Introduction

Gates Open Res

Gates Open Research

2572-4754

F1000 Research Limited

London, UK

10.12688/gatesopenres.12903.1

Research Article

Articles

Pluripotency of Wolbachia against Arbovirus: the case of yellow fever

[version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]

Rocha

Marcele Neves

Conceptualization Formal Analysis Methodology Supervision Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7130-6961 1 Duarte

Myrian Morato

Methodology Resources Visualization 2 Mansur

Simone Brutman

Methodology 1 Silva

Bianca Daoud Mafra e

Methodology 1 Pereira

Thiago Nunes

Methodology 1 Adelino

Talita Émile Ribeiro

Methodology https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1471-0084 2 Giovanetti

Marta

Methodology 3 4 Alcantara

Luis Carlos Junior

Methodology 3 4 Santos

Franciele Martins

Methodology 5 6 Costa

Victor Rodrigues de Melo

Methodology 5 6 Teixeira

Mauro Martins

Conceptualization Formal Analysis Supervision Writing – Review & Editing 5 7 Iani

Felipe Campos de Melo

Methodology Writing – Original Draft Preparation https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3629-8529 2 4 Costa

Vivian Vasconcelos

Formal Analysis Methodology Supervision Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0175-642X 5 6 Moreira

Luciano Andrade

Conceptualization Formal Analysis Funding Acquisition Investigation Supervision Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9240-3506 a 1 1Mosquitos Vetores, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil 2Serviço de Virologia e Riquetsioses, Fundação Ezequiel Dias-LACEN, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil 3Laboratório de Flavivírus, IOC, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil 4Laboratório de Genética Celular e Molecular, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil 5Centro de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento de Fármacos, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil 6Research Group in Arboviral Diseases, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil 7Immunopharmacology Lab, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil

a luciano.andrade@fiocruz.br

No competing interests were disclosed.

12 2 2019

2019

161

7 2 2019

2019

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Background: Yellow fever outbreaks have re-emerged in Brazil during 2016–18, with mortality rates up to 30%. Although urban transmission has not been reported since 1942, the risk of re-urbanization of yellow fever is significant, as Aedes aegypti is present in most tropical and sub-tropical cities in the World and used to be the main vector in the past. The introgression of Wolbachia bacteria into Ae. aegypti mosquito populations is being trialed in several countries ( www.worldmosquito.org) as a biocontrol method against dengue, Zika and chikungunya. Here, we studied the ability of Wolbachia to reduce the transmission potential of Ae. aegypti mosquitoes for yellow fever virus (YFV).

Methods: Two recently isolated YFV (primate and human) were used to challenge field-derived wild-type and Wolbachia-infected ( wMel +) Ae. aegypti mosquitoes. The YFV infection status was followed for 7, 14 and 21 days post-oral feeding (dpf). The YFV transmission potential of mosquitoes was evaluated via nano-injection of saliva into uninfected mosquitoes or by inoculation in mice.

Results: We found that Wolbachia was able to significantly reduce the prevalence of mosquitoes with YFV infected heads and thoraces for both viral isolates. Furthermore, analyses of mosquito saliva, through indirect injection into naïve mosquitoes or via interferon-deficient mouse model, indicated Wolbachia was associated with profound reduction in the YFV transmission potential of mosquitoes (14dpf).

Conclusions: Our results suggest that Wolbachia introgression could be used as a complementary strategy for prevention of urban yellow fever transmission, along with the human vaccination program.

Wolbachia Aedes aegypti Yellow fever virus vector competence

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior

FUNED

INCT Dengue

Gates Foundation

OPP1140230

Brazilian Ministry of Health - DECIT

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais

Bill Melinda Gates Foundation through Monash University and the Brazilian Ministry of Health (DECIT) [OPP1140230]. This work was partially supported by the National Institute of Science and Technology in Dengue and Host-microorganism Interaction (INCT Dengue), and the Minas Gerais Foundation for Science (FAPEMIG, Brazil). LAM and MMT are fellows from CNPq, Brazil. This work also received support from the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) and FUNED. LCJA, FCMI and MG have used sequencing primers and protocols from the ZIBRA2 project funded from CNPq and CAPES (440685/2016-8 and 88887.130716/2016-00).

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Introduction

Arboviruses impose a substantial disease burden on the human population ^{1,
2}. Most recently, the Zika virus re-emerged in 2014, and unexpectedly caused serious congenital infections in pregnant women and Zika fetal syndrome in affected newborns in several American countries in 2016 and 2017 ³. Chikungunya virus caused massive epidemics in the Americas in 2014 and still circulates in several countries ⁴.

The yellow fever virus (YFV) is a member of the Flaviviridae family and transmitted by sylvan mosquitoes of the genus Haemagogus and Sabethes and Aedes aegypti in urban settings ^{5–
8}. Monkeys are important reservoirs of YFV in sylvan environments. Encroachment by humans into environments where competent mosquito vectors and infected monkeys co-exist is the commonest reason for spillover of YFV transmission to human populations. Although the last reported cases of urban transmission in Brazil occurred in 1942, in 2016–2017, the country faced major outbreaks of the disease mainly in the states of Minas Gerais, Espírito Santo and Rio de Janeiro. In 2018, the epidemic also extended to São Paulo State ⁹. According to the Brazilian Ministry of Health, from July 2017 to April 2018, there were 1,127 YFV cases with 328 deaths. Although the YFV vaccine is safe and effective, it does not always reach populations at greatest risk of infection and there is an acknowledged global shortage of vaccine supply ¹⁰.

Recent studies have shown that anthropophilic mosquitoes, such as Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus, as well as Brazilian enzootic mosquitoes, such as Haemagogus leucocelaenus and Sabethes albiprivus, were highly susceptible to American and African YFV strains ^{11,
12}. Therefore, the possible resurgence of urban epidemics of YFV in South America has to be constantly monitored by public health authorities ¹³. Population control of Ae. aegypti mosquitoes using insecticides has been a mainstay of vector-borne disease control methods for decades but is undermined by widespread insecticide resistance. Wolbachia pipientis is a maternally transmitted bacterial endosymbiont and is naturally present in at least 40% of all insect species ¹⁴. The World Mosquito Program is deploying Wolbachia pipientis as a self-sustaining disease control agent on the basis that Wolbachia reduces the transmission potential of Ae. aegypti mosquitoes for dengue ¹⁵, Zika ¹⁶ and chikungunya viruses ¹⁷.

Here, we studied the ability of Wolbachia to suppress YFV infectivity in Ae. aegypti mosquitoes. Two virus isolates were used: one from a human clinical sample and another one of primate origin. We found that Wolbachia had a major impact on virus replication in mosquitoes and YFV transmission via saliva, as determined using a mouse model.

Methods Sample collection

The first sample named M377_IV|Human|MinasGerais_PadreParaíso|2017-02-04 (YFV377H) was isolated from human serum, positive for YFV by RT-qPCR (CT = 28.95) in February, 2017 from Padre Paraíso city (northeast of Minas Gerais state). The other sample named M127_IV|Primate|MinasGerais_NovaLima|2018-01-15 (YFV127P) was isolated from the liver of a non-human primate found dead in January 2018, in Nova Lima city, in the center-south of Minas Gerais state, positive for YF via RT-qPCR (CT = 17.19). Sequencing of both isolates was performed and is described below. Viral isolation was confirmed by two methodologies: indirect immunofluorescence (IFA) and real-time PCR. IFA was performed with a monoclonal YFV antibody donated by Evandro Chagas Institute (Arbovirology and Hemorrhagic Fevers Section) and conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG labeled with fluorescein FITC (MP Biomedicals). Images were obtained using an Olympus microscope model BX51 with DP72 camera and DP-2BSW software. Viral molecular confirmation was performed using RNA extracted from the culture supernatant of each isolate, followed by amplification of the genetic material as described below in the viral detection section. For mosquito infections, the YFV isolates were replicated in C636 cells ( Ae. albopictus) cultured in Leibovitz 15 medium (Gibco) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) (Gibco) for 5 days at 28°C. Viral load was confirmed by RT-qPCR and later through plaque assays (PFU) in VERO cells (CCL81) grown in DMEM medium (Gibco) and 3% Carboxymethylcellulose (Sigma) supplemented with 2% FBS (Gibco) at 37°C and 5% CO ₂ ¹⁸.

Nucleic acid isolation and virus genome sequencing

Viral RNA was isolated from 200µL of each sample using MagNA Pure 96 (Roche) following manufacturer’s recommendations. To confirm the viral presence in isolates, RT-qPCR was performed, according to Domingo et al. 2012 ¹⁹.

A real-time nanopore sequencing strategy with previously developed primers ²⁰, was applied to both RT-qPCR-positive samples. For these samples, extracted RNA was converted to cDNA using GoScript™ Reverse Transcriptase (Promega) and random hexamer priming. Whole-genome amplification by multiplex PCR was attempted using GoTaq® qPCR Master Mix (Promega), the 500bp sequencing primer scheme and 35 cycles using the adapted protocol ²⁰. Electrophoresis (2% agarose gel) was used to confirm the expected bands and to purify the specific amplicons using Invitrogen™ E-Gel™ SizeSelect, followed by quantification using fluorimetry with the Qubit dsDNA High Sensitivity assay on the Qubit 3.0 instrument (Life Technologies).

