Bird species define the relationship between West Nile viremia and infectiousness to Culex pipiens mosquitoes.

The transmission cycle of West Nile virus (WNV) involves multiple species of birds. The relative importance of various bird species to the overall transmission is often inferred from the level and duration of viremia that they experience upon infection. Reports utilizing in vitro feeding techniques suggest that the source and condition of blood in which arboviruses are fed to mosquitoes can significantly alter the infectiousness of arbovirus to mosquitoes. We confirmed this using live hosts. A series of mosquito feedings with Culex pipiens was conducted on WNV-infected American robins and common grackles over a range of viremias. Mosquitoes were assayed individually by plaque assay for WNV at 3 to 7 days after feeding. At equivalent viremia, robins always infected more mosquitoes than did grackles. We conclude that the infectiousness of viremic birds cannot always be deduced from viremia alone. If information concerning the infectiousness of a particular bird species is important, such information is best acquired by feeding mosquitoes directly on experimentally infected individuals of that species.

Introduction

Mosquito-borne arboviruses remain a significant cause of human and animal disease [1, 2]. These diseases are maintained principally via horizontal transmission of virus from a viremic host to a susceptible mosquito vector and back again to an immunologically naïve host [3-5]. There can be many factors that influence the efficiency of mosquito arbovirus transmission—perhaps none so important as the quantity of virus ingested by mosquitoes, which in turn is determined by the level and duration of viremia in the host [4]. Other modulating factors may include vector factors (e.g., vector competence [6], feeding preferences [7]), environmental factors (e.g., temperature [8, 9]), and the co-occurrence of microorganisms within the mosquito [10-12] or within the blood of the vertebrate host [13-20].

As part of a study to investigate if pre-existing microfilarial blood parasites could affect the virus infection process in mosquitoes, we examined two passerine bird species; American Robin (Turdus migratorius) and Common Grackle (Quiscalus quiscula)—both natural hosts for West Nile virus (WNV) and commonly infected with their own distinct species of microfilarial parasites [21]. Unexpectedly, it became apparent that the relationship between host viremia and resultant mosquito infection was less influenced by whether a bird had blood parasites than by what species it belonged to. The theoretical relationship between host viremia and mosquito infection is assumed to be a sigmoidal expression whose shape is largely defined by the level of susceptibility that different mosquito species have to different arboviruses [22]. The host species that produces the viremia is generally assumed to play no role in the virus-mosquito relationship. In this report, we challenge this assumption by presenting a re-analysis of our previous study [21] in which we specifically focus on the host viremia-mosquito relationship for WNV, as observed in two different passerine bird species.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

Research was conducted under Institutional Animal Care and Welfare Committee approved protocols from the University of North Dakota (#1304–2) and the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases in compliance with the Animal Welfare Act and other Federal regulations relating to the experimental use of vertebrate animals. Collection, transport, and experimentation with migratory birds were conducted under the approval of U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service scientific collection permit MB072162 and collecting permits from the state wildlife agencies of North Dakota and Minnesota.

Birds

American robins were captured from Roseau and Pennington Co., MN, using mist nets. Common grackles were captured from Grand Forks Co., ND, using baited ground traps. Birds were maintained in outdoor and indoor aviaries at the University of North Dakota where they were screened for blood parasites and antibodies to WNV [23-25]. Preliminary trials were performed to determine appropriate anesthesia doses. Robins (70-90gm) were generally smaller than grackles (80-125gm) but required a higher anesthetic dose (5 mg ketamine + 0.2 mg xylaxine per 100gm BW) than grackles (2 mg ketamine + 0.4 mg xylaxine per 100gm BW) to achieve sufficient level of anesthesia necessary to obtain successful mosquito feedings. Six robins and nine grackles were selected for use and transported during three separate trips in modified pet carriers via commercial airline from Grand Forks, ND, to Washington, D.C., and via automobile to the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) in Frederick, MD. Birds were housed in standard bird cages for an acclimatization period of ≥ 24 h prior to infection with WNV. Because blood parasitemia is a natural condition for these bird species, parasitemias were recorded but birds were not treated with anti-helminthic or anti-protozoal drugs prior to use. The inclusion criterion was simply testing negative to WNV antibodies. However, after experiments were complete, data from one of the nine original grackles (Grackle #42) had to be excluded from this report because it was discovered that a pre-existing microfilarial infection in this bird significantly increased WNV infectivity and dissemination in mosquitoes that fed on this bird [21]. Pre-existing microfilarial infections in four of the other grackles did not affect the course of WNV infectivity in mosquitoes, compared to mosquitoes fed on non-microfilaremic grackles. Similarly, blood parasites (i.e., Plasmodium, trypanosomes, microfilariae) in the robins did not affect WNV infectivity to mosquitoes [21].

