Transmission competence of a new mesonivirus, Yichang virus, in mosquitoes and its interference with representative flaviviruses.

Advances in technology have greatly stimulated the understanding of insect-specific viruses (ISVs). Unfortunately, most of these findings are based on sequencing technology, and laboratory data are scarce on the transmission dynamics of ISVs in nature and the potential effects of these viruses on arboviruses. Mesonivirus is a class of ISVs with a wide geographical distribution. Recently, our laboratory reported the isolation of a novel strain of mesonivirus, Yichang virus (YCV), from Culex mosquitoes, China. In this study, the experimental infection of YCV by the oral route for adult and larvae mosquitoes, and the vertical transmission has been conducted, which suggests that YCV could adopt a mixed-mode transmission. Controlled experiments showed that the infectivity of YCV depends on the mosquito species, virus dose, and infection route. The proliferation curve and tissue distribution of YCV in Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. albopictus showed that YCV is more susceptible to Ae. albopictus and is located in the midgut. Furthermore, we also assessed the interference of YCV with flaviviruses both in vitro and in vivo. YCV significantly inhibited the proliferation of DENV-2 and ZIKV, in cell culture, and reduced transmission rate of DENV-2 in Ae. albopictus. Our work provides insights into the transmission of ISVs in different mosquito species during ontogeny and their potential ability to interact with mosquito-borne viruses.

Introduction

For the last two decades, with advancements in high-throughput sequencing, metagenomics and intensified mosquito surveillance, a large number of insect-specific viruses (ISVs) and arboviruses have been discovered. ISVs are restricted to arthropods and are unable to replicate in vertebral cells [1], whereas arboviruses can be transmitted between mosquitoes and vertebrates [2]. Although these two types of viruses have different host ranges, there are many similarities in virological classification and transmission methods [2]. While arboviruses are related to many diseases of animals and humans, such as dengue virus (DENV), Zika virus (ZIKV), and Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV), their horizontal transmission and vertical transmission mechanisms are relatively clear [3-8]. Significantly, the mode of transmission and ecological significance of the ISVs remain unknown 45 years after the discovery of ISVs by Stellar and Thomas [9,10].

Most ISVs and arboviruses share similar genetic and structural virus particles and have a close evolutionary relationship. The relationship and interaction of the ISVs and arboviruses are complex and attract concerns worldwide. Some scholars conjecture that ISVs may be an important evolutionary source of new arboviruses [11-13] and that some ISVs may inhibit arbovirus infections in their insect hosts [10]. Moreover, the host-restricted characteristics of ISVs facilitate their development and application in biologically controlling the spread of infectious viruses [14]. In general, research on ISVs transmission models and interactions with arboviruses is becoming increasingly important.

Mesoniviridae contains single-stranded positive-sense RNA viruses belonging to Nidovirales. So far, all members of the Mesoniviridae family are ISVs, with a wide geographic and population distribution [15]. Among them, Yichang virus (YCV), isolated from Culex mosquitoes collected from Hubei, China, has the largest genome ever discovered [16]. Due to the extensive geographic distribution and host range of Mesoniviridae, as well as their potential as biological control agents, more studies are needed to better understand arthropod-restricted virus maintenance in nature and the potential impact on arbovirus infection.

In this study, we investigated horizontal transmission through an oral virus challenge at the adult stage and feeding with virus-contaminated water during the larval stage and vertical transmission of YCV in Culex quinquefasciatus and Aedes albopictus. The effects of virus titers, breeding water and mosquito species on YCV infectivity were also confirmed. Furthermore, we analyzed the proliferation and tissue distribution of YCV in mosquitoes and their interaction with flavivirus in vitro and in vivo. Our findings deepen the understanding of the transmission mechanism of ISVs and provide important information for the implementation of ISVs in vector-borne virus control.

Materials and methods

Mosquito rearing

Both Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. albopictus (kindly provided by Chinese center for disease control and prevention, Beijing, China) were maintained at 27±1°C with a 12:12 light: dark cycle and 70% relative humidity. Adult mosquitoes were provided with 10% glucose solution. Defibrillated horse blood (Shanghai Yuanye Biological Technology Co., Ltd. Shanghai, China) was provided through the Hemotek membrane blood feeding system (Hemotek, Lancaster, UK). F1 generation of mosquitoes used were collected from parent females oviposited after the blood meal.

Virus strain

The YCV (strain HB14-64-01) used in this study was originally isolated in a culture of C6/36 cells inoculated with homogenized Culex mosquitoes from the Yichang area of Hubei [16]. C6/36 cells were cultured as monolayers in T75 flasks at 28°C in RPMI medium (Gibco, Carlsbad, USA) supplemented with 10% FBS, 2% tryptose phosphate broth (Gibco); YCV was grown in C6/36 cells for viral production. DENV-2 (strain TSV01), ZIKV strain (SZ-WIV01) and JEV (strain SA14) were kindly provided by Professor Bo Zhang (Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, China).