Template was amplified with end point PCR to increase template concentration following the Ion Plus Fragment Library Kit recommendation and PCR products were cleaned-up using AmpureXP purification beads (Beckman Coulter). Emulsion PCR was performed to amplify the library using Ion PGM™ Hi-Q™ View OT2 Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and the Ion OneTouch 2 system (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Ion Sphere particles (ISPs) were enriched using the Ion OneTouch ES (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Enriched ISPs were sequenced using the Ion Torrent Personal Genome Machine (PGM) and the Ion PGM Hi-Q Sequencing kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific), with the Ion 314 chip. All procedures above followed manufacturer’s instructions.

Consensus genome sequences from fastq file were produced by alignment of two-direction reads by using a reference YFV genome. Quality control on raw sequence data have been performed using FastQC ²¹. Bowtie 2 was used for mapping reads to a reference using Galaxy ²². Only positions with ≥ 20× genome coverage were used to produce consensus sequences. Regions with lower coverage and those in primer-binding regions were masked with N characters.

In order to identify the origin of the YFV genome from the samples, we performed a maximum likelihood (ML) phylogenetic analysis using the newly two nucleotide sequences recovered in this study plus 125 reference YFV complete genome sequences from each different genotype (South American I n=84; South American II n=2; West African n=23; East African n=16) already published in peer-reviewed journals, for which sampling year and geographic location is available. Full details of the reference sequences used are provided in Extended data: Table S1.

Consensus sequences were aligned using MAFFT v.7 ²³. Maximum likelihood phylogenetic trees were estimated using IqTree ²⁴ under a GTR + Γ ₄ nucleotide substitution model. Statistical support for phylogenetic nodes was estimated using a bootstrap approach (100 replicates).

The phylogenetic signal has been investigated with the likelihood mapping method by analyzing groups of four sequences, randomly chosen, called quartets. Likelihood mapping analyses was performed with the program TREE-PUZZLE by analyzing 10,000 random quartets ²⁵.

Mosquitoes and infections

Wild type Aedes aegypti mosquitoes collected in the neighborhood of Urca, Rio de Janeiro-RJ, Brazil in 2018 were reared in the laboratory for five generations and confirmed for the absence of Wolbachia (WT). Wolbachia wMel strain-containing mosquitoes ( wMel +) were obtained from the colony maintained by the World Mosquito Program (WMP) Brazil laboratories in Belo Horizonte, which is backcrossed every five generations with Urca male mosquitoes. They were reared in a controlled environment at 27 ± 2°C and 60 ± 10% relative humidity. Four to six days-old female mosquitoes were starved for 20 to 24 hours and subsequently offered YFV virus culture supernatant mixed with washed human red blood cells (RBCs) (2:1 ratio). The viral titer offered to mosquitoes was 4 × 10 ⁵ PFU/mL for YFV377H and 1.4 × 10 ⁶ PFU/mL for YFV127P. RBCs were washed three times for removal of potential YFV vaccine antibodies. Mosquitoes were allowed to feed for one hour and then, engorged females were selected and maintained in triple containment, under BSL-2 conditions. Sucrose solution (10%) was offered ad libitum during the extrinsic incubation period. Viral load was analyzed at 7, 14 and 21 days post feeding (dpf), via RT-qPCR. Additionally, a subset of mosquitoes (at 7dpf) received an extra blood meal and were collected at 14dpf, when Wolbachia density and viral load was determined. The blood used in the infective feedings was obtained from a blood bank (Hemominas) through an agreement signed between both institutions (OF.GPO/CCO-Nr224/16). As a laboratory routine each blood bag is previously tested for dengue, Zika, chikungunya, mayaro and yellow fever, through RT-qPCR to rule out any cross-infection that could interfere with the results.

Mosquito saliva transmission assays

In order to check the ability of mosquitoes to transmit the virus, saliva samples from infected mosquitoes were individually collected at 14 dpf. After removal of legs and wings, mosquitoes had their proboscis introduced into 10 μL tips, containing 50% Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS) (Gibco) and 30% sugar solution and allowed to salivate for 30 minutes. Mosquitoes and solution containing the saliva were stored at -70°C until RNA extraction of the heads/thoraces and/or nanoinjection of the saliva into naive mosquitoes (WT). Saliva samples were injected into WT mosquitoes, after 2 to 4 days of emergence. Each mosquito received 276 nL and were kept for 5 days before whole body RNA extraction, followed by RT-qPCR.

In vivo experiments were conducted using type I interferon receptor deficient mice (A129 ^−/−), SV129 background. A129 ^-/-originally from The Jackson Laboratories (reference 010830) were obtained from Biotério de Matrizes da Universidade de São Paulo (USP) and kept under specific pathogen-free conditions at Immunopharmacology Lab at UFMG. Mice were housed in filtered-cages of 28x13x16 cm with autoclaved food and water available ad libitum on ventilated shelves (Alesco). A maximum of 4 mice were kept per cage. Mice were housed under standard conditions with controlled temperature (18–23 degrees) humidity (40–60%) and 12/12h dark light cycle. Sample sizes for in vivo studies were determined using the G*Power 3.1 software package. In each experiment we used 4 mice on YFV377H or YFV127P groups and 6 mice per group on saliva YFV 377H or 127P infected mosquitoes (WT or wMel+) groups. Mice from the same litter were added to either mock- or YFV infected groups, or test or control groups as appropriate. No randomization protocol was utilized. For most of the experiments, no blinding was involved except for body weight and hind paw swelling analysis. Bioanalysis from viral loads and cell count assay experiments was blinded. Groups were divided by codenames on the day of euthanasia. Different researchers performed the euthanasia or analyzed the data. Each experiment was replicated twice and all attempts at replication were successful. For the experiments, adult A129 ^-/- mice (7 to 9 weeks old, 20-22g) were inoculated with 1 × 10 ⁴ PFU with either YFV377H or YFV127P viruses’ strains or with a pool of saliva samples (n=2) either from the WT or wMel+ groups via subcutaneous (intraplantar) route/50μl paw (right hind paw). Morbidity parameters such as body weight loss, total and differential counts of blood leukocytes and paw edema were evaluated daily. Total cell counts were carried out in Trypan blue-stained cells in a Neubauer chamber and differential cell counts on blood smears stained with May-Grunwald-Giemsa using standard morphological criteria. Paw edema was assessed by measuring paw swelling using a pachymeter. Finally, viable viral loads and viral RNA were analyzed in plasma and different tissues of mice upon saliva inoculation, as shown below.

All animal experiments involving YFV infection and Wolbachia saliva inoculation were conducted following the ethical and animal welfare regulations of the Brazilian Government (law 11794/2008). The experimental protocol was approved by the Committee on Animal Ethics of the Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (CEUA/UFMG, permit protocol no. 84/2018). All surgeries were performed under ketamine/xylazine anesthesia and all efforts were made to minimize animal suffering. Studies with YFV were conducted under biosafety level 2 (BSL-2) containment at Immunopharmacology Lab from Instituto de Ciências Biológicas (ICB) at Federal University of Minas Gerais.

Viral detection on infected mosquitoes and mice

Detection of viral particles on infected mosquitoes and mice samples were performed through quantitative real-time PCR (RT-qPCR) using LightCycler® Multiplex RNA Virus Master (Roche), according to the previously published protocol ²⁶. RNA extractions were performed following manufacturer's protocols. Mosquito samples were processed through the High Pure Viral Nucleic Acid kit (Roche), mice tissue samples (liver, spleen) were extracted with Trizol (Invitrogen), whereas mice lymph node samples were isolated with the QIAamp® Viral RNA kit (Qiagen). Multiplex reactions were performed with primers and probes described in Table 1. Reactions were performed on a Lightcycler96 real-time PCR machine (Roche) with the following program: first step at 50°C for 10 min for reverse transcription, 95°C for 30 sec for inactivation and initial denaturation and 95°C for 5 sec followed by 60°C for 30 sec for 40 cycles. The reaction volume was 10 μL (5× RT-PCR Reaction Mix (Roche), 200× RT-enzyme solution (Roche), 2.5 μM each primer (IDT) and 2 μM YF (target yellow fever) probe (IDT) and 1 μM WSPTM2 (target wMel-specific) probe and 0.7 μM RPS 17S (target Ae. aegypti ribosomal S17) probe. For mouse samples, only the YFV probe was used. A fraction (1/20) of the total isolated RNA was used in the reactions. Viable viral loads were quantified by titration assay in permissive Vero cells as described in Costa et al., 2012 ²⁷.

Table 1. Sequence of primers and probes used in this study.