Mosquitoes

Two strains of Cx. pipiens were used. The ‘Rutgers’ strain originated from larvae collected in the 1980’s at East Brunswick, NJ (F>200). The ‘Area B’ strain originated from larvae collected in 2010 at Fort Detrick, MD (F~30).

Virus

A Vero (African green monkey cell) passage 1 of the 397–99 strain of WNV was used throughout this study. This strain originated from an infected crow in 1999 at the Bronx Zoo [26].

Mosquito infections

Birds were inoculated subcutaneously with 0.2 ml of WNV (6.1 log10 PFU/bird) between 1700 and 1930 h. At intervals of 30, 54 and 78 h after WNV infection, birds were anesthetized and placed through the cotton stockinette of cylindrical screen-topped cardboard cages containing ca. 50 to 75 mosquitoes. Mosquitoes were allowed to feed directly on the birds for ca. 30 minutes. All unfed and partially fed mosquitoes were removed. Two fully engorged mosquitoes from each cage were removed, triturated, and tested on Vero cells by plaque assay [26] to determine the viremia at the time of feeding. Viral titers per engorged mosquito were converted to log10 PFU/mL of avian blood (see Table A in S1 Text, for details). Mosquitoes were maintained at 26° C and subsamples of 10 to 63 mosquitoes were removed from cages 3, 4, 5, or 7 days later, triturated individually in 1 ml of diluent, and stored at –80°C until tested for virus by plaque assay.

Data analyses

The proportions of mosquitoes infected were compared by chi square analyses with Yates correction (Statistix, Tallahassee, FL) among groups of mosquitoes that fed on birds with equivalent viremia. Mixed model logistic regression was used to analyze the probability of mosquitoes becoming infected as a function of host viremia, bird species, and mosquito strain as main fixed effects and possible interactions between these main effects. Individual birds were included in the models as a random effect to account for potential bird-to-bird variation. Each mosquito was represented as a binary value (0 = uninfected; 1 = infected). Logistic regressions were performed using the software, R (version 4.2.1, R Core Team, 2022), examining all main effects and all possible interactions. Initial analysis indicated that 3-way interaction had no significant effect. Therefore, we included the three main effects plus the 2-way interactions of viremia*mosquito strain and viremia*bird species into the final model. Separately, we used probit regression to calculate for each bird species the theoretical concentration of WNV that would infect 50% of the mosquitoes (i.e., the IC50). We set log10 viremia as the independent variable and the proportion of mosquitoes infected at each species-specific viremia (transformed to probits) as the dependent variable (IBM SPSS Statistics, Armonk NY). For comparative purposes, we also included in our probit analysis the previously published dose-response data for C. pipiens feeding on WNV-infected baby chickens [27-29]. Comparative IC50 values and probit regression slopes of the bird species were considered significantly different from one another if the 95% confidence intervals of respective IC50 and slopes did not overlap. To calculate an index of host competence for each bird species, the proportion of mosquitoes that were infected by viremic birds were averaged for each day of the viremic period (i.e, 3 days for grackles, 2 days for robins). Daily averages were then summed to yield a total value for overall host competence. These calculations were performed twice—one used the empirically-derived results of mosquito feedings on viremic grackles and robins; the other used the same series of viremias but computed the proportion of infected mosquitoes expected at each viremia, based on the dose-response equation for C. pipiens feeding on WNV-infected baby chickens [26-28] (see Tables C, D and E in S1 Text, for details). This was done to evaluate the suitability of substituting the dose-response of baby chickens for those of robins and grackles, as a practical method to determine the relative host competence for these two passerine species based only on their viremia profiles and thereby remove the necessity for conducting mosquito feedings.

