *Ae. aegypti* than in *Ae. albopictus* corroborating the main role of *Ae. aegypti* in ZIKV transmission compared to *Ae. albopictus* [40, 41]. Nevertheless, lower transmission rates and saliva ZIKV titres in *Ae. aegypti* were found for two populations from northern part of Cameroon, Benoué and Maroua, probably due to the presence of specific refractory genes [42, 43]. Beside the mosquito genetic background, mosquito microbiome can modulate arbovirus transmission [44–46]. In addition, refractoriness of mosquito to ZIKV can also be caused by mosquito immune responses since it was demonstrated that anti-viral immunity in mosquito vectors is critical to prevent virus replication and transmission [47].

Likewise, *Ae. aegypti* alone was reported in the northern part of Cameroon whereas both *Ae. aegypti* and *Ae. albopictus* were found sympatric in the southern part. The invasive species, *Ae. albopictus*, first detected in Cameroon in 2000 [21], tends to replace the native species, *Ae. aegypti*. However, both are suspected to contribute to ZIKV transmission. Interestingly, *Ae. albopictus* collected in Gabon (Central Africa) in 2007 during concurrent chikungunya/dengue outbreak was found naturally infected with ZIKV [26]. Level of transmission rates reported in both *Aedes* species suggested that both species can potentially cause major outbreaks in the region. However, it is important to highlight that other parameters such as the feeding behaviour and mosquito densities can modulate pathogens transmission in nature. Indeed,
preliminary studies in Central Africa showed that *Ae. aegypti* occurs across the region and *Ae. albopictus* is found under 6°N latitude. Meanwhile, in the sympatric areas, *Ae. albopictus* is almost dominant except in some rare locations [22–24], and irrespective to the season in the areas with short dry season [48]. It was also demonstrated that in Yaoundé (Cameroon), *Ae. albopictus* preferentially fed on humans rather than on available domestic animals. In this study, mixed blood meals animal-human were detected, confirming that this species could act also as a bridge vector for zoonotic pathogens [49]. In Central Africa, data on blood meal preference and biting behavior of *Ae. aegypti* are quite scarce. Further studies in this regard, could help to determine the epidemiological role of each species in ZIKV transmission. In addition, as our results showed that the transmission rate in both species vary according to the population origin, mosquito microbiome composition, genetic structure and gene flow of both species across the central African region, should be further explored to determine their impact on ZIKV transmission. These findings highlight the urgent need to plan a vector surveillance program and control methods against Zika vectors in the region in order to prevent future outbreaks.

**Acknowledgments**

We would like to thank the populations from different collection sites for their collaboration during the field works.

**Author Contributions**

**Conceptualization:** Basile Kamgang, Charles S. Wondji, Anna-Bella Failloux.

**Data curation:** Basile Kamgang.

**Formal analysis:** Basile Kamgang, Marie Vazeille, Laurence Mousson, Anna-Bella Failloux.

**Funding acquisition:** Basile Kamgang, Charles S. Wondji.

**Investigation:** Basile Kamgang.

**Methodology:** Basile Kamgang.

**Project administration:** Charles S. Wondji.

**Resources:** Armel Tedjou, Aurélie P. Yougang, Theodel A. Wilson-Bahun.

**Software:** Armel Tedjou.

**Supervision:** Charles S. Wondji, Anna-Bella Failloux.

**Validation:** Anna-Bella Failloux.

**Visualization:** Marie Vazeille.

**Writing – original draft:** Basile Kamgang.

**Writing – review & editing:** Basile Kamgang, Marie Vazeille, Laurence Mousson, Charles S. Wondji, Anna-Bella Failloux.

**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. https://doi.org/10.1016/0035-9203(52)90042-4 PMID: 12995440.

2. 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0001477 PMID: 22389730.
3. 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0002636 PMID: 24421913.

4. 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. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.1969.18.411 PMID: 4976739.

5. 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. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0805715 PMID: 19516034.