	Sequence 5’→3’	Reference
YFV Forward	GCTAATTGAGGTGYATTGGTCTGC	19
YFV Reverse	CTGCTAATCGCTCAAMGAACG
YFV Probe	FAM/ATCGAGTTG/ ZEN/CTAGGCAATAAACAC/ 3lABkFQ
WSPTM2 Forward	CATTGGTGTTGGTGTTGGTG	15
WSPTM2 Reverse	ACACCAGCTTTTACTTGACCAG
WSPTM2 Probe	CY5/TCCTTTGGA/ TAO/ACCCGCTGTGAATGA/ 3lAbRQSp
RPS17 S Forward	TCCGTGGTATCTCCATCAAGCT	29
RPS 17S Reverse	CACTTCCGGCACGTAGTTGTC
RPS17 S Probe	HEX/CAGGAGGAG/ ZEN/GAACGTGAGCGCAG/ 3lABkFQ

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed on Prism (Graphpad Version 7.04). Initially the D'Agostino and Person normality test was performed. Wolbachia density data as well as viral load were compared using the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test. Statistical analyzes for the mouse data were performed with ANOVA one-way test. The significance level was set for p values less than 0.05.

Results Viral isolation and sequencing

Two plasma samples (one human and one from a non-human primate) were isolated from the diagnostic service of Fundação Ezequiel Dias, the State Reference Laboratory of Minas Gerais, Brazil. Viral isolation was confirmed by indirect immunofluorescence (IFA), showing the typical signal of fluorescence for both isolates ( Figure 1B and C). Both samples were successfully sequenced with PGM (Personal Genome Machine) technology with adapted overlapping multiplex PCR protocol, as shown in Table 2. The phylogenetic analysis showed that the isolates obtained from the two samples (M377_IV and M127_IV) belonged to the South American genotype I and clustered closely with strong bootstrap support (>90%) with the recent sequences, isolated in Minas Gerais, from the current outbreak ( Figure 2) ²⁸.

Table 2. Main results obtained by sequencing.

Sample ID	Acession number (GenBank)	CT value	Coverage	Mean deph	N° of reads	Mapped reads	Mean mapping quality
M377_IV	MK249065	13.82	92.5%	4,004 X	218,811	216.613 (99%)	37
M127_IV	MK249066	16.68	93%	6,640 X	361,806	358.522 (99%)	37.02

Figure 1. Yellow fever virus (YFV) immunofluorescence in C636 cells.

( A) Control cells without virus, ( B) cells infected with YFV 377 H and ( C) cells with YFV127 P. Green fluorescence depicts YFV in cells marked with a monoclonal YFV antibody conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG labeled with fluorescein FITC.

Figure 2. Maximum likelihood phylogeny obtained using two novel complete yellow fever virus sequences plus 126 YFV reference sequences from each different genotype (South American I; South American II; West African; East African).

ML showing the two newly genomes belongs to South American I (SA1) genotype. SA2, WAfr, and EAfr indicate the South America II, West Africa, and East Africa genotypes, respectively. The scale bar is in units of substitutions per site (s/s). Node labels indicate bootstrap support values.17DD, the vaccine strain used in Brazil.

<italic toggle="yes">Wolbachia</italic> density

Absolute quantification of Wolbachia in mosquitoes were analyzed in the heads + thoraces of Wolbachia-positive mosquitoes ( wMel +) after challenge with YFV. There was no difference in Wolbachia density among heads and thoraces, collected at 7 or 14 days post feeding (dpf), as shown in Figure 3A. However, Wolbachia density presented a slight reduction at 21dpf, which was statistically significant in relation to 14dpf ( p = 0.0062, Mann Whitney). The median at 14dpf was 2.04 × 10 ⁶ copies per head/thorax whereas at 21dpf, it decreased to 1.37 × 10 ⁶.

Figure 3. Interference of <italic toggle="yes">Wolbachia</italic> towards yellow fever virus and <italic toggle="yes">Wolbachia</italic> absolute quantification.

Wild type (WT) or positive ( wMel +) were orally infected with two YFV isolates and virus dissemination in mosquitoes was analyzed at different times post infection. ( A) YFV infected mosquitoes’ heads and thoraces were analyzed for Wolbachia density at different times post-infection through real time RTq-PCR, based on a Wolbachia standard curve. ( B) Analysis of 7dpf p=0.0012, ( C) 14dpf **** p<0.0001 and YFV Human ** p=0.0050, YFV Primate ** p=0.0046 and ( D) 21 dpf **** p=0.0001. Empty black circles and triangles are WT mosquitoes, whereas empty green circles and triangles depict mosquitoes with wMel +. Black filled circles and triangles are mosquitoes that received a second blood meal. The red line indicates the median YFV copies. Red lines indicate the median wMel copies. ** p=0.0062; analysis performed through the Mann-Whitney U test.

<italic toggle="yes">Wolbachia</italic> reduces susceptibility of <italic toggle="yes">Ae. aegypti</italic> to YFV infection

In mosquitoes without Wolbachia (WT) the prevalence of YFV infection of heads + thoraces was 30–45% at 7dpf, and 80-89% at 14dpf. For those mosquitoes that received a 2 ^nd blood meal, the prevalence was 89 to 94% at 14dpf and 85 to 100% at 21dpf. There was no significant difference between infection rates resulting from the human or primate virus isolates ( Figure 3). In heads + thoraces of Wolbachia-positive mosquitoes ( wMel +) the infection rate ranged from 0 to 15% at 7dpf, 11 to 16% at 14dpf, 20 to 32% at 14dpf when mosquitoes received a second blood meal, and 20 to 25% at 21dpf ( Figure 3). Again, there was no major difference between viral isolates.

The infection rate observed at 7dpf was low for both viral isolates ( Figure 3B). At day 7, the presence of Wolbachia was already associated with a marked decrease in viral titers in mosquitoes ( Figure 3B). At 14dpf, there was a significant increase in the number of viral copies in WT mosquitoes ( Figure 3C). Further increase on viral load was observed when mosquitoes received a second blood meal 7 days after the infective meal and were analyzed at 14 dpf. This increase was statistically significant for both isolates ( p <0.01, Mann Whitney). This may have been due to the fact that the second blood supplied extra important nutrients for viral replication. At 21dpf, the infection reached 100% for the human isolate with a median of 3.15 × 10 ⁷ viral copies. For the primate isolate, although the infection rate was lower (85%), the viral load was higher with a median of 5.61 × 10 ⁷ viral copies per head/thoraces. Regardless of the strain of virus used, viral loads were remarkable lower in presence of Wolbachia at all time points ( Figure 3B–D). In addition, there was no increase in viral load in wMel + mosquitoes after supplying a second blood meal ( Figure 3C).

Virus transmission through saliva

Next, we evaluated the ability of orally infected mosquitoes to transmit the virus. We first collected saliva from infected mosquitoes at 14 dpf, from both groups of mosquitoes and virus isolates. We then injected a number of saliva samples into eight naïve (WT) mosquitoes and, after five days, we checked whether those mosquitoes became infected through RT-qPCR, demonstrating that a particular saliva was infectious. As shown in Figure 4, when saliva samples originated from wMel + mosquitoes, no mosquitoes became infected. This assay shows, indirectly, the potential of Wolbachia to completely abrogate YFV transmission potential of Ae. aegypti mosquitoes. Nevertheless, saliva originating from WT mosquitoes was able to infect 20% of the naïve-injected mosquitoes.

Figure 4. Indirect evaluation of yellow fever virus (YFV) transmission through mosquito saliva.

Saliva from both groups of infected mosquitoes were collected at 14 dpf. Individual saliva samples (WT or wMel +) were injected into eight naïve (WT) mosquitoes (bars) and, after five days, these injected mosquitoes were analyzed. ( A) Mosquitoes injected with wMel+ mosquito saliva or ( B) WT mosquitoes, challenged with human virus. ( C) Mosquitoes injected with wMel+ mosquito saliva or ( D) WT mosquitoes, challenged with primate virus. Values below each bar depicts the viral load of each mosquito head and thorax which donated that saliva. Positive mosquitoes were quantified through qPCR and the grey-scale represents the number of YFV copies (0 to 10 ⁶ copies), per mosquito.

Similar experiments were performed by injecting saliva samples from either the WT or wMel + groups into 4-week-old A129 ^-/-mice, which are susceptible to arboviral infections ^{30,
31}. Results showed that there was no major impact on clinical and laboratory parameters, which is consistent with the relatively low number of viable virus injected ( Figure 5A–D). However, there were viable viruses, as assessed by plaque assay, recovered from the paw of mice inoculated with saliva from WT mosquitoes. Indeed, there was culturable virus when both P (primate) and H (human) strains were used. In contrast, none of the samples from the wMel + groups were positive on the plaque assay ( Figure 5E–H). Consistently with the mosquito saliva findings above, there were higher number of viral RNA copies in draining lymphnode and liver from mice injected with WT saliva than mice inoculated with wMel + saliva ( Figure 5 I–K). Virus isolated from the primate (YFV127P) showed greater presence in liver while the human strain (YFV377H) was more localized at the lymphoid tissue ( Figure 5).

Figure 5. Saliva from <italic toggle="yes">Wolbachia</italic>-positive mosquitoes lose its capacity to transmit yellow fever virus <italic toggle="yes">in vivo</italic>.