Results

Viremia profiles

The course and magnitude of WNV viremia for robins and grackles were similar [21] (see also Table A in S1 Text). Peak viremia in six robins occurred 1 to 2 days after inoculation and ranged from 6.5 to 7.4 log10 PFU/mL (average 7.1 ± 0.3). Similarly, peak viremias in eight grackles occurred on days 1 to 2 after inoculation but their magnitudes were more variable, ranging from 6.3 to 8.3 log10 PFU/mL (average 6.9 ± 0.8). Viremia in both species waned or subsided altogether by Day 3.

Effect of mosquito strain

A total of 1,205 Cx. pipiens mosquitoes were tested by plaque assay for WNV infection (see Table B in S1 Text, for details). Of these, 378 fed on robins (187 Area B strain, 191 Rutgers strain), and 827 fed on grackles (469 Area B strain, 358 Rutgers strain). To determine if the two mosquito strains differed in susceptibility, the proportions of mosquitoes infected were compared where the two strains fed concurrently on the same bird or on a bird of the same species with similar viremia. In instances where mosquito strains fed on two con-specific birds having the same viremia, mosquito infection data for respective mosquito strains were combined. The Area B strain was more susceptible to infection than the Rutgers strain, but the magnitude of difference was influenced by bird species (Table 1). For robins, there were seven levels of viremia in which both mosquito strains fed concurrently. Only one (6.7 log10 PFU/mL) resulted in a significant difference between mosquito strains (p = 0.002). For grackles, there were four levels of viremia in which both mosquito strains fed concurrently. The Area B strain was significantly more susceptible than Rutgers strain in two of the four concurrent feedings (6.2 and 6.3 log10 PFU/mL, p = 0.007 and p = 0.046, respectively) and nearly statistically significant (p = 0.07) in a third (6.4 log10 PFU/mL).

Table 1

West Nile virus infection rates in two strains of Culex pipiens mosquitoes 5 to 7 days after feeding concurrently on birds with the same viremia.

Mosquito infection data are pooled in instances where two birds had the same viremia.

Bird Species	Bird(s) ID #	Host Viremia(log10 PFU/mL)	% Mosquito Infected(number tested)		p-value
			Area B strain	Rutgers strain
American Robin	67	4.5	8% (13)	10% (10)	0.692
	67	6.5	100% (13)	90% (31)	0.612
	3, 89	6.7	100% (53)	77% (48)	0.002
	108	7.0	100% (11)	100% (23)	1.000
	52	7.2	100% (20)	100% (20)	1.000
	89	7.3	89% (28)	91% (35)	1.000
	55	7.4	100% (38)	100% (14)	1.000
Common Grackle	152	5.7	40% (20)	27% (11)	0.479
	1	6.2	53% (15)	9% (23)	0.007
	1, 53	6.3	54% (93)	32% (32)	0.046
	53, 29	6.4	47% (88)	21% (19)	0.074

Comparative infectivity between bird species

To examine comparative infection in mosquitoes fed on the two bird species, the percentages of infected mosquitoes fed on robins were paired with infection percentages of the same mosquito strain fed on grackles, where the viremias were similar at the time of mosquito feeding (Table 2). There were two exact matches (using Area B strain) where individual birds of both species had matching viremias of 6.5 and 6.7 log10 PFU/mL (see pairings 1 & 2, Table 2). In both pairings, viremic robins infected significantly greater proportions of mosquitoes than did grackles with matching viremia (p<0.0001). Three other pairings were examined wherein mosquitoes of the same strain fed on viremic grackles that had four to 10-times more virus than robins (see pairings 3, 4 & 5, Table 2). In each of these pairings, the viremic robins infected significantly greater proportions of mosquitoes than did the viremic grackles (p<0.01), despite the mosquitoes ingesting less WNV from the robins than from the grackles.

