| Literature DB >> 31847345 |
Alexandru Tomazatos1, Stephanie Jansen1, Stefan Pfister2, Edina Török3, Iulia Maranda1, Cintia Horváth4, Lujza Keresztes5, Marina Spînu4, Egbert Tannich1,6, Hanna Jöst1, Jonas Schmidt-Chanasit1,7, Daniel Cadar1, Renke Lühken1,7.
Abstract
The ecology of West Nile virus (WNV) in the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve (Romania) was investigated by combining studies on the virus genetics, phylogeography, xenosurveillance and host-feeding patterns of mosquitoes. Between 2014 and 2016, 655,667 unfed and 3842 engorged mosquito females were collected from four sampling sites. Blood-fed mosquitoes were negative for WNV-RNA, but two pools of unfed Culex pipiens s.l./torrentium collected in 2014 were tested positive. Our results suggest that Romania experienced at least two separate WNV lineage 2 introductions: from Africa into Danube Delta and from Greece into south-eastern Romania in the 1990s and early 2000s, respectively. The genetic diversity of WNV in Romania is primarily shaped by in situ evolution. WNV-specific antibodies were detected for 19 blood-meals from dogs and horses, but not from birds or humans. The hosts of mosquitoes were dominated by non-human mammals (19 species), followed by human and birds (23 species). Thereby, the catholic host-feeding pattern of Culex pipiens s.l./torrentium with a relatively high proportion of birds indicates the species' importance as a potential bridge vector. The low virus prevalence in combination with WNV-specific antibodies indicate continuous, but low activity of WNV in the Danube Delta during the study period.Entities:
Keywords: West Nile virus; blood meal; phylogeography; virus genetics; xenosurveillance
Year: 2019 PMID: 31847345 PMCID: PMC6950446 DOI: 10.3390/v11121159
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Viruses ISSN: 1999-4915 Impact factor: 5.048
Figure 1(a) Root-to-tip regression analysis of the West Nile virus (WNV) complete genome based maximum likelihood tree. Plots of the root-to-tip genetic distance against sampling time are shown; (b) Bayesian maximum clade credibility (MCC) tree representing the time scale phylogeny of WNV lineage 2 based on complete genome sequences, including the EEC1 clade. The colored branches of the MCC tree represent the most probable geographic location of their descendant nodes (see color codes). Time is reported in the axis below the tree and represents the year before the last sampling time (2018).
Figure 2(a) Root-to-tip regression analysis of the WNV partial NS5 based maximum likelihood tree. Plots of the root-to-tip genetic distance against sampling time are shown; (b) Bayesian maximum clade credibility (MCC) tree representing the time scale phylogeny of WNV lineage 2 based on NS5 gene sequences, including the EEC1 and WEC1 clades. The colored branches of the MCC tree represent the most probable geographic location of their descendant nodes (see color codes). Time is reported in the axis below the tree and represents the year before the last sampling time (2018).
Figure 3Spatial dynamics of the WNV lineage 2 reconstructed from the (a) complete genome and (b) partial NS5 based on MCC tree, a flexible demographic prior (coalescent Gaussian Markov Random field Bayesian Skyride model, GMRF) with location states and a Bayesian Stochastic Search Variable Selection (BSSVS) with location states. The directed lines between locations connect the sources and target countries (color coded) of viral strains and represent branches in the MCC tree along which the relevant location transition occurs. Location circle diameters are proportional to the square root of the number of MCC branches maintaining a particular location state at each time-point. Migration pattern of WNV between Africa and Europe and within Europe based on Bayes factor (BF) test for significant non-zero rates using complete genome (c) and partial NS5 dataset (d). Viral migration patterns are indicated between the different regions and countries and are proportional to the strength of the transmission rate (Bayes factor [BF]). The color of the connections indicates the origin and the direction of migration and are proportional with the strength of connections. Only well supported paths between locations are shown.
