title: Variation in vector competence for dengue viruses does not depend on mosquito midgut binding affinity.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Dengue virus genotypes of Southeast Asian origin have been associated with higher virulence and transmission compared to other genotypes of serotype 2 (DEN-2). We tested the hypothesis that genetic differences in dengue viruses may result in differential binding to the midgut of the primary vector, Aedes aegypti, resulting in increased transmission or vectorial capacity.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Two strains of each of the four DEN-2 genotypes (Southeast Asian, American, Indian, and West African) were tested to determine their binding affinity for mosquito midguts from two distinct populations (Tapachula, Chiapas, Mexico and McAllen, Texas, USA). Our previous studies demonstrated that Southeast Asian viruses disseminated up to 65-fold more rapidly in Ae. aegypti from Texas and were therefore more likely to be transmitted to humans. Results shown here demonstrate that viruses from all four genotypes bind to midguts at the same rate, in a titer-dependent manner. In addition, we show population differences when comparing binding affinity for DEN-2 between the Tapachula and McAllen mosquito colonies.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  If midgut binding potential is the same for all DEN-2 viruses, then viral replication differences in these tissues and throughout the mosquito can thus probably explain the significant differences in dissemination and vector competence. These conclusions differ from the established paradigms to explain mosquito barriers to infection, dissemination, and transmission.
authors: Virology and Immunology, Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research, San Antonio, Texas, United States of America.
authors: Jonathan
authors: J
authors: Cox
authors: Heidi E
authors: HE
authors: Brown
authors: Rebeca
authors: R
authors: Rico-Hesse
references: BMC Microbiol. 2008 Jul 15;8:118
references: 18625079
references: Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2010 Sep;83(3):696-9
references: 20810841
references: J Med Entomol. 2005 Mar;42(2):110-9
references: 15799518
references: Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2002 Jul;67(1):85-92
references: 12363070
references: Adv Virus Res. 2003;59:315-41
references: 14696333
references: Arch Med Res. 2002 Jul-Aug;33(4):379-88
references: 12234528
references: J Virol. 2003 Apr;77(7):3929-38
references: 12634353
references: J Infect Dis. 2007 Aug 1;196(3):416-24
references: 17597456
references: Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2010;338:45-55
references: 19802577
references: Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2001 Summer;1(2):159-68
references: 12680353
references: Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2008 Nov;79(5):688-95
references: 18981505
references: J Virol. 2005 Jan;79(2):853-9
references: 15613313
references: Genetics. 2000 Oct;156(2):687-98
references: 11014816
references: Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1976 Mar;25(2):318-25
references: 1259091
references: Annu Rev Entomol. 1983;28:229-62
references: 6131642
references: Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1976 Jan;25(1):146-50
references: 3980
references: Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2003 May;68(5):539-44
references: 12812340
references: J Virol. 2009 Sep;83(17):8638-45
references: 19535452
references: Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1979 Nov;28(6):1045-52
references: 507282
references: J Med Virol. 2000 Apr;60(4):432-8
references: 10686027
references: BMC Evol Biol. 2009 Jul 09;9:160
references: 19589156
references: Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1998 Dec;59(6):965-70
references: 9886207
references: PLoS Pathog. 2009 Jul;5(7):e1000502
references: 19578437
references: J Infect Dis. 2000 Jan;181(1):2-9
references: 10608744
references: Adv Virus Res. 2003;60:187-232
references: 14689695
references: Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2006 Nov;75(5):886-92
references: 17123982
references: Virology. 2010 Oct 25;406(2):328-35
references: 20708768
references: J Clin Microbiol. 2002 Dec;40(12):4472-8
references: 12454138
references: J Infect Dis. 2008 Aug 15;198(4):516-24
references: 18598189
references: Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1946 Mar;26:221-8
references: 21020341