Table 2

West Nile-infected American robins were more infectious to Culex pipiens mosquitoes (both strains) than were common grackles with equivalent or higher viremias.

Pairing	Mosquito Strain	Bird Species	No. Birds	Viremias(log10 PFU / mL)	% Mosquito Infected (number tested)	p-value
1	Area B	Robin	1	6.5	100% (13)	<0.0001
		Grackle	1	6.5	32% (60)
2	Area B	Robin	2	6.7	100% (53)	<0.0001
		Grackle	2	6.7	49% (103)
3	Area B	Robin	3	7.3–7.4	95% (77)	<0.0001
		Grackle	1	8.0	63% (60)
4	Rutgers	Robin	2	6.7	77% (48)	0.0058
		Grackle	1	7.7	48% (50)
5	Rutgers	Robin	1	7.3	91% (35)	0.0087
		Grackle	1	8.3	65% (63)

Viremia-Infectivity relationship

Mixed model logistic regression analysis indicated that host viremia had the strongest effect (P<0.00001) on determining the probability of mosquitoes becoming infected (Fig 1). There was also a statistically significant effect due to the interaction between host viremia and bird species (p<0.005), indicating that the probability of mosquito infection increased with increasing viremia differently according to the bird species. This was reflected in the different shapes of the dose-response curves from mosquitoes that fed on robins versus grackles (Fig 1). The dose-response for mosquitoes feeding on robins exhibited a steep exponential rise in the infection response starting at ca. log10 5 PFU/mL whereas mosquitoes feeding on grackles exhibited a much shallower rise in the infection response starting at ca. log10 6 PFU/mL).

Fig 1

Relationship between West Nile virus viremia in American robins versus common grackles and infectiousness to Culex pipiens mosquitoes, as modeled by logistic regression including a random effects term for individual birds.

Shaded areas in plot represent 95% confidence intervals.

Probit regression analysis indicated that the levels of host viremia needed to infect 50% of Cx. pipiens mosquitoes (i.e., the IC50’s) were statistically equivalent between baby chickens (5.7 log10 PFU/mL) and robins (5.6 log10 PFU/mL) and both had overlapping 95% confidence intervals. The IC50 for mosquitoes fed on grackles (7.4 log10 PFU/mL) was 50-fold higher and the confidence intervals did not overlap, indicating there was a statistically significant difference in IC50 values between mosquitoes fed on grackles versus the other two bird species. Similarly, the slope (b) of the dose-response for mosquitoes fed on viremic grackles (b = 0.4) was significantly less (i.e., non-overlapping confidence intervals) than for mosquitoes fed on either viremic robins (b = 1.1) or viremic baby chickens (b = 1.1) (Fig 2).

Fig 2

Dose-response (log-probit scale) of Culex pipiens mosquitoes to ingested West Nile virus when fed on viremic baby chickens, American robins, and common grackles.

The IC50 (95% confidence) values represent the predicted host viremia (log10 PFU/mL) that infects 50% of the mosquitoes. Data for baby chickens were taken from references 26–28.

Host competence

Index values for host competence were computed separately for robins and grackles based on 1) extrapolations from a regression equation derived from feeding mosquitoes on baby chickens, and 2) actual results from feeding mosquitoes on viremic robins and grackles. Higher values denote higher relative host competence. For robins, the two methods yielded comparable index values. For grackles, the index value based on actual infection data was significantly less than the value derived mathematically from the dose-response regression equation of baby chicken viremias (non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals). Moreover, estimates based on the baby chicken regression ranked grackles as having a significantly higher host competence index value than robins while calculations based on actual infection data from viremic robins and grackles ranked robins as having a significantly higher host competence (Table 3).

Table 3

Comparative index values (95% confidence intervals) of host competence for West Nile virus-infectiousness to Culex pipiens mosquitoes by viremic robins and grackles, as estimated mathematically from a dose-response equation generated from mosquito feedings on viremic baby chickens versus measuring actual mosquito infections that resulted from feedings on viremic robins and grackles.