Plaque assay

BHK-21 cells in 24-well plates were infected with 10-fold serial dilutions of viruses for 1 h at 37°C. The cell monolayers were overlaid with 1% Aquacide II (Calbiochem, Saint Louis, USA) in DMEM containing 2% FBS and incubated at 37°C for 4 days. Monolayer cells were fixed with 3.7% formaldehyde and stained with 1% crystal violet to visualize plaques.

Plasmid construction and antibodies

The cDNA encoding the full-length YCV nucleotide capsid protein (abbreviation YCV-N) was coded by ORF2b cloned into vector pet28a using primers (YCV Forward-1: 5′-atgccaggacgcaccaacaca-3′ and YCV Reverse-1: 5′-ggggtcaacagtaataacataatcagcag-3′). Recombinant protein expression was induced in the E. coli BL21 DE3 strain using 1 M IPTG for inclusion bodies, separated, and purified by SDS-PAGE. The protein was used for subsequent polyclonal antibody preparation in the laboratory at the Animal Center, Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, following standard animal procedures. A 178-bp fragment between nucleotides 154 and 331 of YCV was amplified by specific primers (YCV Forward-2: 5′-ccaggtttgagcgaacaggt-3′; and YCV Reverse-2: 5′-tcggggtgcggttaaaagtg-3′) and cloned into the pet28a vector for constructing the standard. A 127-bp fragment between nucleotides 10517 and 10643 of DENV-2 (TSV01) was amplified by specific primers (Forward-2: 5′- tcccttacaaatcgcagcaac-3′; and Reverse-2: 5′- tggtctttcccagcgtcaat-3′) and cloned into the pet28a vector for constructing the standard.

Mosquito infection by blood meal

Before blood meal, 5 to 7-day-old female mosquitoes were starved for at least 16 h. The mosquitoes were fed defibrillated horse blood (Shanghai Yuanye Biological Technology Co., Ltd. Shanghai, China) mixed with YCV solution at 1:1 via the Hemotek membrane blood feeding system (Hemotek, Lancaster, UK). Mosquitoes were allowed to feed for 1 h in light conditions, at 24°C and 70% relative humidity (RH). Fully engorged mosquitoes were selected and incubated at 28°C and 70% relative humidity (RH) with 10% glucose solution, and around 10 mosquitoes were collected at 0, 3, 7, 11, and 14 days post infection (dpi) for viral detection each time and with three repeats.

Mosquito infection by breeding in YCV-containing liquid

Water (clean water and sewage from NO. 52 Hongshan Side Road, Wuhan, China) (S1 Table) was mixed with YCV supernatant from infected C6/36 cells. In addition, sewage water was filtered at 0.22 μm to remove particles, clean water together with addition of particles derived from sewage were used for mosquito breeding. The initial YCV titer were 1 × 105, 1 × 104, 1 × 103 or 1 × 102pfu/ml. The mixture was used for breeding the 3–4 instar larvae of Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. albopictus. After a 1–2 d exposure to the mixture, the larvae were transferred to a container with fresh water until eclosion. The emerging mosquitoes were reared for an additional 8 days for viral detection. Sample size ranged between 50–70 immature mosquitoes each time, and with three repeats.

Viral RNA detection in mosquito

Total RNA was isolated using RNAiso Plus reagent (Takara, Dalian, Japan) according to the manufacturer's protocol and dissolved in 60 μL RNase-free water. Real-time PCR was performed using the One Step SYBR Prime Script PLUS RT-PCR Kit (Takara) on a MyiQ Optics Module (Bio-Rad, Hercules, USA). The primers were as follows: YCV detection primers are YCV Forward-2 and YCV Reverse-2 in Plasmid construction and antibodies section. AalRPS17 was used as the internal control for qRT-PCR. The primer sequences for AalRPS17 primers were AalRPS17 forward: 5′- acgtagttgtctctctgcgctc-3′ and AalRPS17 reverse: 5′- cgcttggtttcgtgacacatc-3′[17]. A standard curve of YCV (linear curve slope –3.5715, Y intercept 41.552, R2 = 0.9988, amplification efficiency 90.546) and DENV-2 (linear curve slope –3.5841, Y intercept 45.146, R2 = 0.9998, amplification efficiency 90.543) was generated from a range of serial 10-fold dilutions of the plasmid and was used to normalize the genomic copies.

Western blotting

At 14 dpi, heads, midguts and whole bodies of 5–10 mosquitoes were washed three times with cold PBS. Total protein was extracted by homogenizing samples and lysing in RIPA buffer (Sangon, Shanghai, China) for 30 min at 4°C. Protein concentration was determined using the BSA protein Assay Kit (Takara). YCV was detected with a mouse polyclonal antibody produced by immunizing mice with protein YCV-N. Actin was used as an internal control and detected with a mouse pan-actin antibody-clone C4 (Millipore, Billerica, MA).