A129 ^-/-mice were inoculated with 1 × 10 ⁴PFU of YFV primate (empty blue circles) and human YFV (empty red circles) or with a pool of saliva from wild tipe (WT) YFV primate (full blue circles), WT YFV human (full red circles), Wolbachia-positive ( wMel +) YFV primate (empty blue squares) and Wolbachia-positive YFV human (empty red squares) previously infected with YFV via intraplantar route (50 μl/paw). Control mice (MOCK group) received 50 μl of PBS solution (empty black circle). ( A) Body weight analysis shown as body weight (g) of mice. ( B) Paw volume measured daily and shown as swelling (mm ²). On day 4 post-infection mice were euthanized and the following analysis performed. ( C–D) Total and differential leukocyte counts in the blood. ( E–H) Viable viral loads recovered from paw ( E), spleen ( F), liver ( G) and brain ( H) by plaque assay in Vero cells. Results are shown as Log PFU/g of tissue. ( I–K) Viral RNA copies recovered from popliteal lymph node ( I), liver ( J) and spleen ( K) by RT-qPCR. Data was presented as meanSEM or median (n=4 mice for MOCK, n=6 mice for WT P, wMel + P, WT H and wMel + H groups and n=4 for YFV P and YFV H, one-way anova).

Collectively these results suggest that Wolbachia-positive mosquitoes can efficiently suppress YFV replication and reduce virus transmission through saliva.

Discussion

The ability of Wolbachia to reduce the susceptibility of Ae. aegypti to disseminated arbovirus infection has been repeatedly demonstrated for dengue ¹⁵, Zika ¹⁶, chikungunya ¹⁷, West Nile ³² and mayaro virus ²⁶. We have shown that wMel was able to significantly reduce the infectivity of YFV to mosquitoes, independently of the source of the virus (both human and primate). Previously, it has been shown that two strains of Wolbachia ( wMelPop and wMel) were able to significantly reduce YFV mosquito infection, although with virus isolated from human cases from Nigeria and Bolivia, in 1987 and 1999, respectively ³³. Here we evaluated the effect of Wolbachia ( wMel strain) towards two recently isolated yellow fever viruses, originating from the 2017–2018 outbreaks in Brazil. The yellow fever virus isolates used here have different origins, one originating from a non-human primate found in the city of Nova Lima and another originated from a human case in the city of Padre Paraíso, both in the state of Minas Gerais. Although these cities are located more than 500 km apart, they belong to the same genotype. Besides working with recently isolated virus from human and primate sources, the difference in the present study refers to the way mosquitoes have been infected. Furthermore, this study was performed with orally infected mosquitoes, which is closer to natural conditions, in comparison to the previous study which infected mosquitoes through thorax injection, in order to improve mosquito infection ³⁴.

The use of Wolbachia as an arbovirus control strategy has been developed by the not-for-profit initiative, the World Mosquito Program. The approach offers the prospect of a natural and sustainable method for arbovirus control ^{34–
37}. The impact towards reduction of arbovirus has been analyzed ^{38,
39} and early indication of positive effect has been recently reported ⁴⁰. In Brazil, WMP is expanding its coverage into Rio de Janeiro and Niterói municipalities and epidemiological studies in order to determine arbovirus reduction is underway.

The blocking ability conferred by Wolbachia has been directly related to the density of the bacterium within main mosquito tissues such as midgut and/or salivary glands ^{15,
41}, where viruses replicate to further produce infectious particles ⁴². In our study, and as observed by Pereira et al., 2018 ²⁶, the density of Wolbachia was constant at 7 or 14 days after virus exposure. However, there was a reduction of wMel + density at 21dpf, which did not impact the blocking ability towards the virus ( Figure 3). The variation on the density (or titer) of Wolbachia within the host has been previously observed, which could be related to the aging of the host ⁴¹.

In the present study, the presence of Wolbachia in mosquitoes greatly reduced YFV infection, except for 7dpf, when the infection rate was low in all groups. Further effect of Wolbachia towards YFV was verified when individually collected mosquito saliva was injected into naïve mosquitoes or into a susceptible mice strain and their infectivity was analyzed. This first technique has been widely used by our group and others ^{16,
26,
43}, and it is a robust proxy of the potential of individual saliva towards virus transmission. When the source of saliva came from Wolbachia-positive mosquitoes, there was no infection in any injected mosquito. Through projection of these results into natural conditions, the YFV transmission could be greatly reduced, as previously modeled for dengue virus ³⁸.

Another interesting fact of this work was the increase in viral load observed after the second blood feeding in WT mosquitoes. This same fact was not observed in wMel + mosquitoes. This shows that the blocking ability of Wolbachia persists even after the addition of extra blood nutrients (through a second blood meal) and that its blocking effect occurs within 7 days after infection. Interestingly, in our experiments, the overall infectivity in mosquitoes was not high, even in control (no Wolbachia) mosquitoes. This shows the reduced vector competence of natural Brazilian Ae. aegypti populations, which could explain why most of the cases reported on the recent outbreaks in Brazil were in proximity to green areas of parks and forests, where natural YFV mosquito vectors such as Haemagogus and Sabethes are easily found ^{11,
12,
44}.

Our results show that the presence of wMel strain of Wolbachia in mosquitoes has the potential to greatly reduce the transmission potential of Ae. aegypti for YFV. It is important for public health agencies of arbovirus endemic countries to have constant awareness of the potential of Ae. aegypti to become an urban vector for yellow fever once again ^{6,
45}. If that becomes reality, Wolbachia-infected mosquitoes could be a powerful tool for YFV control, along with the currently applied vaccination program ^{10,
46}. Integration of complementary strategies are the best solution for arbovirus control.

Data availability Underlying data

The data underlying Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5, as well as viral sequencing data is available from Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PUZ69 ⁴⁷.

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero “No rights reserved” data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

Extended data

Table S1. YFV reference strains information, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PUZ69

Acknowledgments

We thank the Arbovirology and Hemorragic Fever Session from the Evandro Chagas Institute, for donating the monoclonal antibody. We thank the State Health Secretariat of Minas Gerais, and the board and technical team of Fundação Ezequiel Dias. Also, Hemominas for blood donation. We are grateful to members of the Mosquitos Vetores Group (MV - IRR/FIOCRUZ) and the team of World Mosquito Program Brazil, particularly the Entomology team for providing wMel and field mosquito eggs. Also, to members of the Imunologia de Doenças Virais group (IRR -FIOCRUZ) who provided the viral culture infrastructure. We are in debt to Dr. Cameron Simmons for critical reading of the manuscript.

Musso

Rodriguez-Morales

Levi

: Unexpected outbreaks of arbovirus infections: lessons learned from the Pacific and tropical America. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018;18(11):e355–e361. 29934112

10.1016/S1473-3099(18)30269-X

Litvoc

Novaes

CTG

Lopes

MIBF

: Yellow fever. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 2018;64(2):106–13. 29641667

10.1590/1806-9282.64.02.106

Oliveira Melo

Malinger

Ximenes

: Zika virus intrauterine infection causes fetal brain abnormality and microcephaly: tip of the iceberg? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;47(1):6–7. 26731034

10.1002/uog.15831

Brito

CAA

: Alert: Severe cases and deaths associated with Chikungunya in Brazil. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2017;50(5):585–9. 29160503

10.1590/0037-8682-0479-2016

Ross

: Reasons for Believing that the Only Way in Nature for Yellow Fever to be Contracted by Man is from the Mosquito. Public Heal Pap Rep. 1902;28:247–57. 19601058

2329463

Davis

Shannon

: Studies on Yellow Fever in South America : Iv. Transmission Experiments with Aedes Aegypti. J Exp Med. 1929;50(6):793–801. 19869665

10.1084/jem.50.6.793

2131667

Davis

: The Transmission of Yellow Fever : Experiments With the "Woolly Monkey" (Lagothrix Lago-Tricha Humboldt), the "Spider Monkey" (Ateleus Ater F. Cuvier), and the "Squirrel Monkey" (Saimiri Scireus Linnaeus). J Exp Med. 1930;51(5):703–20. 19869721

10.1084/jem.51.5.703

2131789

Hervé

Filho

Travassos da Rosa

APA

: Bio-écologie d’ Haemagogus ( Haemagogus) janthinomys Dyar au Bresil. Cah ORSTOM, sér Ent méd Parasitol. 1985;23(3):203–8. Reference Source

Chaves

TDSS

Orduna

Lepetic

: Yellow fever in Brazil: Epidemiological aspects and implications for travelers. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2018;23:1–3. 29751132

10.1016/j.tmaid.2018.05.001

World Health Organization: Eliminate yellow fever epidemics (EYE) by 2017-2026. World Health Organization.2018;1–56. Reference Source

Cardoso Jda

de Almeida

dos Santos

: Yellow fever virus in Haemagogus leucocelaenus and Aedes serratus mosquitoes, southern Brazil, 2008. Emerg Infect Dis. 2010;16(12):1918–24. 21122222

10.3201/eid1612.100608

3294583

Souza

Petrella

Coimbra

: Isolation of yellow fever virus (YFV) from naturally infected Haemagogus ( Conopostegus) leucocelaenus (diptera, cukicudae) in São Paulo State, Brazil, 2009. Rev Inst Med Trop São Paulo. 2011;53(3):133–9. 21755235