Bird Species	Estimates (95% CI) derived from baby chicken infections	Estimates (95% CI) based on actual infection results
American Robin	1.56 (1.38, 1.75)	1.66 (1.49, 1.83)
Common Grackle	2.36 (2.28, 2.45)	1.17 (1.06, 1.27)

Discussion

American robins and common grackles experienced similar levels of viremia when injected subcutaneously with WNV, but robins infected significantly greater percentages of Cx. pipiens mosquitoes than grackles—even when robins had substantially lower viremia than grackles (Table 2). At first glance, this seemed remarkable, but in fact, it should not have been totally unforeseen. A number of previous studies have demonstrated that the source and condition of blood in which arboviruses are presented to mosquitoes can significantly affect the efficiency of mosquito infection. Most of these studies utilized in vitro mosquito feeding systems—e.g., blood-soaked gauze, membrane feeders, etc. The advantages of these systems are that the virus concentration and diluent composition fed to mosquitoes can be precisely controlled and that live animals are not needed for the studies. Using blood-soaked gauze, Hardy and Reeves [29] first reported that Saint Louis encephalitis virus was more infectious to Cx. tarsalis mosquitoes when presented in defibrinated blood obtained directly from a viremic chicken than was the same amount of virus obtained from suckling mouse brains and mixed into normal, defibrinated rabbit or chicken blood. Similarly, Huang et al. [30] reported that Zika virus mixed in defibrinated whole sheep blood was significantly more infectious to Aedes aegypti mosquitoes (64% infected, n = 82) than the same concentration of Zika virus mixed in bovine serum albumin (27% infected, n = 82). They suggested that cellular components of the blood meal may be important in the virus infection process. More recently, Abbo et al. [31] reported that Usutu virus mixed in whole human blood (anticoagulation method not stated) was significantly more infectious to two biotypes of Cx. pipiens (66% infected, n = 234) than the same concentration of Usutu virus mixed in whole chicken blood (49%, n = 283). In addition to cellular components, there may be soluble factors involved with the virus infection process. The most detailed study describing this phenomenon was that of Marchi et al. [32]. They examined the infectivity of African horse sickness virus (Reoviridae) to a midge vector, Culicoides variipennis. Infection rates in midges fed 5 days earlier on virus at 7.7 log10 tissue culture infectious dose 50% per ml differed markedly depending on the blood source to which the virus had been added. When added to heparinized horse or dog blood, the virus infected 51% (n = 933) and 41% (n = 209) of the midges respectively, but when added to heparinized sheep or cow blood, the same concentration of virus infected only 26% (n = 160) and 11% (n = 160) of the midges respectively. When purified virus was incubated overnight in horse or dog sera, gel electrophoresis demonstrated that the outer capsid protein VP2 of the virus was cleaved, whereas the VP2 protein remained intact after overnight incubation with cow or sheep sera. Furthermore, pretreatment of virus with chymotrypsin not only cleaved the viral capsid VP2 but when mixed with cow serum and fed to midges, increased the infectivity of cow/virus bloodmeals to midges from 11% (n = 160) to 51% (n = 60). This suggested that in the case of African horse sickness virus and midge vectors, species-specific serum proteases play an important role in determining virus infectivity to the vector.