Co-infection interference in vitro

Simultaneous infections: Before infection, YCV was mixed with DENV-2, ZIKV or JEV according to the specified multiplicity of infection (MOI) (YCV MOI = 1, DENV-2/ZIKV / JEV MOI = 1 or 0.1; YCV MOI = 0.1, DENV-2/ZIKV / JEV MOI = 1 or 0.1) and then incubated with C6/36 or Aag2 cells for 1 h at 28°C with 5% CO2.

Sequential infections: The method of sequential infections was similar to that for simultaneous infection, but YCV (MOI = 1) was incubated with C6/36 after 12 h, then the C6/36 cells containing YCV were incubated with DENV-2, ZIKV or JEV. After incubation, cells were rinsed once with PBS and 1 mL of complete media was added. Cells were incubated for 5 days at 28°C with 5% CO2.

Simultaneous and sequential infections supernatant was collected at 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 dpi for the plaque assay to determine infectious viral particle. The data were repeated three times.

Co-infection interference in vivo

Mosquitoes that pulled through 5–7 d after being starved for at least 16 h were fed defibrillated horse blood (Shanghai Yuanye Biological Technology Co., Ltd) mixed with YCV solution and DENV-2 solution at 1:1:1 using the Hemotek membrane blood feeding system (Hemotek). The titer for YCV and DENV-2 used was both 3.7×107pfu/ml. Full engorged mosquitoes were selected and incubated at 28°C and 70% relative humidity (RH), and the bodies and heads of 10 to mosquitoes were collected at 7 and 14 dpi for viral detection. The data were repeated by three times.

Evaluation of Ae. albopictus vector competence for DENV-2 used infection rate and population transmission rate, as follows[18]:

Infection rate: Percentage of mosquitoes containing virus in their bodies (number positive/number tested)

Transmission rate: Percentage of mosquitoes containing virus in their heads (number positive/number tested)

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis (Student's t-test) was performed using R.3.5.1 (https://www.r-project.org/). In all tests, the data represent the mean ± SEM. The results were analyzed using the unpaired t-test with statistical significance alpha (α) levels denoted as P < 0.05, *; P < 0.001, ** and P < 0.001, ***.

Results

Mosquitoes are permissive to oral YCV infection in a dose-dependent manner

Research on the route of YCV oral infection showed that YCV reproduction was detected in total RNA from the whole mosquito bodies of Cx. quinquefasciatus (26.9%) and Ae. albopictus (45.5%) by RT-PCR (Table 1 and S1 Fig). Western blot results demonstrated that the YCV structural protein N was expressed in both Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. albopictus (S1 Fig). We also investigated the infectious activity of these viruses in C6/36 cells. In comparison to the control, 17.6% and 33.3% of the homogenates of Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. albopictus resulted in cytopathy and positive for YCV RNA in C6/36 cells, respectively (Table 1 and S1 Fig). All the results indicate that YCV can infect two types of adult mosquito through the oral route.

Table 1

Infection rate of YCV in Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. albopictus.

Species	Blood meal titer (pfu/ml)	Infection rate
		No. YCV RNA positive/No. engorged	No. CPE observed/No. engorged
Cx. quinquefasciatus	106	26.9% (7/26)	3/17 (17.6%)
Ae. albopictus	106	10/22 (45.5%)	4/12 (33.3%)

The infectivity effect factor of the virus dose was verified with a series of YCV titers (from 1×102 to 1×106 pfu/ml) to infect mosquitoes. YCV infected both species of mosquito at 1×106 pfu/ml by blood-meal feeding, with a stronger infectivity in Ae. albopictus. The average copies (log10) and the infection rate of YCV in Ae. albopictus were higher than in Cx. quinquefasciatus at 106 pfu/ml (Fig 1A and 1B). However, with lower titers of YCV, its infectivity to both mosquito species decreased dramatically. The 1×105 pfu/ml virus infection resulted in 4.94 and 4.5 average copies (log10) of YCV in Ae. albopictus and Cx. quinquefasciatus (Fig 1A), corresponding to 8.9% and 8.5% infection rates, respectively (Fig 1B). When the infective YCV titer was less than 1×104 pfu/ml, no infection was observed in the two mosquitoes (Fig 1A and 1B).

Fig 1

Infectivity and infection rates of Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. albopictus infected with different doses of YCV.

Mosquitoes were inoculated with an infectious blood meal containing a dose of 106, 105, 104, 103 or 102 pfu/ml YCV. (A) Ingested virus titers of Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. albopictus by qRT- PCR at 14 dpi. Each dot represents one mosquito body; the results are expressed as the mean ± SEM. (B) Infection rates of Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. albopictus at 14 dpi presented as the percentage of the total number of engorged mosquitoes. The results are expressed as the mean ± SEM. The results were analyzed using the unpaired t-test. A P value of < 0.05 indicates statistical significance. P < 0.05, *; P < 0.001, ** and P < 0.001, ***.