6. Cao-Lormeau VM, Roche C, Teissier A, Robin E, Berry AL, Mallet HP, et al. Zika virus, French polynésia, South pacific, 2013. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2014; 20(6):1085-6. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2006.140138 PMID: 24856001.

7. Musso D, Nilles EJ, Cao-Lormeau VM. Rapid spread of emerging Zika virus in the Pacific area. Clinical microbiology and infection: the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. 2014; 20(10):0595-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-0691.12707 PMID: 24909208.

8. Tognarelli J, Ulloa S, Villagra E, Lagos J, Aguayo C, Fasce R, et al. A report on the outbreak of Zika virus on Easter Island, South Pacific, 2014. Archives of Virology. 2016; 161(3):665-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00705-015-2695-5 PMID: 26611910.

9. Hennessey M, Fischer M, Staples JE. Zika virus spreads to new areas—region of the Americas, May 2015-January 2016. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2016; 65(3):55-8. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6503e1 PMID: 26820163.

10. Lourenco J, de Lourdes Monteiro M, Valdez T, Monteiro Rodrigues J, Pybus O, Rodrigues Faria N. Epidemiology of the Zika virus outbreak in the Cabo Verde islands, West Africa. PLoS Currents. 2018; 10. https://doi.org/10.1371/currents.outbreaks.19433b1e4d007451c691f138e1e67e8c PMID: 29637009.

11. Rosenstierne MW, Schaltz-Buchholzer F, Bruzadelli F, Co A, Cardoso P, Jorgensen CS, et al. Zika virus IgG in infants with microcephaly, Guinea-Bissau, 2016. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2018; 24 (5):948-50. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2405.180153 PMID: 29664391.

12. Kraemer MUG, 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. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2017; 111(11):527-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/trstmh/try001 PMID: 29394415.

13. Cauchemez S, Besnard M, Bompard P, Dub T, Guillemette-Artur P, Eyrolle-Guignot D, et al. Association between Zika virus and microcephaly in French Polynesia, 2013-15: a retrospective study. Lancet. 2016. Epub 2016/03/20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00651-6 PMID: 26993883.

14. Cao-Lormeau VM, Blake A, Mons S, Lastere S, Roche C, Vanhomwegen J, et al. Guillain-Barre Syndrome outbreak associated with Zika virus infection in French Polynesia: a case-control study. Lancet. 2016. Epub 2016/03/08. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00562-6 PMID: 26948433.

15. Mecharles S, Herrmann C, Poullain P, Tran TH, Deschamps N, Mathon G, et al. Acute myelitis due to Zika virus infection. Lancet. 2016. Epub 2016/03/08. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00644-9 PMID: 26946926.

16. WHO. WHO statement on the first meeting of the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR 2005) Emergency Committee on Zika virus and observed increase in neurological disorders and neonatal malformations. World Health Organization 2016; http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2016/1st-emergency-committee-zika/en/. (1):

17. Sharma A, Lal SK. Zika virus: transmission, detection, control, and prevention. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2017; 8:110. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.00110 PMID: 28217114.

18. Boyer S, Calvez E, Chouin-Carneiro T, Diallo D, Failloux AB. An overview of mosquito vectors of Zika virus. Microbes and Infection. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micinf.2018.01.006 PMID: 29481868.

19. Diallo D, Sall AA, Diagne CT, Faye O, Faye O, Ba Y, et al. Zika virus emergence in mosquitoes in south-eastern Senegal, 2011. PloS One. 2011; 9(10):e109442. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0109442 PMID: 25310102.

20. Mattingly PF. Genetical aspects of the *Aedes aegypti* problem. I. Taxonomy and bionomics. Annals of Tropical Medicine and Parasitology. 1957; 51(4):392-408. PMID: 13498658.

21. Fontenille D, Toto JC. *Aedes (Stegomyia) albopictus* (Skuse), a potential new dengue vector in southern Cameroon. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2001; 7(6):1066-7. PMID: 11747746.