In vitro feeding systems have clear advantages but also have the disadvantage that they require defibrination or addition of anti-clotting agents to the blood. Without normal blood clotting, ingested virions remain distributed randomly throughout the blood bolus instead of being pushed outwards towards the periphery as the result of normal fibrin formation [33]. Concentration of virions on the peripheral of a blood meal during clotting allows more virions to contact receptor sites on the midgut lumen. Not surprisingly, use of live viremic hosts typically results in significantly increased mosquito infection rates compared to in vitro feeding systems, even when the same source of blood was used [34-36]. Live host feedings more closely represent the natural situation but can be more challenging because viremias in a live host cannot be controlled. Comparing arboviral infectivity of different host species using live host feedings often require mosquito feedings on multiple animals and/or multiple times throughout the course of viremia, in the hope of obtaining matching viremias in two host species at the time of mosquito feeding. Few studies have done this. As part of a larger study, Reisen et al. [37] used restrained, viremic birds to infect mosquitoes with WNV. When two panmictic populations of Cx. tarsalis from Kern Co., CA, fed on a house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) with a titer of WNV of 5.4 log10 plaque-forming units (PFU)/mL, and similarly on a 7-day old chicken (Gallus domesticus) with a slightly higher titer of WNV of 5.7 log10 PFU/mL, the resulting mosquito infection rate in mosquitoes fed on the viremic finch (94%, n = 17) was significantly higher than in mosquitoes fed on the viremic chick (13%, n = 16) (p<0.00001), despite the viremia in the chick being higher than in the finch. Although this represents only a single comparative feeding, their experiment (together with in vitro feeding studies cited above) suggest that viremic blood in different bird species can significantly alter the infectivity of WNV to Culex mosquitoes feeding on viremic birds.

The mechanism(s) responsible for different infectiousness of robins versus grackles is unknown, but it appears unlikely that the increased infectiousness of robins resulted from co-infection of blood parasites [21]. More likely, different infectiousness of the two bird species resulted from innate differences in their blood and how the viremic blood behaved once inside the mosquito midgut. There are at least two possibilities, neither mutually exclusive. First, the WNV virions may be rendered less infective in grackle sera due to the activity (or lack thereof) of species-specific serum proteases, similar to that described for African horse sickness virus in dog/horse versus sheep/cow sera [32]. Alternatively, the kinetics and/or intensity of fibrin formation in the blood of viremic grackles may be altered such that ingested WNV virions are not pushed to the periphery of blood meals within engorged Cx. pipiens mosquitoes to the same degree as in robin blood. Reduced localization of virus to the periphery of blood meals would lead to a reduced number of contacts between ingested virions and midgut epithelium, resulting in lowered mosquito infection rates [33]. The notion that the viremic state can alter blood meal clotting is supported by the observation that dengue virus (also a flavivirus) alters the kinetics and intensity of fibrin formation within human sera of dengue patients [38].

Regardless of the mechanism involved, our results complicate the concept of vertebrate host competence, defined as the relative infectiousness of a vertebrate host species to mosquitoes. Originally developed for eastern equine encephalitis virus in European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) with Culiseta melanura mosquitoes, Komar et al. [39] proposed a simple calculation to derive a numerical value for host competence—the host competence index (C)—which is the product of the average daily host infectiousness (i) to mosquitoes and its duration in days (d). This index has become a critical component in estimating relative contributions of different host species in arbovirus transmission cycles in nature [40] and in scenario planning for predicting future invasive arbovirus transmission yet to occur [41].

For the index to be useful, the average daily infectiousness component (i) of the index should be determined experimentally. This is done by feeding mosquitoes on a range of virus concentrations and subsequently determining the proportion of mosquitoes infected at each concentration. The results are then used to construct a dose-response equation, making it possible to estimate the proportion of infected mosquitoes generated at different host viremias. Importantly, the viremia/infectiousness relationship must be determined experimentally by feeding mosquitoes on live viremic hosts, not in vitro methods (e.g., membrane feeders) because the use of defibrination or anticoagulants in artificial blood meals invariably reduce mosquito infectivity [34-36] and will lead to systemic underestimation of host competency index values.

Host competency index values for WNV in Cx. pipiens were calculated and compared among 53 vertebrate species by Kilpatrick et al. [42]. In this case, the infectiousness component (i) of the index was based on the viremia-infectiousness relationship of Cx. pipiens feeding on viremic 1-to-5-day old chickens [26, 27]. No data from mosquito feedings on other bird species were available. Using the viremic profiles of the host species and the viremia-infectiousness equation based on baby chickens, Kilpatrick et al. [42] estimated the host competence index for the Common Grackle (Cgrackle ~ 1.7) to be substantially higher than for the American Robin (Crobin ~ 1.1). Although there were some slight differences in the regression equations and calculation used, this is essentially the same thing we observed when host infectiousness to mosquitoes was extrapolated from the baby chicken dose-response equation (Table 3). But when we used actual infection data from viremic robins and grackles, the relative ranking of these two bird species was reversed (Table 3). Clearly, when baby chickens were used as a surrogate to define the viremia-infectiousness relationship, grackles were over-rated as competent hosts for WNV.