Mosquitoes could acquire YCV in an aquatic environment, and particles enhance virus acquisition ability

The investigation of the potentiality of the virus to infect larvae (S1 Table) indicates that the average copies (log10) of YCV in Cx. quinquefasciatus were not significantly different when mosquitoes were bred in sewage (5.13) or clean water (5.17) containing 105 pfu/ml of YCV (Fig 2A), while the positive rate in sewage (10.66%) was slightly higher than that in clean water (5.66%) (Fig 2B). Interestingly, at the treatment concentrations of 103 pfu/ml and 104 pfu/ml, the virus average copies (log10) were much higher for Cx. quinquefasciatus (4.04 and 4.4.65) in the sewage than in clean water (1.2 and 3.62) (Fig 2A), but the positive rate was low (<3%) (Fig 2B). Similarly, the infection pattern of YCV on Ae. albopictus was comparable to that of Cx. quinquefasciatus in the sewage and clean water (Fig 2A and 2B). The results show that the infectivity present in larvae incubated in clean water or sewage was dose-dependent; Ae. albopictus was more susceptible to YCV; and YCV had a stronger infection ability in sewage for both two mosquito species.

Fig 2

YCV in an aquatic environment can be acquired by Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. albopictus.

Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. albopictus were bred in clean water or sewage with a serial YCV titration (105, 104, 103 and 102 pfu/ml). (A) The emerging adults were reared for an additional 8 days for YCV detection by qRT-PCR. Each dot represents one mosquito body; the results are expressed as the mean ± SEM. (B) Infection rates of Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. albopictus are represented as the ratios of mosquito infection. The results are expressed as the mean ± SEM. The results were analyzed using the unpaired t-test. A P value of < 0.05 indicates statistical significance. P < 0.05, *; P < 0.001, ** and P < 0.001, ***.

In addition, the average copies increased by approximately 102-fold in the clean water with added particles, with a significant increase in infection rate from 2.17% to 13.2% in Cx. quinquefasciatus (Fig 3A and 3B). In contrast, the average copies of YCV in Cx. quinquefasciatus reduced by approximately 104-fold with a lower infection rate of 1.43% in the filtered sewage compared to the sewage treatment. Furthermore, along with the restoration of the particles in sewage, the average YCV copy number in Ae. albopictus increased by 10-fold, and the infection rate conclusively increased from 16.05% to 39.68%. However, the average YCV copy number in Ae. albopictus decreased by approximately 102-fold when incubated in filtered sewage compared to clean water, and the infection rate also decreased from 34.65% to 15.04% (Fig 3A and 3B). This result wholly suggests that the particles in water influence the infectivity of YCV to mosquitoes, which might be related to the viral stability, but remains to be further investigated.

Fig 3

Particulate matter in sewage enhances YCV infectivity of Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. albopictus.

Larvae (3rd-4th instar) were bred in clean water, clean water+particles, sewage, or sewage-particles with YCV (final YCV titer was 104 pfu/ml). (A) YCV RNA titers of Cx. quinquefasciatus (left) and Ae. albopictus (right) were detected by qRT-PCR 8 days after emergence. One dot represents one mosquito. The results are expressed as the mean ± SEM. (B) Infection rates. The results were analyzed using the unpaired t-test. A P value of < 0.05 indicates statistical significance. P < 0.05, *; P < 0.001, ** and P < 0.001, ***.

YCV vertical transmission in mosquitoes

The presence of YCV in different developmental stages of the F1 generation detected showed that YCV copies were low among the eggs, larvae, pupae and adults of Cx. quinquefasciatus (Fig 4A). Adults had the lowest positive rate (10%), quantifiably, there were no marked differences between larvae (18.05%) and pupae (21.13%) (Fig 4B). As such, higher virus copies and positivity rates were detected in adults of the Ae. albopictus F1 generation than in larvae and pupae (Fig 4A and 4B). Although vertical transmission is the primary way to maintain and transmit ISVs in nature, the lower vertical transmission efficiency of YCV suggests that vertical transmission may only be one of its transmission methods.

Fig 4

Viral load of YCV in different life stages of the F1 generation.

After the infected Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. albopictus parent females had oviposited, egg papers were hatched in deoxygenated water. (A) Offspring were reared and YCV RNA copies were detected by qRT-PCR in different life stages (egg, larva, pupa and adult). One dot represents one mosquito. The results are expressed as the mean ± SEM. (B) Positive rate. The results are expressed as the mean ± SEM. The results were analyzed using the unpaired t-test. A P value of < 0.05 indicates statistical significance. P < 0.05, *; P < 0.001, ** and P < 0.001, ***.