22. Kamgang B, Wilson-Bahun TA, Irving H, Kusimo MO, Lenga A, Wondji CS. 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 Research. 2018; 3:79. https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.14659.3 PMID: 30175244.
23. Tedjou AN, Kamgang B, Yougang AP, Njiokou F, Wondji CS. Update on the geographical distribution and prevalence of *Aedes aegypti* and *Aedes albopictus* (Diptera: Culicidae), two major arbovirus vectors in Cameroon. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2019; 13(3):e0007137. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0007137 PMID: 30883552.

24. Kamgang B, Ngoagouni C, Manirakiza A, Nakoune E, Paupy C, Kazanji M. 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 Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2013; 7(12):e2590. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0002590 PMID: 24349596.

25. Ngoagouni C, Kamgang B, Nakoune E, Paupy C, Kazanji M. Invasion of *Aedes albopictus* (Diptera: Culicidae) into Central Africa: what consequences for emerging diseases? Parasites & Vectors. 2015; 8:191. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-015-0808-3 PMID: 25885461.

26. Grard G, Caron M, Mombo IM, Nkoghe D, Mboui Ondo S, Jiolle D, et al. Zika virus in Gabon (Central Africa)—2007: a new threat from *Aedes albopictus*? PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2014; 8(2): e2681. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0002681 PMID: 24516683.

27. Gake B, Vernet MA, Leparc-Goffart I, Drexler JF, Gould EA, Gallian P, et al. Low seroprevalence of Zika virus in Cameroonian blood donors. The Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases: an official publication of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases. 2017; 21(4):481–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjid.2017.03.018 PMID: 28549857.

28. Chouin-Carneiro T, Vega-Rua A, Vazeille M, Yebakima A, Girod R, Goindin D, et al. Differential susceptibilities of *Aedes aegypti* and *Aedes albopictus* from the Americas to Zika virus. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2016; 10(3):e0004543. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0004543 PMID: 26938868.

29. Jupille H, Seixas G, Mousson L, Sousa CA, Failloux AB. Zika virus, a new threat for Europe? PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2016; 10(8):e0004901. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0004901 PMID: 27505002.

30. Azar SR, Roundy CM, Rossi SL, Huang JH, Leal G, Yun R, et al. Differential vector competency of *Aedes albopictus* populations from the Americas for Zika virus. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2017; 97(2):330–9. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.16-0969 PMID: 28829735.

31. Di Luca M, Severini F, Toma L, Boccolini D, Romi R, Remoli ME, et al. Experimental studies of susceptibility of Italian *Aedes albopictus* to Zika virus. Euro surveillance: bulletin European sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin. 2016; 21(18). https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2016.21.18.30223 PMID: 27171034.

32. Kamgang B, Vazeille M, Tedjou AN, Wilson-Bahun TA, Yougang AP, Mousson L, et al. Risk of dengue in Central Africa: Vector competence studies with *Aedes aegypti* and *Aedes albopictus* (Diptera: Culicidae) populations and dengue 2 virus. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2019; 13(12):e0007985. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0007985 PMID: 31887138

33. Atieh T, Baronti C, de Lamballerie X, Nougairede A. Simple reverse genetics systems for Asian and African Zika viruses. Scientific Reports. 2016; 6:39384. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep39384 PMID: 27991555.

34. Dubrulle M, Mousson L, Moutailler S, Vazeille M, Failloux AB. Chikungunya virus and *Aedes* mosquitoes: saliva is infectious as soon as two days after oral infection. PloS One. 2009; 4(6):e5895. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005895 PMID: 19521520.

35. Geoffroy B. Culicidés et arbovirus de Centrafrique: étude bioécologique des moustiques adultes des stations de la Gomoka et de Bozo, et de leur rôle dans l'épidémiologie des arbovirus. Paris: ORSTOM. 1982:330 p.