10.1590/S0036-46652011000300004

Couto-Lima

Madec

Bersot

: Potential risk of re-emergence of urban transmission of Yellow Fever virus in Brazil facilitated by competent Aedes populations. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):4848. 28687779

10.1038/s41598-017-05186-3

5501812

Werren

Baldo

Clark

: Wolbachia: master manipulators of invertebrate biology. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2008;6(10):741–51. 18794912

10.1038/nrmicro1969

Moreira

Iturbe-Ormaetxe

Jeffery

: A Wolbachia symbiont in Aedes aegypti limits infection with dengue, Chikungunya, and Plasmodium. Cell. 2009;139(7):1268–78. 20064373

10.1016/j.cell.2009.11.042

Dutra

Rocha

Dias

: Wolbachia Blocks Currently Circulating Zika Virus Isolates in Brazilian Aedes aegypti Mosquitoes. Cell Host Microbe. 2016;19(6):771–4. 27156023

10.1016/j.chom.2016.04.021

4906366

Aliota

Walker

Uribe Yepes

: The wMel Strain of Wolbachia Reduces Transmission of Chikungunya Virus in Aedes aegypti. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10(4):e0004677. 27124663

10.1371/journal.pntd.0004677

4849757

Dulbeccc

Vogt

: Some problems of animal virology as studied by the plaque technique. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol. 1953;18:273–9. 13168995

10.1101/SQB.1953.018.01.039

Domingo

Patel

Yillah

: Advanced yellow fever virus genome detection in point-of-care facilities and reference laboratories. J Clin Microbiol. 2012;50(12):4054–60. 23052311

10.1128/JCM.01799-12

3503008

Quick

Grubaugh

Pullan

: Multiplex PCR method for MinION and Illumina sequencing of Zika and other virus genomes directly from clinical samples. Nat Protoc. 2017;12(6):1261–76. 28538739

10.1038/nprot.2017.066

5902022

Andrews

: FastQC: a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data.2010. Reference Source

Afgan

Baker

Batut

: The Galaxy platform for accessible, reproducible and collaborative biomedical analyses: 2018 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46(W1):W537–W544. 29790989

10.1093/nar/gky379

6030816

Katoh

Kuma

Toh

: MAFFT version 5: improvement in accuracy of multiple sequence alignment. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005;33(2):511–8. 15661851

10.1093/nar/gki198

548345

Nguyen

Schmidt

von Haeseler

: IQ-TREE: a fast and effective stochastic algorithm for estimating maximum-likelihood phylogenies. Mol Biol Evol. 2015;32(1):268–74. 25371430

10.1093/molbev/msu300

4271533

Strimmer

von Haeseler

: Likelihood-mapping: a simple method to visualize phylogenetic content of a sequence alignment. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997;94(13):6815–9. 9192648

10.1073/pnas.94.13.6815

21241

Pereira

Rocha

Henrique

PHF

: Wolbachia significantly impacts the vector competence of Aedes aegypti for Mayaro virus. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):6889. 29720714

10.1038/s41598-018-25236-8

5932050

Costa

Fagundes

Valadão

: A model of DENV-3 infection that recapitulates severe disease and highlights the importance of IFN-γ in host resistance to infection. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6(5):e1663. 22666512

10.1371/journal.pntd.0001663

3362616

Faria

Kraemer

MUG

Hill

: Genomic and epidemiological monitoring of yellow fever virus transmission potential. Science. 2018;361(6405):894–9. 30139911

10.1126/science.aat7115

Frentiu

Zakir

Walker

: Limited dengue virus replication in field-collected Aedes aegypti mosquitoes infected with Wolbachia. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014;8(2):e2688. 24587459

10.1371/journal.pntd.0002688

3930499

Costa

Fagundes

Souza

: Inflammatory and innate immune responses in dengue infection: protection versus disease induction. Am J Pathol. 2013;182(6):1950–61. 23567637

10.1016/j.ajpath.2013.02.027

Reynolds

Hart

Hermance

: An Overview of Animal Models for Arthropod-Borne Viruses. Comp Med. 2017;67(3):232–41. 28662752

5482515

Hussain

Torres

: Effect of Wolbachia on replication of West Nile virus in a mosquito cell line and adult mosquitoes. J Virol. 2013;87(2):851–8. 23115298

10.1128/JVI.01837-12

3554047

van Den Hurk

Hall-Mendelin

Pyke

: Impact of Wolbachia on infection with chikungunya and yellow fever viruses in the mosquito vector Aedes aegypti. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6(11):e1892. 23133693

10.1371/journal.pntd.0001892

3486898

O’Neill

Ryan

Turley

: Scaled deployment of Wolbachia to protect the community from dengue and other Aedes transmitted arboviruses [version 2; referees: 2 approved]. Gates Open Res. 2018;2:36. 30596205

10.12688/gatesopenres.12844.2

6305154

Flores

O’Neill

: Controlling vector-borne diseases by releasing modified mosquitoes. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2018;16(8):508–18. 29777177

10.1038/s41579-018-0025-0

van den Hurk

: From Incriminating Stegomyia fasciata to Releasing Wolbachia pipientis: Australian Research on the Dengue Virus Vector, Aedes aegypti, and Development of Novel Strategies for Its Surveillance and Control. Trop Med Infect Dis. 2018;3(3): pii: E71. 30274467

10.3390/tropicalmed3030071

6161261

O’Neill

: The Use of Wolbachia by the World Mosquito Program to interrupt transmission of Aedes aegypti transmitted viruses. Adv Exp Med Biol. In: Hilgenfeld R, Vasudevan S (eds) Dengue and Zika: Control and Antiviral Treatment Strategies Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, Springer, Singapore.2018;1062:355–60. 29845544

10.1007/978-981-10-8727-1_24

Fergurson

Kien

Clapham

: Modeling the impact on virus transmission of Wolbachia-mediated blocking of dengue virus infection of Aedes aegypti. HHS Public Access. 2015;143(5):951–9.

Anders

Indriani

Ahmad

: The AWED trial (Applying Wolbachia to Eliminate Dengue) to assess the efficacy of Wolbachia-infected mosquito deployments to reduce dengue incidence in Yogyakarta, Indonesia: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2018;19(1):302. 29855331

10.1186/s13063-018-2670-z

5984439

Carrington

Chau

BBCN

Tran

NTH

: Field- and clinically derived estimates of Wolbachia-mediated blocking of dengue virus transmission potential in Aedes aegypti mosquitoes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;115(2):361–6. 29279375

10.1073/pnas.1715788115

5777059

Fraser

De Bruyne

Iturbe-ormaetxe

: Novel Wolbachia-transinfected Aedes aegypti mosquitoes possess diverse fitness and vector competence phenotypes. PLoS Pathog. 2017;13(12):e1006751. 29216317

10.1371/journal.ppat.1006751

5736235

Walker

Johnson

Moreira

: The wMel Wolbachia strain blocks dengue and invades caged Aedes aegypti populations. Nature. 2011;476(7361):450–3. 21866159

10.1038/nature10355

Anderson

Richards

Smartt

: A simple method for determining arbovirus transmission in mosquitoes. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2010;26(1):108–11. 20402359

10.2987/09-5935.1

2858320

Shannon

Whitman

Franca

: Yellow Fever Virus In Jungle Mosquitoes. Science. 1938;88(2274):110–1. 17737019

10.1126/science.88.2274.110

Carrington

Auguste

: Evolutionary and ecological factors underlying the tempo and distribution of yellow fever virus activity. Infect Genet Evol. 2013;13:198–210. 22981999

10.1016/j.meegid.2012.08.015

de Menezes Martins

Maia

MLS

de Lima

SMB

: Duration of post-vaccination immunity to yellow fever in volunteers eight years after a dose-response study. Vaccine. 2018;36(28):4112–7. 29784469

10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.05.041

6026294

Moreira

: GatesOpen12903. OSF. 2019. http://www.doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PUZ69

10.21956/gatesopenres.13999.r26932

Reviewer response for version 1

Souza-Neto

Jayme A.

1 Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9281-894X Carlos

Bianca C.

1 Co-referee 1School of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Bioprocesses and Biotechnology, Multiuser Central Laboratory, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Botucatu, Brazil

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

25 3 2019

2019

This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

recommendation

approve

This a very elegant manuscript provided by Rocha and colleagues reporting the effect Wolbachia on yellow fever virus (YFV) transmission by Aedes aegypti. For testing this, the authors use an already well-known and -established Ae. aegypti line carrying Wolbachia (wMel mosquitoes) to evaluate its competence for two closely related YFV isolates, one from humans and another from primates. Finally, the efficacy of the wMel Ae. aegypti strain to block YFV transmission is tested by assessing the number of infectious viral particles in the mosquito saliva by two independent methods: 1) intrathoracic inoculation of mosquitoes or 2) paw inoculation of immune-deficient mice with the saliva of either WT or wMel YFV-infected mosquitoes. Clearly, Wolbachia has a potent effect against YFV, reducing both the infection level of YFV in the mosquito body and the rate of YFV-infected mosquitoes when comparing wMel mosquitoes orally exposed to YFV to their respective WT control mosquitoes. More strikingly, the wMel strain is shown to be unable to transmit YFV by the two indirect transmission assays carried out by the authors. Suggestions and comments are presented below with the intention to improve the manuscript, especially the clarity and accuracy of the methods/design and data presentation.