Proliferation and distribution of YCV in mosquitoes

RT-qPCR revealed that all Ae. albopictus were YCV virus positive at 0 dpi (Fig 5B); the YCV copies increased steadily until 7 dpi and then maintained a stable level in later periods (p>0.05) (Fig 5A). On the other hand, the virus average copies (log10) in Cx. quinquefasciatus steadily decreased in the first three days, but increased to 6.67 at 7 dpi, and then maintained at the same level in later (p>0.05) (Fig 5A). It is clear that not only the higher infection rate but also higher viral copies at dpi 4, 7, 10, and 14, were observed in Ae. albopictus, suggesting that Ae. albopictus may be a better host for YCV than Cx. quinquefasciatus.

Fig 5

Virus reproduction and infection rates for YCV in Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. albopictus.

The mosquitoes were fed a mixture containing horse blood (50% v/v) with 106 pfu/ml YCV. (A) YCV virus RNA copies in the whole mosquito bodies were detected by qRT- PCR at 0 dpi, 3 dpi, 7 dpi, 11 dpi, and 14 dpi. The results are expressed as the mean ± SEM. (B) Infection rates of Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. albopictus at the indicated time points presented as the percentage of the total number of engorged mosquitoes. Shown are the mean percentages from three independent replicates. Error bars show the standard error of the mean. The results were analyzed using the unpaired t-test. A P value of < 0.05 indicates statistical significance. P < 0.05, *; P < 0.001, ** and P < 0.001, ***.

Furthermore, Western blot results showed that the YCV structural protein N has been detected in the midgut of Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. albopictus, but not in the head (Fig 6A). YCV nucleic acid was detected in the midgut, with higher RNA expression in Ae. albopictus than in Cx. quinquefasciatus, but not in the head of both mosquitoes (Fig 6B).

Fig 6

Assessing the infectivity of midgut and head of Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. albopictus.

The mosquitoes were fed a mixture containing horse blood (50% v/v) with 106 pfu/ml YCV titration. Viral protein and RNA of the midgut and head of Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. albopictus were detected by Western blot (A) and quantitative reverse transcription PCR (B) at 14 dpi. Data are presented as the mean ± SEM. The results were analyzed using the unpaired t-test. A P value of < 0.05 indicates statistical significance. P < 0.05, *; P < 0.001, ** and P < 0.001, ***.

YCV inhibits replication of pathogenic flaviviruses in vitro

As shown in Fig 7, the presence of YCV significantly inhibits DENV-2 replication in both C6/36 and Aag2 cells, with replications of about 103, and 102 fold lower at 4 or 5 dpi when DENV-2 is co-inoculated with YCV (Fig 7A and S2A Fig) in both cells. In addition, a 10-fold lower ZIKV replication was observed when ZIKV were co-inoculated with YCV than ZIKV alone in the C6/36 cells at 3, 4, and 5 dpi (Fig 7B and S2B Fig). However, no synergism or inhibition of YCV on JEV replication in the two cell lines was observed for all tested co-inoculation combinations (Fig 7C and S2C Fig). Furthermore, the effects of the infection sequence order were also tested, and the replication of DENV-2 and ZIKV is 104 and 10-fold lower, respectively, in C6/36 cells pre-infected with YCV for 12 h in comparison with the control, whether the MOI of DENV-2 and ZIKV was high or low (Fig 8A and 8B, S3A and S3B Fig).

Fig 7

YCV effects the growth of DENV-2, ZIKV and JEV in C6/36 and Aag2 cells during single- and coinfections of simultaneous infections.

The flaviviruses DENV-2, ZIKV and JEV at MOI = 0.1 were mixed with YCV at MOI = 1 or 0.1; the mixture was then added to C6/36 (left) or Aag2 (right) cells. (A, B, C) The virus titers during single- and coinfection were determined by plaque assays at the indicated time points. Data are presented as the mean of three independent experiments ±SEM. The results were analyzed using the unpaired t-test. A P value of < 0.05 indicates statistical significance. P < 0.05, *; P < 0.001, ** and P < 0.001, ***.

Fig 8

YCV effects the growth of DENV-2, ZIKV and JEV in C6/36 cells during single- and coinfections of sequential infections.

After 12 h of YCV (MOI = 1) infection, C6/36 cells were infected with the flaviviruses DENV-2, ZIKV or JEV at MOI = 0.1. (A, B, C) The virus titers during single- and coinfection were determined by plaque assays at the indicated time points. Data are presented as the mean of three independent experiments ±SEM. The results were analyzed using the unpaired t-test. A P value of < 0.05 indicates statistical significance. P < 0.05, *; P < 0.001, ** and P < 0.001, ***.

YCV interferes with transmission of DENV-2 in vivo

At 7 dpi, there was no significant difference in the positive rate and viral copies of DENV-2 in the mosquito bodies of DENV-2 and DENV-2+YCV infected groups (P > 0.05) (Table 2 and Fig 9). As much as significant difference was observed in transmission rate of DENV-2 between these two groups (DENV-2 (36.4%) vs DENV-2+YCV (21.1%)) (P < 0.001) (Table 2), and RNA copies of DENV-2 detected in the head of DENV-2 group were significantly higher than co-infection group (P < 0.001) (Fig 9). Similarly, at 14 dpi, the RNA copies of DENV-2 in bodies was insignificantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05) (Fig 9). However, the infection rate (90.5% vs 62.5%, p < 0.001), average virus copies (log10) in the mosquito head (5.66 vs 5.18, p = 0.0311), and the transmission rate (71.4% vs 37.5%, p < 0.001) of DENV-2 in single infection with DENV-2 was much higher than the co-infection group with YCV and DENV-2 (Table 2 and Fig 9).