Samples of blood-fed mosquito species positive for West Nile virus-specific IgG and IgY antibodies with information on the host species, mosquito species, sampling site with the respective number of tested mosquito specimens (in brackets).
| Host-Species | Mosquito Species | Dunărea Veche | Lake Roșuleț | Letea | Sulina | Sum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| dog |
| 1 (1) | 0 (0) | 0 (2) | 0 (1) | 1 (4) |
|
| 0 (1) | 0 (3) | 0 (1) | 0 (2) | 0 (7) | |
|
| 0 (2) | 1 (2) | 1 (5) | 1 (1) 1 | 3 (10) | |
| 0 (3) | 1 (13) | 0 (2) | 0 (1) | 1 (19) | ||
|
| 0 (5) | 1 (40) | 0 (7) | 1 (10) | 2 (62) | |
|
| 0 (0) | 0 (1) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (1) | |
| 0 (1) | 0 (5) | 0 (0) | 0 (2) | 0 (8) | ||
| horse |
| 0 (2) | 0 (6) | 0 (10) | 0 (7) | 0 (25) |
|
| 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (2) | 0 (0) | 0 (2) | |
|
| 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (1) | 0 (1) | |
|
| 0 (0) | 1 (20) | 0 (92) | 0 (8) | 1 (120) | |
|
| 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (1) | 0 (1) | 0 (2) | |
|
| 0 (1) | 3 (6) | 0 (65) | 0 (6) | 3 (78) | |
| 0 (0) | 0 (1) | 1 (12) | 1 (8) | 2 (21) | ||
|
| 1 (2) | 1 (32) | 3 (90) | 1 (16) | 6 (140) | |
| 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (1) | 0 (1) | 0 (2) | ||
| human |
| 0 (1) | 0 (1) | 0 (7) | 0 (5) | 0 (14) |
|
| 0 (1) | 0 (1) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (2) | |
|
| 0 (1) | 0 (1) | 0 (5) | 0 (1) | 0 (8) | |
|
| 0 (0) | 0 (1) | 0 (0) | 0 (8) | 0 (9) | |
|
| 0 (7) | 0 (96) | 0 (20) | 0 (9) | 0 (132) | |
| 0 (4) | 0 (33) | 0 (3) | 0 (0) | 0 (40) | ||
|
| 0 (12) | 0 (28) | 0 (11) | 0 (4) | 0 (55) | |
|
| 0 (0) | 0 (1) | 0 (0) | 0 (2) | 0 (3) | |
| 0 (2) | 0 (1) | 0 (1) | 0 (3) | 0 (7) | ||
|
| 0 (1) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (1) | |
| bird |
| 0 (0) | 0 (2) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (2) |
|
| 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (2) | 0 (2) | |
|
| 0 (2) | 0 (15) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (17) | |
| 0 (2) | 0 (8) | 0 (1) | 0 (0) | 0 (11) | ||
|
| 0 (6) | 0 (19) | 0 (4) | 0 (2) | 0 (31) | |
| 0 (12) | 0 (3) | 0 (1) | 0 (6) | 0 (22) | ||
| Sum | 2 (69) | 8 (339) | 5 (343) | 4 (107) | 19 (858) |
1also positive for USUV-specific IgG.
Frequency and percentage (in brackets) of detected host taxa for the six most abundant species and information on the overall proportion of each host.