Methods/design description : some elements related to this part of the manuscript should be further expanded and detailed for a better understanding and accuracy of the manuscript. Especially, the authors should consider:

- Improving the description of the YFV infection assays in mosquitoes. For example, it is not clear the number of mosquitoes and replicates used to determine the viral load in the body of WT or wMel mosquitoes.

- Similarly, it is important to clarify the design and data presentation of the transmission assays in mosquitoes. For example, it is not clear if each bar on Figure 4 represents the data combination of 8 mosquitoes injected with the same saliva of a given mosquito (1 x 8 x 8) or if it is the data collected from an individual mosquito injected with the saliva of a given individual mosquito (1 x 1 x 8). This may also cause confusion when interpreting this figure as the Y-axis labels refer to “infected mosquitoes per saliva” while the subtitles refer to “the number of YFV copies…per mosquito”. Additionally, the authors should check the position of the graphs on the right (A and C) and left (B and D) panels as they seem not to match their respective description in the subtitles.

- An important question that was raised is why the authors have chosen to inject mosquito saliva into mice instead of feeding such mosquitoes on mice in order to test transmission directly.

Results/hypothesis/conclusions:

- The leukocyte counts are significantly high in mice inoculated with the saliva of wMel mosquitoes orally exposed to YFV (Figures 5C and 5D). Do the authors have any hypothesis to explain why this is happening?

- Because the WT mosquito population used in this work presented a relatively low vector competence to YFV, on page 10 (Discussion, second column) the authors infer this phenotype as a representation of Brazilian Ae. aegypti populations. While this is a plausible hypothesis, I would suggest the authors to be more cautious with this statement as vector competence to YFV of many other Ae. aegypti populations must be tested before one assumes this fact.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

Vector-pathogen interactions; vector competence; mosquito immunity; functional genomics; microbiota;

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Moreira

Luciano

FIOCRUZ, Brazil

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

8 4 2019

Reviewer – Dr. Jaime A. Souza-Neto and Bianca C. Carlos

1. Methods/design description :some elements related to this part of the manuscript should be further expanded and detailed for a better understanding and accuracy of the manuscript. Especially, the authors should consider:

>> In the section on methods in the item mosquitoes and infection, the requested information was included:

Viral load was analyzed at 7, 14 and 21 days post feeding (dpf), via RT-qPCR and the number of mosquitoes analyzed per group are presented in figures 3B, C and D, ranging from 17 to 20. Additionally, a subset of mosquitoes (at 7dpf) received an extra blood meal and were collected at 14dpf, when Wolbachia density and viral load was determined. Wolbachia density was analyzed on mosquitoes from the three time-points as follows: 40 mosquitoes on 7 dpf, 39 mosquitoes on 14 dpf and 38 mosquitoes after 21 dpf.

>> The information requested on the number of nanoinjected mosquitoes was introduced in the methods section (Mosquito saliva transmission assay) as shown below:

Each mosquito received 276 nL and were kept for 5 days before whole body RNA extraction, followed by RT-qPCR. Usually, with one saliva sample it is possible to inject 15 mosquitoes, but due to mortality, 8 mosquitoes were analyzed from each nanoinjected saliva sample.

>> The panels were indeed misplaced. Thank you for pointing this out. Please see below:

Saliva from both groups of infected mosquitoes were collected at 14 dpf. Individual saliva samples (WT or wMel +) were analyzed into eight naïve (WT) mosquitoes (bars) and, after five days, these injected mosquitoes were analyzed. ( A) Mosquitoes injected with WT mosquito saliva or ( B) wMel+ mosquitoes, challenged with human virus. ( C) Mosquitoes injected with WT mosquito saliva or ( D) wMel+ mosquitoes, challenged with primate virus. Values below each bar depicts the viral load of each mosquito head and thorax which donated that saliva. Positive mosquitoes were quantified through RT-qPCR and the grey-scale represents the number of YFV copies (0 to 10 ⁶ copies), per mosquito.

- An important question that was raised is why the authors have chosen to inject mosquito saliva into mice instead of feeding such mosquitoes on mice in order to test transmission directly.

>> The reason why we have not performed the experiment by feeding infected mosquitoes directly on the mice was because we had no biosafety approval to perform these experiments. Therefore, the saliva samples had to be transported to another institution (UFMG), where the mice were located, and then used there.

2. Results/hypothesis/conclusions:- The leukocyte counts are significantly high in mice inoculated with the saliva of wMel mosquitoes orally exposed to YFV (Figures 5C and 5D). Do the authors have any hypothesis to explain why this is happening?

>> Mosquito saliva is a very complex concoction of mixture of proteins (>100 proteins), which exerts several functions in the host by circumventing, for example, vasoconstriction, platelet aggregation, coagulation, and inflammation or host hemostasis. Several works in literature have shown that mosquito saliva by itself exerts profound effects on mouse and human immune systems. For example, Vogt and colleagues (2018), using a humanized mice model, have shown that mosquito saliva alters several human blood leukocytes populations such as hematopoietic, NK, NKT, B and myeloid cells. However, the isolate and specific effect of mosquito saliva in modulating blood leukocyte counts was not observed in our work. This finding leads us to believe that wolbachia infection could be associated with such blood leukocyte counts increase. However, when we look closely at the results, we observe that the increase in blood leukocyte counts in mice that received saliva of wMel mosquitoes occurred especially (statistically significant) only upon exposure to human YFV isolate but not after the primate YFV strain inoculation (Fig 5C, 5D). These results suggest that the leukocyte increase observed in the wMel hYFV group was probably due to an interaction between the wolbachia-infected saliva and the human viral isolate in comparison to mice that received the YFV isolate from primates. However, the mechanisms underlying these findings require further investigation.

Vogt MB, Lahon A, Arya RP, Kneubehl AR, Spencer Clinton JL, Paust S, Rico-Hesse R. Mosquito saliva alone has profound effects on the human immune system. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018 May 17;12(5):e0006439. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006439.

>> Thanks for this point. It was included with the information that the results were obtained in this particular population.

Besides working with recently isolated virus from human and primate sources, the difference in the present study refers to the way in which this particular population of mosquitoes have been infected.

10.21956/gatesopenres.13999.r26939

Reviewer response for version 1

van den Hurk

Andrew

1 Referee 1School of Chemistry and Molecular Biosciences, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

1 3 2019

2019

recommendation

approve-with-reservations

The deployment of Aedes aegypti transinfected with the Wolbachia is a highly promising strategy for suppressing the transmission of a number of globally important arboviruses, such as dengue, Zika, chikungunya and yellow fever viruses. In the current manuscript, the authors conducted laboratory-based experiments to assess the ability of the wMel strain of Wolbachia to inhibit the transmission potential of two outbreak strains of yellow fever virus by Aedes aegypti. As has been demonstrated with other flaviviruses in numerous similar studies, wMel inhibited replication and subsequent transmission when compared with Wolbachia-negative mosquitoes. This is a relatively well written manuscript describing experiments with outcomes of interest to readers of Gates Open Research. However, there are some components of the manuscript that need to be clarified and/or justified.

Below are specific comments as they relate to the reported study:

It is difficult to understand the justification for including the mouse component of the work. The final sentence of the introduction is misleading. As it reads, it indicates that mice were used to demonstrate transmission (i.e. that mosquitoes actually fed on mice which were then monitored for evidence of infection). However, mice (along with mosquitoes) were used to indicate whether saliva collected using an in vitro method contained infectious virus and not to demonstrate transmission directly. If mice had been used to demonstrate transmission directly, then this would have added greatly to the novelty and significance of the study by demonstrating that transmission is affected in an animal model and not just using in vitro assessment of transmission (which is what almost all other studies do).

The actual number of saliva samples tested was relatively low, so interpretation of the findings with regards to transmission blocking should be undertaken with caution, especially when extrapolating to the field.

“Pluripotency” is not really an appropriate descriptive term in this context.

The background in the abstract needs to mention that there is an efficacious vaccine and then state issues with its widespread roll-out (i.e. supply, logistics etc.). This provides a segue into why Wolbachia may be appropriate for YFV control.

Also in the abstract (5 ^th line): Aedes aegypti is still the main (urban) vector, not “used to be”.

Introduction: In lines 3 and 4 of paragraph 2, it is important to emphasise that Haemagogus and Sabethes are important sylvan vectors in South America. Africa has a different suite of sylvan vectors. Also, insert a comma after Sabethes, as the way it currently reads, it sounds as though they are all urban vectors.

Also in this paragraph (lines 9-12), state that there was (thankfully) no evidence of urban transmission during these outbreaks.

Line 10 of paragraph 3: Need a segue into the Wolbachia-based control. Something like “ Wolbachia is being deployed to limit arbovirus transmission…”. Then describe what Wolbachia actually is.

Methods: Need to be consistent on whether it is PCR or RT PCR.

Methods: Please provide references for the IFA and qRT-PCR in regard to the virus isolation.

Methods: In the first paragraph of the mosquito saliva transmission assays (line 9), state whether saliva was from individual mosquitoes or from pools of saliva.

Methods: Viral detection on (in) infected mosquitoes and mice:

Remove “infected” from this heading, as it is not known whether mosquitoes are infected until they are tested.

Also, line 1 of first paragraph: qPCR detects viral RNA.

What was the justification for using inoculation of mosquitoes and mice to demonstrate transmission? Why not a cell culture based system?

In terms of the mice, is there evidence that the strain used was highly susceptible to YFV infection? Why was this strain of mice used?

In terms of the multiplex assay, can some data be supplied regarding the relative efficiencies of each of the components of the assay? How does sensitivity compare to singleplex assays? What were the limits of detection, especially for detection of YFV?

More information on the quantification of Wolbachia and YFV would be beneficial, especially with respect to the RPS 17 sequence and why it was included.

Results: The authors state that there “was no significant difference between infection rates resulting from the human or primate virus isolates.”. Please provide the statistical test used to compare rates and provide significance levels. Please provide statistical tests to show that infection rates were indeed significantly different between Wolbachia-positive and -negative mosquitoes.

Results: Paragraph 2, lines 9-11 – this is speculation or if there is previously published work on this it should be provided – in the discussion.

Figure 3:

Were only the head and thorax of YFV-infected mosquitoes tested for Wolbachia density? One would think not, given they are Wolbachia infected. Clarify.

Line 4, the sentence staring with (B) needs to state that these were the YFV copy numbers from the start.

In the last sentence, what does the significance level refer to?

Was this absolute or relative quantification of YFV RNA? Clarify.

Results: The number of saliva samples from WT and wMel+ was 8 for each of the viruses (primate and human). Why was such a relatively low number (especially of the WT) of saliva samples tested? In Figure 3, there was a much larger number of mosquitoes tested. Was transmission not attempted with these mosquitoes? The number of saliva samples tested really was very low compared to what could and should have been tested (especially by mosquito injection, where there shouldn’t really be any limitation to the number of samples processed).

Figure 4: The legend and figures are the wrong way around. Do Figures 4A and 4C actually refer to wMel+ infected saliva?

The discussion needs to consider some important factors:

What are the possible mechanisms causing the Wolbachia-mediated virus inhibition? This is pertinent in this case, because the effect of subsequent blood meals was examined.

Wolbachia-based control strategies are undoubtedly promising tools for control of Aedes aegypti transmitted viruses. However, the authors should discuss any potential issues that could arise with Wolbachia-based approaches in the future.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

I am a public health entomologist who researches mosquito-borne pathogens, with a focus on arboviruses. In particular, the research integrates field and laboratory based studies to understand arbovirus transmission cycles, and assesses novel surveillance and control strategies with view to limiting their impact on human health.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Moreira

Luciano

FIOCRUZ, Brazil

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

8 4 2019

Reviewer – Dr. Andrew van den Hurk

Below are specific comments as they relate to the reported study:

>> Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this and we have edited the text accordingly. Now the end of the introduction reads: “We found that Wolbachia had a major impact on virus replication in mosquitoes, as well as reduced the potential of YFV transmission via saliva, as indirectly determined via mosquitoes or a mouse model”.

The reason why we have not performed the experiment by feeding infected mosquitoes directly on the mice was because we had no biosafety approval to perform these experiments. Therefore, the saliva samples had to be transported to another institution (UFMG), where the mice were located, and then used there.

>> We agree with the reviewer, but we think we were able to have good sampling numbers if we consider that 2 isolates (primate and human) were used and the results are quite similar.

“Pluripotency” is not really an appropriate descriptive term in this context.

>> The idea of using the word “Pluripotency” was to describe the ability of Wolbachia to reduce transmission of several different pathogens. If there is no big issue on this, we would prefer to keep it and change Arbovirus to Arboviruses to better illustrate what we wanted.

>> Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with the reviewer and edited the text accordingly to include this suggestion:

Background: Yellow fever outbreaks have re-emerged in Brazil during 2016-18, with mortality rates up to 30%. Although urban transmission has not been reported since 1942, the risk of re-urbanization of yellow fever is significant, as Aedes aegypti is present in most tropical and sub-tropical cities in the World and used to be the main vector in the past. Although the YFV vaccine is safe and effective, it does not always reach populations at greatest risk of infection and there is an acknowledged global shortage of vaccine supply. The introgression of Wolbachia bacteria into Ae. aegypti mosquito populations is being trialed in several countries ( www.worldmosquito.org) as a biocontrol method against dengue, Zika and chikungunya. Here, we studied the ability of Wolbachia to reduce the transmission potential of Ae. aegypti mosquitoes for yellow fever virus (YFV).

Also in the abstract (5 ^th line): Aedes aegypti is still the main (urban) vector, not “used to be”.

>> OK. This has been corrected:

Although urban transmission has not been reported since 1942, the risk of re-urbanization of yellow fever is significant, as Aedes aegypti is present in most tropical and sub-tropical cities in the World and still remains the main vector of urban YFV.

>> The text has been modified to accommodate the reviewer’s suggestion.

The yellow fever virus (YFV) is a member of the Flaviviridae family and transmitted by sylvan mosquitoes of the genus Haemagogus and Sabethes, in South America and Aedes aegypti in urban settings ⁵ ^– ⁸ .

Also in this paragraph (lines 9-12), state that there was (thankfully) no evidence of urban transmission during these outbreaks.

>> The text has been modified:

“Although the last reported cases of urban transmission in Brazil occurred in 1942, in 2016–2017, the country faced major outbreaks of the disease mainly in the states of Minas Gerais, Espírito Santo and Rio de Janeiro. In 2018, the epidemic also extended to São Paulo State ⁹ . According to the Brazilian Ministry of Health, from July 2017 to April 2018, there were 1,127 YFV cases with 328 deaths, with no evidence of urban transmission.”

Line 10 of paragraph 3:Need a segue into the “Wolbachia-based control. Something like “Wolbachia is being deployed to limit arbovirus transmission…”. Then describe what Wolbachia actually is.

>> The text has been modified to accommodate the reviewer’s suggestion:

“Population control of Ae. aegypti mosquitoes using insecticides has been a mainstay of vector-borne disease control methods for decades but is undermined by widespread insecticide resistance. A promising innovative strategy, based on a bacterium called Wolbachia pipientis, has been trialed in many countries. Wolbachia is a maternally transmitted bacterial endosymbiont and is naturally present in at least 40% of all insect species ¹⁴ .”

Methods: Need to be consistent on whether it is PCR or RT PCR.

>> For all the experiments related to the virus we used RT-qPCR. Regular PCR was used for the sequencing only. Some corrections were made on RT-qPCR throughout the text.

Methods: Please provide references for the IFA and qRT-PCR in regard to the virus isolation.

>> Ok. Two references have been added.

IFA was performed with a monoclonal YFV antibody donated by Evandro Chagas Institute (Arbovirology and Hemorrhagic Fevers Section) and conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG labeled with fluorescein FITC (MP Biomedicals) according to Adungo et al. 2016 ¹⁸ with modifications. Images were obtained using an Olympus microscope model BX51 with DP72 camera and DP-2BSW software. Viral molecular confirmation was performed using RNA extracted from the culture supernatant of each isolate, followed by amplification of the genetic material as described below in the viral detection section according to Domingo et al. 2012 ¹⁹. For mosquito infections, the YFV isolates were replicated in C636 cells ( Ae. albopictus) cultured in Leibovitz 15 medium (Gibco) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) (Gibco) for 5 days at 28°C. Viral load was confirmed by RT-qPCR and later through plaque assays (PFU) in VERO cells (CCL81) grown in DMEM medium (Gibco) and 3% Carboxymethylcellulose (Sigma) supplemented with 2% FBS (Gibco) at 37°C and 5% CO ₂ ²⁰ .

Methods: In the first paragraph of the mosquito saliva transmission assays (line 9), state whether saliva was from individual mosquitoes or from pools of saliva.

>> Saliva samples came from individual mosquitoes. The text has been modified for clarity.

“Individual saliva samples were injected into WT mosquitoes, after 2 to 4 days of emergence.”

Methods: Viral detection on (in) infected mosquitoes and mice:

Remove “infected” from this heading, as it is not known whether mosquitoes are infected until they are tested.

>> Ok, done:

“Viral detection in mosquitoes and mice”

Also, line 1 of first paragraph: qPCR detects viral RNA.

>> Ok, done:

“Detection of viral RNA on infected mosquitoes and mice samples were performed through quantitative real-time PCR (RT-qPCR) using LightCycler® Multiplex RNA Virus Master (Roche), according to the previously published protocol.”

What was the justification for using inoculation of mosquitoes and mice to demonstrate transmission? Why not a cell culture based system?

>> We have tested, in the past, individual saliva samples into cell culture and we were not able to have successful viral growth. Therefore, we have chosen to use these indirect methods (mosquito or mice) to show that the virus was indeed infectious. If the mosquito or mouse became infected it is a good sign that the saliva contained active and infectious virus.

In terms of the mice, is there evidence that the strain used was highly susceptible to YFV infection? Why was this strain of mice used?

>> In this study A129-/-SV129 strain of mice was used. The A129-/- mice strain was chosen based on the fact that they are deficient in important innate immune components, more specifically the type I interferons a / b receptor. Type I Interferons ( IFN-α/β) plays a significant role in preventing viral replication and protecting against arboviral infections such as Zika, Dengue and Yellow fever viruses (1-5). They are the gold standard models to evaluate virus replication and therapeutical drugs due their elevated susceptibility to infection.

Lazear HM, Govero J, Smith AM, Platt DJ, Fernandez E, Miner JJ, Diamond MS. (2016). A mouse model of Zika virus pathogenesis. Cell Host Microbe, 19, 1-11. Published online April 5, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2016.03.010

Rossi SL, Tesh RB, Azar SR, Muruato AE, Hanley KA, Auguste AJ, Langsjoen RM, Paessler S, Basilaski N, Weaver SC. (2016). Characterization of a novel murine model to study zika virus. Am J Trop Med Hyg, 16-0111; Published online March 28, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.16-0111

Sarathy VV, Milligan GN, Bourne N, Barrett ADT. (2015). Mouse models of dengue virus infection for vaccine testing. Vaccine. 2015 Dec 10; 33(50): 7051–7060. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.09.112 .

Yauch LE , Shresta S . (2008). Mouse models of dengue virus infection and disease. Antiviral Res. 2008 Nov;80(2):87-93. doi: 10.1016/j.antiviral.2008.06.010.

Meier KC 1, Gardner CL , Khoretonenko MV , Klimstra WB , Ryman KD . (2009). A mouse model for studying viscerotropic disease caused by yellow fever virus infection. PLoS Pathog. 2009 Oct;5(10):e1000614. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1000614

>> We have done, please see the graph and table linked here, a comparison of the single or multiplex assay with a plasmid standard curve and the results are quite similar.

More information on the quantification of Wolbachia and YFV would be beneficial, especially with respect to the RPS 17 sequence and why it was included.

>> Ok, done:

A fraction (1/20) of the total isolated RNA was used in the reactions. Head and thorax samples from YFV-challenged mosquitoes were analyzed in duplicate through RT-qPCR and viral and Wolbachia quantification were performed in comparison with serial dilution of a standard curve of the respective genes cloned into the pGEMT plasmid (Promega) ^16,27. Therefore, it was possible to calculate the number of copies per tissue. As a mosquito control gene we used the RPS 17S sequence of Ae. aegypti (Moreira 2009) ¹⁵.

>> We have included the following statement: There was no significant difference between infection rates resulting from the human or primate virus isolates (Mann-Whitney U test p>0.05). As for the comparisons between different groups we have added the corresponding statistical analyses values in the legend of Fig 3.

Red lines indicate the median wMel copies (Mann-Whitney U test, ** p=0.0062). ( B) Analysis of copies of viral RNA on 7dpf -WT x wMel+ (** p=0.0028) and YFV Human x Primate WT ( p = 0.43), ( C) 14dpf YFV Human and Primate WT x wMel + (**** p<0.0001), YFV Human x Primate WT ( p=0.75), YFV Human x Primate extra blood meal WT ( p=0.78), YFV Human WT x WT extra blood meal (** p=0.0061) and YFV Primate WT x WT extra blood meal (** p= 0.0056) and ( D) 21 dpf -WT x wMel+ (**** p=0.0001) and YFV Human x Primate ( p= 0.51). Empty black circles and triangles are WT mosquitoes, whereas empty green circles and triangles depict mosquitoes with wMel +. Black filled circles and triangles are mosquitoes that received a second blood meal. The red line indicates the median YFV copies.

Wild type (WT) or positive ( wMel +) were orally infected with two YFV isolates and virus dissemination in mosquitoes was analyzed at different times post infection. ( A) YFV infected mosquitoes’ heads and thoraces were analyzed for Wolbachia density at different times post-infection through real time RT-qPCR, based on a Wolbachia standard curve. Red lines indicate the median wMel copies (Mann-Whitney U test, ** p=0.0062). ( B) Analysis of copies of viral RNA on 7dpf -WT x wMel+ (** p=0.0028) and YFV Human x Primate WT ( p = 0.43), ( C) 14dpf YFV Human and Primate WT x wMel + (**** p<0.0001), YFV Human x Primate WT ( p=0.75), YFV Human x Primate extra blood meal WT ( p=0.78), YFV Human WT x WT extra blood meal (** p=0.0061) and YFV Primate WT x WT extra blood meal (** p= 0.0056) and ( D) 21 dpf -WT x wMel+ (**** p=0.0001) and YFV Human x Primate ( p= 0.51). Empty black circles and triangles are WT mosquitoes, whereas empty green circles and triangles depict mosquitoes with wMel +. Black filled circles and triangles are mosquitoes that received a second blood meal. The red line indicates the median YFV copies.

Results: Paragraph 2, lines 9-11 – this is speculation or if there is previously published work on this it should be provided – in the discussion.

>> We apologize but we are not sure where this is on the text. Could you please add more information on where you affirming there is a speculation? We could not find where you mentioned about Paragraph 2, lines 9-11.

Figure 3:

Were only the head and thorax of YFV-infected mosquitoes tested for Wolbachia density? One would think not, given they are Wolbachia infected. Clarify.

>> The same samples that were used to evaluate the infection were also tested for Wolbachia quantification in the multiplex assay. The analysis of the results was done by targeting the gene of interest. In this way, it generated the graph 3A for the quantification of Wolbachia in the analyzed tissue that was head and thorax. As Wolbachia is present in practically all mosquito tissues, these analyses are possible.

Line 4, the sentence staring with (B) needs to state that these were the YFV copy numbers from the start.

>> Ok, done:

(B) Analysis of copies of viral RNA on 7dpf -WT x wMel+ (** p=0.0028) and YFV Human x Primate WT (p = 0.43)(...)

In the last sentence, what does the significance level refer to?

>> the level of significance was added for all pairwise comparisons in the legend text.

Was this absolute or relative quantification of YFV RNA? Clarify.

>> as stated on the legend title both the Wolbachia as well as the YFV were done via absolute quantification.

>> Each saliva sample was collected and processed individually. Each saliva sample was injected into up to 8 naïve mosquitoes. This clearly show how sample numbers are multiplied (up to 64 for each group). It was merely the question of numbers and trying to lower the costs.

We have collected 20 saliva samples from each group. Eight were used to inject the mosquitoes (as explained above) and the other 12 were used in two (pooled) to inject mice (6 mice per group).

Figure 4: The legend and figures are the wrong way around. Do Figures 4A and 4C actually refer to wMel+ infected saliva?

>> Thank you for pointing this out! The text has been corrected:

Saliva from both groups of infected mosquitoes were collected at 14 dpf. Individual saliva samples (WT or wMel +) were injected into eight naïve (WT) mosquitoes (bars) and, after five days, these injected mosquitoes were analyzed. ( A) Mosquitoes injected with WT mosquito saliva or ( B) wMel+ mosquitoes, challenged with human virus. ( C) Mosquitoes injected with WT mosquito saliva or ( D) wMel+ mosquitoes, challenged with primate virus. Values below each bar depicts the viral load of each mosquito head and thorax which donated that saliva. Positive mosquitoes were quantified through RT-qPCR and the grey-scale represents the number of YFV copies (0 to 10 ⁶ copies), per mosquito.

The discussion needs to consider some important factors:

What are the possible mechanisms causing the Wolbachia-mediated virus inhibition? This is pertinent in this case, because the effect of subsequent blood meals was examined.

>> In paragraph 5 of the discussion we include this information:

Another interesting fact of this work was the increase in viral load observed after the second blood feeding in WT mosquitoes. This same fact was not observed in wMel + mosquitoes. This shows that the blocking ability of Wolbachia persists even after the addition of extra blood nutrients (through a second blood meal) and that its blocking effect occurs within 7 days after infection. The reason to include the second blood meal was that antibodies to YFV could be present in the blood and therefore, promote negative effect towards the virus in WT mosquitoes, but this was not the case. Caragata et al. (2013) ⁴⁵ studied the effect of cholesterol towards the Drosophila C virus. This mechanism could be present in our experimental mosquitoes, but further studies on this aspect should be developed.

>> It is important to consider the possible vector competence of other mosquito species and the possibility of Wolbachia/ virus evolution and lack of interference in this system. If that is the case, other strategies should be consider, as the use of other strains of Wolbachia to try to block virus transmission by that particular mosquito species. We have added this to the end of the discussion. “Lastly, it is important to consider the possible vector competence of other mosquito species and the possibility of Wolbachia/ virus evolution and lack of interference in this system. If that is the case, other strategies should be consider, as the use of other strains of Wolbachia to try to block virus transmission by that particular mosquito species. Integration of complementary strategies are the best solution for arbovirus control.”