Table 2

Infection and transmission rate of DENV-2 in single infection or co-infection with YCV in Ae. albopictus.

Group	Days post exposure	Infection ratea	Transmission rateb
DENV-2	7d	50% (11/22)	36.4%(8/22)
	14d	90.5%(19/21)	71.4%(15/21)
DENV-2 and YCV co-infection	7d	57.9%(11/19)	21.1%(4/19)
	14d	62.5%(10/16)	37.5%(6/16)

a. Percentage of mosquitoes containing virus in their bodies (number positive/number tested)

b.Percentage of mosquitoes containing virus in their heads (number positive/number tested)[18]

Fig 9

Co-infection interference in vivo.

DENV-2 copies in the bodies and heads of Ae. albopictus DENV-2 single infection or DENV-2+YCV co-infection were detected by qRT- PCR at 7 dpi, and 14 dpi. The results for viral copeies are expressed as the mean ± SEM. The results were analyzed using the unpaired t-test. A P value of < 0.05 indicates statistical significance. P < 0.05, *; P < 0.001, ** and P < 0.001, ***.

Discussion

Herein the results presented indicate that the YCV may be transmitted and maintained in the environment using a complex transmission and maintenance model, including virus infection and transmission in the larval and adult stages, as well as localization in mosquito tissues [19]. The localization of YCV in midgut tissues was consistent with other insect-specific flavivirus (ISFs), which appeared unable to break through the barrier between the midgut and salivary glands and dissemination into the salivary glands [20-22]. Although YCV can effectively infect Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. albopictus at 106 pfu/ml by the oral route, its infection ability is significantly reduced and actually vanishes with reducing titers, suggesting that oral susceptibility can vary greatly and only high titers of YCV can infect Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. albopictus, which are consistent with that reported by Vasilakis, N. and Nasar, F [23,24]. However, recent studies using Dianke virus, (DKV) showed conflicting results. Culex quinquefasciatus, Cx. tritaeniorhynchus, and Ae. aegypti were highly susceptible to infection and able to transmit DKV [25]. This may be dependent on mosquito species and the microorganisms carried by the mosquito itself.

We conducted growth experiments with YCV in Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. albopictus. The results revealed that the virus infects and replicates in the midgut and that its infection rate is much lower in Cx. quinquefasciatus than in Ae. albopictus. This indicates that the midgut may be the main target organ for the infection and multiplication of YCV, and Ae. albopictus may be a more susceptible host for YCV infection, similar to what was observed for flaviviruses such as Bamaga virus [26]. This probably resulted from the varied midgut barrier expressed following ingestion of the virus in different mosquito species [27]. This as well suggested that Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. albopictus express a midgut escape barrier, as none of the infected Ae. albopictus and Cx. quinquefasciatus showed a disseminated infection. A previous study showed that Eilat virus (EILV, an ISV) could bypass midgut barriers and spread to the salivary glands of Ae. albopictus and Cx. quinquefasciatus treated with thoracic injection [23]. We attempted to address the ability of Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. albopictus to acquire viruses from water during the larval stage. Several studies have shown that the population of adult Ae. aegypti mosquitoes could be effectively infected by the virus in sewage and clean water [28]. Accumulatively, evidence from field surveillance convincingly shows that A. aegypti and A. albopictus tend to oviposit and breed in wastewater with low dissolved oxygen and high turbidity [29]. Our study further confirmed that YCV in an aquatic environment can be acquired and subsequently transmitted by mosquitoes. Interestingly, the infectivity of YCV in sewage is higher than that in clean water, and certain ingredients in the sewage can affect viral infections. Indeed, as shown in S1 Table, we noted that the aquatic particles correlated with YCV infectivity. The difference might be caused by the divalent cations or the pH, as suggested in other studies on Culex restuans Cypovirus (CrCPV), a dsRNA virus [30,31], Uranotaenia sapphirina Nucleopolyhedrovirus (UrsaNPV)[32], a DNA virus and ZIKV [29], or perhaps the presence of bacteria, as demonstrated in Reoviruses by other authors [33]. The effects of divalent cations or pH on YCV infectivity in water however remains to be further investigated.