Mosquito feedings on viremic live birds will establish more accurate host competence index values for WNV. But these types of experimental infections present challenges in terms of logistics, securing federal and state collecting permits, determining appropriate anesthesia or restraining methods, addressing compliance/biosafety issues, etc. From a practical standpoint, this level of stringency is more realistically done for what may be considered high-priority bird species—i.e., birds known to produce high viremia (e.g., crows, jays), or are numerous and associated with humans (e.g., house sparrows), or are preferentially fed on by vector mosquitoes (e.g., robins). Experimental mosquito feeding on viremic live birds may be less warranted for species that produce low viremia ≤ 4.6 log10 PFU/mL (e.g., pigeons, adult chickens) or are uncommon. In all cases, it is important to measure host viremia in terms of infectious virions (e.g., plaque assay), not viral RNA (via reverse transcriptase PCR) or protein (via immunoassay), if the study objective is to determine the viremia-mosquito infection relationship.

With regard to WNV transmission, the American Robin is now recognized as one of the most important amplifying species in eastern North America due to the observation that Cx. pipiens mosquitoes tend to feed preferentially on robins—especially during the early part of the transmission season [7, 43–45]. The present study demonstrates that viremic robins are also more innately infectious to Cx. pipiens than are viremic grackles, further underscoring the importance of the American Robin as a key amplifying host for WNV. More generally, our studies demonstrate that for WNV (and possibly other arboviruses), the relationship between host viremia and the efficiency by which a viremic host infects mosquitoes is not fixed and cannot be determined solely by measuring host viremia. The relationship may also depend on the host species involved.

Table A. Information on birds and viremias as determined by plaque assay of engorged mosquitoes frozen immediately after feeding on individual birds. Table B. Host viremia, blood parasite status, and % mosquitoes infected. Table C. Published sources used to generate the host viremia:mosquito infection relationship for baby chickens and Culex pipiens mosquitoes. Table D. Method used to compute comparative host competence index values. Table E. Method used to compute comparative host competence index values.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

24 Jun 2022

Dear Dr. Vaughan,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Bird species define the relationship between West Nile viremia and infectiousness to Culex pipiens mosquitoes" 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.

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,

Duane J. Gubler

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Scott Weaver

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: A few more details could be added to this section:

1. Were the birds tested daily for viremia? How was the duration of infectiousness determined. With HOSP hosts, mosquitoes can be infected for up to 2 wks post infection despite the waning viremia.

2. What was the sex and age of the host birds?

3. It was unclear why some birds with a microfilaremia affected mosquito infection while others did not.

4. How were the birds anesthetized? What was used?

5. Unclear why the now essentially extinct NY99 strain was used in these experiments.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: See attached

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

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: This section was somewhat tedious, but generally well done.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: See attached

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

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: In general the data were clearly presented, appropriately analyzed and support the conclusions.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: See attached

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

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 comment. See below.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: See attached

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

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: Two colonized strains of Cx. pipiens were used to compare the host competence of American Robins and Common Grackles for the NY99 strain of WNV. Chicks were used as a laboratory model comparison. Data clearly showed that mosquito infection differed among host species, even when fed on birds with comparable viremias. The authors discuss how these kinds of data confound avian host competence estimated strictly from measuring daily viremia levels. The authors acknowledge, however, problems in the complexity of doing these types of experiments using the wide variety of mosquito and host species involved in WNV transmission.

Minor comments have been inserted on the attached manuscript using tracked changes. A few summary thoughts include:

1. Literature review. The authors have missed quite a few papers where mosquito infection was used to compare avian host competence, making their current study less unique than described in the Introduction.

2. Introduction. I think too much space is given to a review of papers showing methods of mosquito in vitro infection can alter vector competence results. The focus should be on in vivo information as this pertains to the experiments at hand.