|
|
|
|
| Sum | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 3 (0.4) | 1 (0.4) | 1 (0.9) | 5 (0.2) | |||
| Anatidae | 1 (0.1) | 12 (1.5) | 4 (1.4) | 1 (0.9) | 18 (0.8) | ||
|
| 10 (1.2) | 1 (0.4) | 11 (0.5) | ||||
|
| 1 (0.4) | 1 (0) | |||||
|
| 1 (0.1) | 1 (0) | |||||
|
| 1 (0.4) | 1 (0) | |||||
|
| 5 (0.6) | 3 (5.4) | 8 (0.3) | ||||
|
| 1 (0.1) | 1 (0) | |||||
|
| 1 (0.1) | 1 (0) | |||||
|
| 1 (0.1) | 1 (0) | |||||
|
| 1 (1.8) | 1 (0) | |||||
|
| 1 (0.1) | 1 (0.4) | 2 (0.1) | ||||
|
| 2 (0.2) | 2 (0.1) | |||||
|
| 3 (5.4) | 3 (0.1) | |||||
|
| 3 (5.4) | 3 (0.1) | |||||
|
| 1 (0.1) | 1 (0) | |||||
|
| 1 (0.1) | 1 (0) | |||||
|
| 4 (0.5) | 2 (0.3) | 2 (0.7) | 7 (12.5) | 15 (0.6) | ||
|
| 2 (3.6) | 2 (0.1) | |||||
|
| 1 (0.1) | 1 (0.4) | 2 (0.1) | ||||
|
| 1 (0.1) | 1 (0) | |||||
|
| 1 (0.4) | 1 (0) | |||||
|
| 2 (3.6) | 2 (0.1) | |||||
|
| 1 (1.8) | 1 (0) | |||||
|
| 55 (6.7) | 132 (16.7) | 40 (14.3) | 8 (3.5) | 14 (13.2) | 7 (12.5) | 271 (11.5) |
|
| 185 (22.4) | 515 (65.1) | 157 (56.1) | 78 (33.9) | 46 (43.4) | 17 (30.4) | 1009 (43) |
| Bovidae | 2 (0.2) | 2 (0.1) | |||||
|
| 1 (0.1) | 1 (0.1) | 1 (0.9) | 3 (0.1) | |||
|
| 62 (7.5) | 10 (1.3) | 19 (6.8) | 7 (3) | 4 (3.8) | 8 (14.3) | 111 (4.7) |
|
| 1 (0.1) | 1 (0.1) | 2 (0.1) | ||||
|
| 1 (0.1) | 1 (0.4) | 2 (0.1) | ||||
| Chiroptera | 2 (0.2) | 1 (0.1) | 1 (0.4) | 4 (0.2) | |||
|
| 140 (16.9) | 78 (9.9) | 21 (7.5) | 120 (52.2) | 25 (23.6) | 2 (3.6) | 391 (16.7) |
|
| 1 (0.1) | 1 (0) | |||||
|
| 34 (4.1) | 3 (0.4) | 7 (2.5) | 1 (1.8) | 47 (2) | ||
|
| 3 (0.4) | 1 (0.4) | 1 (0.9) | 1 (1.8) | 6 (0.3) | ||
|
| 2 (0.2) | 1 (0.1) | 3 (0.1) | ||||
|
| 1 (1.8) | 1 (0) | |||||
|
| 1 (0.1) | 1 (0) | |||||
|
| 1 (0.4) | 1 (0) | |||||
|
| 1 (0.1) | 1 (0) | |||||
|
| 8 (1) | 4 (0.5) | 2 (0.9) | 2 (1.9) | 16 (0.7) | ||
|
| 1 (0.1) | 1 (0) | |||||
|
| 4 (0.5) | 1 (1.8) | 7 (0.3) | ||||
|
| 1 (0.1) | 1 (0) | |||||
|
| 299 (36.2) | 28 (3.5) | 25 (8.9) | 12 (5.2) | 11 (10.4) | 2 (3.6) | 382 (16.3) |
| blood-fed specimens | 1054 | 1454 | 568 | 343 | 234 | 88 | 3741 |
| succesful analyzed specimens 1 | 827 | 791 | 280 | 230 | 106 | 56 | 2290 |
| identified hosts per mosquito species 1 | 834 | 792 | 283 | 230 | 106 | 62 | 2307 |
| identified host taxa | 30 | 13 | 15 | 9 | 9 | 17 |
1differences between the number of successful analysed mosquito specimens and identified hosts results from a total of 17 mixed blood-meals.
Figure 4Percentage of host-feeding groups (birds, human, non-human mammals) of the six most abundant blood-fed mosquito species for two sampling sites in a rural/urban environment (Letea, Sulina) and two near-natural sampling sites (Dunărea Veche and Lake Roșuleț) in the DDBR, Romania (2014–2016).