Although vertical transmission has been considered an important way for ISVs to persist and disperse in nature, the relatively low proportion of YCV positive F1 generation (eggs, larvae or adult) corroborates low rates observed for Culex flavivirus, Aedes flavivirus, Okushiri virus, and Kamiti River virus [9,34-42]. It is possible that ISVs might persist in mosquitoes for a long time, although the vertical transmission efficiency may be low. Indeed, studies of Dipteran ambidensovirus 1 (Cx. pipiens densovirus) proved that the virus can persist for over 20 years in laboratory colony Cx. pipiens (sl.), with a low rates of vertical and transovarial transmission [43]. The low rate of YCV vertical transmission was consistent with the midgut restriction barrier expressed in the mosquito. Indeed, the virus disseminated from the midgut cells typically undergoes secondary replication in other tissues, such as fat bodies or ovaries [27]. Collectively, the vertical transmission capacity of YCV is low and horizontal transmission is also restricted to a certain extent. Mixed-mode transmission, including both horizontal and vertical transmission routes, is likely to be key for YCV to be maintained in nature, which is similar to ISFs [44,45].

Superinfection exclusion is an important feature of ISVs. There are several studies of superinfection interference, which mostly occur between cognate viruses [13,46,47], as the mechanism is generally considered to be competitive inhibition. In addition, the interference could be caused by indirectly regulate the immune system of the host. Mesoniviridae is far from the Flaviviridae, and their interactions are rarely reported. Several reports suggest that flaviviruses do not interfere with viruses belonging to other families or genera in most instances [48,49]. However, other authors report conflicting results [50,51], which seem to agree with our data. A recent publication [52] demonstrated that EILV induces heterologous interference with several other Alphavirus pathogens, suggesting that heterologous interactions can occur. Indeed, the data in our laboratory reveal that the inhibitory effect of YCV on flaviviruses was also different, since the most pronounced reduction was observed in sequential infection with DENV-2 (104-fold less), whereas in JEV, no reduction was seen in coinfections or sequential infections. This could be the critical factors directly or indirectly affected by the YCV of these medically important flaviruses that are viral species specific, and further study such as direct RNA sequencing for the viruses or transcriptome analysis for the host cells could help to explain this difference. Even though the prevalence of arthropod-borne viruses in mosquito populations is quite low, the transmission of mosquito bites would greatly increase the epidemic risk of arbovirus-related diseases. Therefore, research on the interaction between microorganisms in mosquitoes is of utmost importance for epidemiological prediction and biological control of arboviruses.

ISVs are only maintained in insect populations, however it remains unclear how they transmit among insects. Here, we report that YCV could infect mosquitoes orally at the adult stage and breed in aquatic environments at the larva stage, with a low vertical transmission capacity. This offers laboratory evidence that mixed-mode transmission in mosquitoes, including both horizontal and vertical transmission routes, is likely to be the key for YCV maintenance in nature. The growth and tissue distribution of YCV in mosquitoes suggests that YCV cannot spread to the host salivary glands and that Ae. albopictus maybe a better host for YCV than Cx. quinquefasciatus. Interactive data between YCV and three flaviviruses indicate that superinfection exclusion may occur not only between homologous viruses, but also between heterologous viruses, and the inhibition does not occur with all flaviviruses. It is equally important to understand the ecological significance of this interaction to expedite the understanding mechanisms of interference between vector-borne viruses and ISVs in mosquitoes and subsequent implementation of vector-borne virus control.

Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. albopictus are permissive to YCV infection when fed a blood meal.

Mosquitoes were inoculated with an infectious blood meal containing a dose of 106 pfu/ml YCV. Mosquitoes were homogenized and YCV reproduction was detected by reverse transcription PCR (A) and Western blot (B) at 14 dpi. Homogenate of mosquitoes at 14 dpi was added to C6/36 cells, infectious virus particles in the whole mosquito bodies were assessed by the cytopathic effect (CPE) (C) and viruses in the supernatant of C6/36 cells were detected by reverse transcription PCR (D).

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

YCV effects the growth of DENV-2, ZIKV and JEV in C6/36 and Aag2 cells during single- and coinfections under simultaneous infections.

The flaviviruses DENV-2, ZIKV and JEV at MOI 1 were mixed with YCV at MOI 1 or 0.1; then, the mixture was added to C6/36 (left) or Aag2 (right) cells. (A, B, C) The virus titers during single- and coinfections were determined by the plaque assay at the indicated time points. Data are presented as the mean of three independent experiments ±SEM. The results were analyzed using the unpaired t-test. A P value of < 0.05 indicates statistical significance. P < 0.05, *; P < 0.001, ** and P < 0.001, ***.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

YCV effects the growth of DENV-2, ZIKV and JEV in C6/36 cells during single- and coinfections under sequential infections.

After 12 h of YCV (MOI 1) infection, C6/36 cells were infected with the flaviviruses DENV-2, ZIKV or JEV at MOI 1. (A, B, C) The virus titers during single- and coinfection were determined by the plaque assay at the indicated time points. Data are presented as the mean of three independent experiments ±SEM. The results were analyzed using unpaired t-test. A P value of < 0.05 indicates statistical significance. P < 0.05, *; P < 0.001, ** and P < 0.001, ***.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Characterization of the clean water and sewage.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

28 Jul 2020

Dear Dr. Xia,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Transmission competence of a new mesonivirus, Yichang virus, in mosquitoes and its interference with representative flaviviruses in vitro" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

Major editorial issues have been raised by the editors, as well as those touching on interpretation and limitations of the study that must be addressed by the authors before the manuscript can be further considered for publication.