36. Calvez E, O'Connor O, Pol M, Rousset D, Faye O, Richard V, et al. Differential transmission of Asian and African Zika virus lineages by *Aedes aegypti* from New Caledonia. Emerging Microbes & Infections. 2018; 7(1):159. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41426-018-0166-2 PMID: 30254274.

37. Roundy CM, Azar SR, Rossi SL, Huang JH, Leal G, Yun R, et al. Variation in *Aedes aegypti* mosquito competence for Zika virus transmission. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2017; 23(4):625–32. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2304.161484 PMID: 28287375.

38. Hery L, Boullis A, Delannay C, Vega-Rua A. Transmission potential of African, Asian and American Zika virus strains by *Aedes aegypti* and *Culex quinquefasciatus* from Guadeloupe (French West Indies). Emerging Microbes & Infections. 2019; 8(1):699–706. https://doi.org/10.1080/22221751.2019.1615849 PMID: 31109248.

39. Vazeille M, Madec Y, Mousson L, Bellone R, Barré-Cardi H, Sousa CA, et al. Zika virus threshold determines transmission by European *Aedes albopictus* mosquitoes. Emerging Microbes & Infections. 2019; 8(1):1668–78.

40. Hugo LE, Stassen L, La J, Gosden E, Ekwudu O, Winterford C, et al. Vector competence of Australian *Aedes aegypti* and *Aedes albopictus* for an epidemic strain of Zika virus. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2019; 13(4):e0007281. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0007281 PMID: 30946747.
41. Duchemin JB, Mee PT, Lynch SE, Vedururu R, Trinidad L, Paradkar P. Zika vector transmission risk in temperate Australia: a vector competence study. Virology Journal. 2017; 14(1):108. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12985-017-0772-y PMID: 28599659.

42. Bosio CF, Fulton RE, Salasek ML, Beaty BJ, Black WCt. Quantitative trait loci that control vector competence for dengue-2 virus in the mosquito *Aedes aegypti*. Genetics. 2000; 156(2):687-98. PMID: 11014816.

43. Jupatanakul N, Sim S, Anglero-Rodriguez YI, Souza-Neto J, Das S, Poti KE, et al. Engineered *Aedes aegypti* JAK/STAT pathway-mediated immunity to dengue virus. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2017; 11(1):e0005187. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0005187 PMID: 28081143.

44. Souza-Neto JA, Powell JR, Bonizzoni M. *Aedes aegypti* vector competence studies: a review. Infection, Genetics and Evolution: Journal of Molecular Epidemiology and Evolutionary Genetics in Infectious Diseases. 2019; 67:191–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2018.11.009 PMID: 30465912.

45. Hegde S, Rasgon JL, Hughes GL. The microbiome modulates arbovirus transmission in mosquitoes. Current Opinion in Virology. 2015; 15:97–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coviro.2015.08.011 PMID: 26363996.

46. Jupatanakul N, Sim S, Dimopoulos G. The insect microbiome modulates vector competence for arboviruses. Viruses. 2014; 6(11):4294–313. https://doi.org/10.3390/v6114294 PMID: 25393895.

47. Houé V, Bonizzoni M, Failloux A-B. Endogenous non-retroviral elements in genomes of *Aedes* mosquitoes and vector competence. Emerging Microbes & Infections. 2019; 8(1):542–55.

48. Kamgang B, Yougang AP, Tchoupo M, Riveron JM, Wondji C. Temporal distribution and insecticide resistance profile of two major arbovirus vectors *Aedes aegypti* and *Aedes albopictus* in Yaounde, the capital city of Cameroon. Parasites & Vectors. 2017; 10(1):469. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-017-2408-x PMID: 29017606.

49. Kamgang B, Nchoutpouen E, Simard F, Paupy C. Notes on the blood-feeding behavior of *Aedes albopictus* (Diptera: Culicidae) in Cameroon. Parasites & Vectors. 2012; 5:57. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-5-57 PMID: 22433236.