2. Conclusions. The dynamics of WNV transmission is complex, as shown in the current paper where there were differences seen between pipiens colonies and host bird species. Therefore, I think that generalizations used for gross comparisons still are useful and I wouldn't throw out the Komar host competence index just yet. As used by Kilpatrick and Wheeler et al. it still provides a useful way of comparing avian species.

Reviewer #2: Vaughn and Turell present a small study with large implications. They demonstrate that two bird species circulating an equivalent viremia infect mosquitoes with differing efficiencies. This is due to innate differences in the blood of the two species, as yet unidentified. This has several important implications. One is that estimating the relative contribution of different host species to arbovirus amplification is more complex than previously believed. Another is that as yet unidentified blood components modulate vector competence. The discovery of these component(s) could yield new tools in the prevention and control of arbovirus transmission.

General Comments

1. Overall, the paper is very well written.

2. Several different types of units are used for describing virus concentration. TCID50, IC50, LC50, pfu, etc. These need to be reviewed and clarified. At a minimum, spell out abbreviations when first used.

3. The capitalized name of a bird species refers to the species as a whole, not individual animals. Therefore, these should not be pluralized. There is only one American Robin, but there can be multiple American robins. Also be consistent with capitalization of bird names. In the Intro, you do not capitalize house finch.

4. In the second paragraph of the introduction, treatment of vertebrate reservoir competence is confusing because you are actually referring to reservoir capacity rather than competence. Competence describes the potential to infect mosquitoes, whereas capacity measures the relative importance of different species as amplifiers. The background on transmission dynamics can probably be streamlined into a single paragraph. If necessary, further description of the processes involved could be added to the discussion.

5. The Intro is too heavy on background information and too light on presenting the specific scientific problem to be addressed and a hypothesis statement. Please add a hypothesis to the final paragraph in the Introduction.

6. Why were American Robin and Common Grackle chosen for this study? Was there prior evidence that the blood of these two species differed with respect to WNV infectiousness?

7. When presenting average viremia values, do these represent the log of the mean, or the mean of the logs? In other words, do you log transform for presentation purposes before or after calculating the mean value? It makes a difference. This should be explained in the methods.

8. Why are you including the data for the Rutgers mosquito strain?? Do these data add to the quality of the experiment?

9. Supplemental data file is provided, but I did not notice a citation or reference to these data in the main text.

Specific comments:

Line 138 quiscula is misspelled.

Line 167-169. In order to make your study repeatable by a reader, please explain how you converted three engorged mosquitoes into a viremia measure. Did you measure the volume of blood in each mosquito? Were the mosquitoes each tested in order to produce a mean viremia determination?

Line 169-170. Why were mosquitoes removed for testing on four different days post-feeding? Was there a difference for mosquitoes that incubated for 3 days versus 7 days?

Line 260 Use “index values” rather than “indices”. You are discussing multiple values within a single index. Also there are probably some fancy statistics to generate confidence intervals around the index values, and a p-value for the comparison. I also question the precision of these values. Is reporting out to three significant figures appropriate for any of the measures in this Table?

Line 286 Fig 1 can be gray-scale. Color not required.

Line 302 dog/horse versus cattle/sheep sera.

Line 363. And vector species, for that matter!

Reviewer #3: See attached

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

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: Nicholas Komar

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, we recommend that you deposit your 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Submitted filename: 2022-PLoS NTD-Grackle VS Robin Infectivity-For submission.rev.docx

Click here for additional data file.

Submitted filename: Vaughan ms PLOS NTD 2022 comments for authors.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

19 Sep 2022

Submitted filename: PLoS_2022-Response Letter-2.docx

Click here for additional data file.

20 Sep 2022

Dear Dr. Vaughan,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Bird species define the relationship between West Nile viremia and infectiousness to Culex pipiens mosquitoes' 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,

Duane J. Gubler

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Scott Weaver

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

30 Sep 2022

Dear Dr. Vaughan,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Bird species define the relationship between West Nile viremia and infectiousness to Culex pipiens mosquitoes," 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