We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

Thank you again for your submission. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Paul O. Mireji, PhD

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

A. Desiree LaBeaud

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

Major editorial issues have been raised by the editors, as well as those touching on interpretation and limitations of the study that must be addressed by the authors before the manuscript can be further considered for publication.

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: -Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

yes the objectives were clearly articulated

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

study design was appropriate to answer the objectives

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

yes

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

yes

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

yes

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

yes

Reviewer #3: Sample sizes and replicates of experiments are not clearly stated. More detail on the experiments conducted and what each tested need to be provided, Some methods details are misplaced in the results section

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: The author of this manuscript has isolated the virus,Yichang virus, YCV of Mesoniviridae from mosquitoes in China. In this manuscript, the researchers conducted a viral infection test on adult mosquitoes and larvae of Culex quinquefasciatus and Aedes albopictus, and found that YCV can be detected in the midgut of mosquitoes, YCV has limited vertical transmission in mosquitoes, and YCV can replicate in adults of Culex quinquefasciatus and Aedes albopictus.

Reviewer #2: -Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

yes it does

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

results are clearly and completely presented

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

yes figures were of good quality

Reviewer #3: The results section also includes methods and discussion of the results, which should be moved to the appropriate sections. The results could be condensed by referring more to the figures regarding key finding, but not describing all of the results in each of the figures in such detail.

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: Although the results of this study provide some biological characteristics of YCV in mosquitoes (Culex quinquefasciatus and Aedes albopictus), this manuscript only observes the research data on the co-infection of YCV and Flavivirus (Dengue virus, Zika virus, Japanese encephalitis virus) in mosquito cell lines (C6/36). This research lacks the infection results of YCV and the above Flavivirus which takes adult mosquitoes as the research object, so the research results are not enough to support the conclusion that YCV has replication interference effect on Flavivirus.

Reviewer #2: -Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

the dots presented supports the conclusion

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

none

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

yes the data is nicely presented , but can be further enriched if they can extend their discussions and thoughts on why JEV was not affected by YCV

-Is public health relevance addressed?

yes it is of relevance to public health

Reviewer #3: I believe that they are although I do point out some overstatements in the attached track-changes document

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The manuscript was well written and presented and advances our understanding on microbial interactions and arbovirus transmission. There was only a minor error as highlighted on lines 34-36. the authors wrote YCV is more susceptible to its hosts rather than the host being more susceptible to the virus.

The other comment is on line 320 DKV is mentioned for the first time. its general to give the full name then the abbreviation later for ease of reading by audience who may not be familiar with the field.

Reviewer #3: In the attached track-changes version, I have made a number of grammatical and tense edits. I also left a few comments.

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: It is recommended to submit the manuscript after supplementing the test results.

Reviewer #2: in general the manuscript is well written and presented and provides new and exciting data to arbovirus research and the general scientific audience. The minor comments raised can easily be addressed and manuscript accepted for publication

Reviewer #3: This is a very interesting study showing that Yichang virus may interfere with flavivirus transmission in mosquitoes and should be published after clarifications.

--------------------

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Martin Rono

Reviewer #3: No

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, PLOS recommends that you deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/submission-guidelines#loc-methods

Submitted filename: PLoS NTD manuscript-6-17 - reviewer edits and comments track changes.docx

Click here for additional data file.

6 Sep 2020

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers comments.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

16 Oct 2020

Dear Dr. Xia,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Transmission competence of a new mesonivirus, Yichang virus, in mosquitoes and its interference with representative flaviviruses' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Paul O. Mireji, PhD

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

A. Desiree LaBeaud

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************************************************

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: The study is clearly with the hypothese and acceptable to publicaton

Reviewer #2: All the issues previously raised have been addressed. Accept the manuscript

**********

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: The results have been completely presented.

Reviewer #2: the analysis presented match the analytical plan and results are well presented. The figures and table are of acceptable quality

**********

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: The conclusion has been supported by the data presented.

Reviewer #2: the conclusions are supported by the data presented

**********

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: Accept

Reviewer #2: Accept

**********

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: Accepted

Reviewer #2: The revised manuscript has addressed previous issues raised by reviewers. The study presents new data and insights about Yichang virus potential role for biological control for DENV-2 transmission by Ae. albopictus mosquitos.

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

17 Nov 2020

Dear Dr. Xia,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Transmission competence of a new mesonivirus, Yichang virus, in mosquitoes and its interference with representative flaviviruses," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Editorial, Viewpoint, Symposium, Review, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript will be published online unless you opted out of this process. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases