Skip to main content
Download PDF

Cross-tissue and generation predictability of relative Wolbachia densities in the mosquito Aedes aegypti

Parasites & Vectors volume 15, Article number: 128 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The insect endosymbiotic bacterium Wolbachia is being deployed in field populations of the mosquito Aedes aegypti for biological control. This microbe prevents the replication of human disease-causing viruses inside the vector, including dengue, Zika and chikungunya. Relative Wolbachia densities may in part predict the strength of this ‘viral blocking’ effect. Additionally, Wolbachia densities may affect the strength of the reproductive manipulations it induces, including cytoplasmic incompatibility (CI), maternal inheritance rates or induced fitness effects in the insect host. High rates of CI and maternal inheritance and low rates of fitness effects are also key to the successful spreading of Wolbachia through vector populations and its successful use in biocontrol. The factors that control Wolbachia densities are not completely understood.

Methods

We used quantitative PCR-based methods to estimate relative density of the Wolbachia wAlbB strain in both the somatic and reproductive tissues of adult male and female mosquitoes, as well as in eggs. Using correlation analyses, we assessed whether densities in one tissue predict those in others within the same individual, but also across generations.

Results

We found little relationship among the relative Wolbachia densities of different tissues in the same host. The results also show that there was very little relationship between Wolbachia densities in parents and those in offspring, both in the same and different tissues. The one exception was with ovary–egg relationships, where there was a strong positive association. Relative Wolbachia densities in reproductive tissues were always greater than those in the somatic tissues. Additionally, the densities were consistent in females over their lifetime regardless of tissue, whereas they were generally higher and more variable in males, particularly in the testes.

Conclusions

Our results indicate that either stochastic processes or local tissue-based physiologies are more likely factors dictating Wolbachia densities in Ae. aegypti individuals, rather than shared embryonic environments or heritable genetic effects of the mosquito genome. These findings have implications for understanding how relative Wolbachia densities may evolve and/or be maintained over the long term in Ae. aegypti.

Graphical Abstract

Background

The global geographic range of the mosquito vector Aedes aegypti, which transmits the human disease-causing viruses dengue, Zika, chikungunya and yellow fever [1], is expanding [2]. Because there are no viable vaccines for these viruses, vector control remains the primary mechanism for limiting human disease [3]. Wolbachia pipientis is an endosymbiotic bacterium found in approximately 50% of all known insect species [4]. The symbiont induces two phenotypes that complement one another, which can be used in vector-borne disease control. First, it causes cytoplasmic incompatibility (CI), whereby offspring from crosses between Wolbachia-infected males and Wolbachia-free females are non-viable. The result is that Wolbachia-infected females have greater relative reproductive success and because Wolbachia is maternally inherited vertically via the egg, the symbiont spreads through populations [5]. Second, Wolbachia has also been found to limit the replication of co-infecting viruses in many insects, including Ae. aegypti [6,7,8], in a trait known as Wolbachia-mediated pathogen blocking (WMPB). Aedes aegypti in the wild are naturally free of Wolbachia, but laboratory populations have been artificially and stably infected with the symbiont [9,10,11,12,13].

In the field, Wolbachia is being evaluated for vector-borne disease control through two strategies: population suppression and population replacement [14]. Suppression involves releasing Wolbachia-infected males only, with the aim to prevent the successful reproduction of wild Wolbachia-free females, leading to population reductions. In replacement strategies, Wolbachia-infected females are released in large numbers to seed the next generation with Wolbachia-infected offspring. The daughters become part of the maternal transmission cycle and the sons assist with Wolbachia spread via the action of CI. The result is a population with high rates of Wolbachia infection and a poor ability to transmit viruses [15, 16]. Both strategies are showing high rates of efficacy in the field [17, 18]. The continued success of these approaches relies on the ongoing strength of CI and WMPB expression. Studies appear to show that Wolbachia densities predict the strengths of both CI and WMPB [19,20,21,22,23,24,25].

The factors that control Wolbachia densities are not fully understood [26], but appear to involve both host and symbiont genetics [27, 28] and a range of environmental effects, including temperature and host nutrition [28,29,30,31]. Even within an individual insect, Wolbachia densities can vary highly between tissues, with reproductive tissues often exhibiting higher densities, although in Drosophila this can depend on the Wolbachia strain [30, 32]. Higher Wolbachia densities in reproductive tissues have been noted in the mosquitoes Ae. aegypti [33], Ae. albopictus [34] and Culex pipiens [35]. The relative contributions of Wolbachia/vector genetics versus environmental effects in determining Wolbachia tissue densities is not known. Studying the heritability of Wolbachia densities in female lineages is challenging, given that the shared environment of the ovaries/eggs confounds any estimates of contributions from genetic factors. In this study, we sought to understand the relationship between Wolbachia densities in somatic and reproductive tissues within individuals and across generations in the artificially wAlbB strain-transinfected Ae. aegypti using quantitative PCR-based methods. An understanding of the relative role of genes and environment in determining Wolbachia densities may have consequences for the deployment and use of Wolbachia-based biocontrol where key phenotypes depend on density.

Methods

Aedes aegypti rearing

We used a population of Ae. aegypti infected with the wAlbB [11] strain of Wolbachia (kind gift from Zhiyong Xi, Michigan State University). Prior to experimentation, we outcrossed wAlbB-infected female mosquitoes to Wolbachia-free male mosquitoes recently obtained from Monterrey, Mexico (Pablo Manrique-Saide, Universidad Autónama de Yucatán) for three generations to increase genetic diversity. Eggs were hatched in 40 × 30 × 8-cm plastic trays containing 2 l of distilled deoxygenated water. Larvae were maintained at a density of approximately 250 per tray and fed Tetramin fish food (Tetra GmbH, Melle, Germany) ad libitum. Pupae were collected in plastic cups and placed in 45-cm square breeding cages (BioQuip Products, Rancho Dominguez, CA, USA) in populations of approximately 300 individuals. Adult mosquitoes were fed a 10% sucrose solution ad libitum. Mosquitoes were blood-fed when 9–11 days of age with human blood using a Hemotek feeder (Hemotek Ltd., Blackburn, UK) warmed to 37 °C. For experiments that involved egg collection, 3 days post blood-feeding, females were individually placed in 70-ml oviposition cups containing moist filter paper, with access to 10% sucrose.

Experimental design

Wolbachia densities were measured using three approaches: (i) between somatic and reproductive tissues in the same individuals; (ii) across generations in tissues of parents and offspring; and (iii) in tissues of the same individuals across their lifespan (Fig. 1). Our aim was to examine whether relative tissue densities correlated in these different contexts. For the within-individual mosquito comparisons (Fig. 1a), we set up two experiments. First, we set up 206 mated blood-fed individuals as isofemales at 9–11 days of age. We dissected the ovaries and the carcass (remaining tissues) at 15–17 days of age, or at approximately 6 days post-feeding. Second, we set up two replicate groups of 18 blood-feed isofemales so that in addition to ovaries and the carcass we could also correlate egg densities within individuals. Eggs were extracted for DNA analysis in groups of 10 per isofemale, after pilot experiments revealed this was the minimum pool size needed for consistent Wolbachia density estimation. For across-generation comparisons (Fig. 1b), we also set up blood-fed isofemales (~ 200) in the same manner as described above. After collecting their eggs, we dissected ovaries and the carcass in the mothers (P1). We hatched the eggs laid by each isofemale separately, and then reared, fed and dissected these F1 families as described for P1. Wolbachia densities were estimated from tissues extracted individually from two to three F1 daughters per P1 mother and then averaged. We also wanted to correlate relative Wolbachia density in the eggs to Wolbachia density in the ovaries and the carcass across a generation. Therefore, we set up a new colony, collected eggs from P1 mothers and extracted pools of 10 eggs per female. We hatched the remaining eggs to create 20 cages of approximately 50 individuals. F1 families were dissected identically as described above for F1 families. Relative Wolbachia densities were estimated in tissues extracted from three to eight F1 daughters per P1 mother and then averaged. For the experiment examining relative Wolbachia densities in tissue over the mosquito’s lifespan (Fig. 1c) we set up a cage of approximately 250 individuals, and then dissected males and females not blood-fed for their reproductive tissues, abdomen, head and thorax at 5, 10 and 15 days of adulthood.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Tissues collected for each experiment. a Within-individual tissue correlation, b parent–offspring (P1–F1) correlation, c Tissue comparisons over the mosquito’s lifespan

Full size image

Dissections and DNA extraction

Females were anesthetized using CO2 and dissected in 1× phosphate buffered saline (PBS). Tissues were collected and placed in a 2-ml tube containing 50 μl of PBS and a 3-mm glass bead. Dissected tissues were stored at − 80 °C until processing. Similarly, eggs were collected in groups of 10. To extract DNA from the eggs, tubes containing eggs were filled with 50 μl of extraction buffer (10 mM Tris buffer, 1 mM EDTA, 50 mM NaCl, and proteinase K). The samples were then homogenized with a bead ruptor (OMNI International, Kennesaw, GA, USA) for 90 s, centrifuged at 2000 g for 2 min and then incubated at 56 °C for 5 min and at 98 °C for 5 min. A final centrifugation step was performed at 2000 g for 2 min to pellet any remaining mosquito tissue. Samples were diluted 1:10 using DNAse/RNAse-free water prior to quantification.

Wolbachia quantification

While there are methods for estimating absolute numbers of Wolbachia [36], we chose to measure relative abundance. This method is more appropriate when the aim is to capture Wolbachia density in a given tissue and to compare Wolbachia density across tissues where the size of tissue (number [n] cells) will vary. Densities rather than absolute numbers may be more revealing when attempting to capture the ‘concentration’ of Wolbachia, which may affect the strength of Wolbachia-mediated phenotypes [19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. The relative method of estimation could be misleading, however, if ploidy numbers differ across tissues [36]. Since ploidy by cell or tissue type has scarcely been studied in mosquitoes, in addition to providing Wolbachia gene to host gene ratios, we also provide our raw crossing point (CP) values for the mosquito control gene in the Additional files to demonstrate their uniformity. Average rps17 values for all tissues were found to vary by less than twofold across the samples (see specific figures/Additional files in Results section), suggesting low variability. Relative Wolbachia densities were quantified by real-time PCR (qPCR) using Livak’s method [37] and a set of previously published primers for the wAlbB ankyrin repeat domain gene [38] and the mosquito ribosomal subunit protein S17 (RpS17) [39]. The Wolbachia primers were wAlbB_F (5′-CCTTACCTCCTGCACAACAA) and wAlbB_R (5′-GGATTGTCCAGTGGCCTTA) [38], and the mosquito primers were RPS17_F (5′-TCCGTGGTATCTCCATCAAGCT) and RPS17_R (5′-CACTTCCGGCACGTAGTTGTC) [39]. qPCR was carried out on a LightCycler 480 Real-Time PCR System (Roche, Basel, Switzerland), using the equation \(\frac{{2^{{ - {\text{wAlbB}}}} }}{{2^{{ - {\text{RPS}}17}} }}\) [37], in a total reaction volume of 10 μl (5 μl of 2× PerfeCTa SYBR Green SuperMix [Quantabio, Beverly, MA, USA], 0.2 μl of each forward and reverse primers [10 μM], 2.6 μl of nuclease-free water, 8 μl template DNA). The qPCR cycling profile was: denaturation at 95 °C for 5 min; 45 cycles of 95 °C for 10 s, 60 °C for 15 s and extension at 72 °C for 10 s; followed by a melt curve analysis.

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses for the ‘within-individual’ (Fig. 1a) and ‘across-generation’ (Fig. 1b) experiments were performed using GraphPad Prism version 9.1.0 for Windows (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA). Data were checked for normality before performing the analysis and logarithmically transformed when necessary. All relative densities when depicted in scatter plots were plotted on a log axis; fitted regression lines, although linear, can therefore appear curved. Paired t-tests were performed when comparing ovaries and carcass. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare relative Wolbachia densities with ‘Tissue’ as a fixed effect. Tukey’s post hoc comparisons were used to individually compare the densities in the ovary, carcass and eggs. Analysis of Wolbachia densities in the ‘across-mosquito lifespan’ experiment (Fig. 1c) was performed in JMP 16.0.0 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). A three-way ANOVA was used to compare the factors sex, time and tissue, followed by selected post hoc comparisons.

Results

Within-individual relative Wolbachia tissue density comparisons

Relative Wolbachia density between ovaries and carcass was measured at approximately 6 days after blood-feeding (15–17 days of adulthood) in the same individuals to see whether tissue densities were correlated with one another (Fig. 1a). We found that Wolbachia densities were significantly greater in the ovaries (twofold higher) than in the carcass (P < 0.0001) (Fig. 2; Additional file 1: Figure S1 [raw CP data]). Relative densities ranged from ~ 2 to ~ 491 in the ovaries and from ~ 0 to ~ 230 in the carcass; these values also reflect a wider variation in density in the reproductive tissue. We found no correlation between the relative Wolbachia densities of the ovaries and carcass (P = 0.13) (Fig. 3). We then measured relative Wolbachia densities between the ovaries, carcass and eggs in the same individuals to assess whether there were any correlations (Fig. 1a). To accomplish this, we set up two replicate groups of 18 individuals each. We found that Wolbachia densities in the ovaries were fivefold (Fig. 4; Additional file 2: Figure S2 [raw CP data]) and tenfold (Additional file 3: Fig. S3) higher, respectively, than those in eggs produced by the same individuals (Tukey’s multiple comparison test: P ≤ 0.0001). Wolbachia densities in the carcass were also twofold (Fig. 4) (Tukey’s multiple comparison test: P ≤ 0.0001) and fourfold (Additional file 3: Figure S3) (Tukey’s multiple comparison test: P ≤ 0.0001) higher than those in the eggs. In one group, Wolbachia densities in the ovaries were twofold higher than those in the carcass (Fig. 4) (Tukey’s multiple comparison test: P ≤ 0.0001), but there was no significant difference in the second replicate (Additional file 3: Figure S3) (Tukey’s multiple comparison test: P = 0.33). Both groups exhibited the same trend of higher relative Wolbachia density in eggs correlating with higher Wolbachia density in the ovaries for replicate 1 (P = 0.043) (Fig. 5a) and replicate 2 (P = 0.0062) (Additional file 4: Figure. S4A). In both replicate 1 (P = 0.91) (Fig. 5b) and replicate 2 (P = 0.13) (Additional file 4: Figure S4B) there was no correlation between Wolbachia densities in the egg and carcass. Overall, Wolbachia densities in eggs were far less variable than those in the ovaries or carcass.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Relative Wolbachia densities (ankyrin repeat domain to rps17) in the ovaries and the carcass of Aedes aegypti in the same generation of mothers (P1)(n = 206; P < 0.0001, paired t-test). Bars indicate tissue means ± standard error (SE). Asterisks indicate significant difference at ****P ≤ 0.0001

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Relationship between relative Wolbachia densities (ankyrin repeat domain to rps17) in the ovaries and the carcass of Ae. aegypti in the same generation of mothers (P1). n = 206

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Relative Wolbachia densities (ankyrin repeat domain to rps17) in the ovaries, carcass and eggs of Ae. aegypti. One-way analysis of variance P < 0.0001, post-hoc Tukey’s test: ovaries vs eggs: P < 0.0001; carcass vs eggs: P < 0.0001; ovaries vs carcass: P < 0.0001. n = 18 individuals. Bars indicate tissue means ± SE. Asterisks indicate significant difference at ****P ≤ 0.0001

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Relative Wolbachia densities (ankyrin repeat domain to rps17) in the ovaries, carcass and eggs of replicate group 1 of Ae. aegypti. a Wolbachia densities in the eggs vs the ovaries of Ae. aegypti in replicate group 1, b Wolbachia densities in the eggs versus the carcass of Ae. aegypti in replicate group 1. n = 18 individuals per group

Full size image

Across-generation relative Wolbachia tissue density comparisons

We then examined whether tissue densities in female offspring could be predicted based on densities in the female parent (Fig. 1b). We saw no relationship between Wolbachia densities in P1 ovaries and F1 carcass (P = 0.25) (Fig. 6a; Additional file 5: Figure S5 [raw CP data]), nor between Wolbachia densities in P1 carcass and F1 ovaries (P = 0.97) (Fig. 6b). Similarly, we found no correlation between Wolbachia densities in P1 and F1 ovaries (P = 0.58) (Fig. 6c), nor between Wolbachia densities in P1 and F1 carcass (P = 0.33) (Fig. 6d). A negative correlation was found between Wolbachia densities in P1 eggs and F1 ovaries (P = 0.0005) (Fig. 7a; Additional file 6: Figure. S6 [raw CP data]). No correlation was found between Wolbachia densities in P1 eggs and F1 carcass (P = 0.51) (Fig. 7b).

Fig. 6
figure 6

Relative Wolbachia densities (ankyrin repeat domain to rps17) in the tissues of mothers (P1) vs daughters (F1). a Wolbachia densities in the ovaries of P1 vs carcass of F1 in Ae. aegypti. b Wolbachia densities in the carcass of P1 vs the ovaries of F1 in Ae. aegypti. c Wolbachia densities in the ovaries of P1 versus the ovaries of F1 in Ae. aegypti. d Wolbachia densities in the carcass of P1 vs the carcass of daughters F1 in Ae. aegypti. Each data point represents the average of 2–3 individuals. n = 31 data points in a, b; n = 30 data points in c, d

Full size image
Fig. 7
figure 7

Relative Wolbachia densities (ankyrin repeat domain to rps17) in the eggs of mothers (P1) vs tissues of daughters (F1). a Wolbachia densities in the eggs vs the ovaries of Ae. aegypti, b Wolbachia densities in the eggs vs the carcass of Ae. aegypti. Each data point represents the average of 3–8 individuals. n = 20 data points

Full size image

Across-lifetime relative Wolbachia tissue density comparisons

To assess whether symbiont densities change with time, relative Wolbachia density was measured in the reproductive tissue, the abdomen and a combination of the head and thorax (H + T) of male and non-blood-fed female mosquitoes at 5, 10, and 15 days of age. A three-way ANOVA between sex, time and tissue resulted in sex (P < 0.001) and tissue (P < 0.001) being significant, as well as the interaction between these two factors (P = 0.0004) (Fig. 8). Wolbachia densities in the H + T (Tukey’s multiple comparison test: P = 0.0098) and abdomen (Tukey’s multiple comparison test: P = 0.0007) remained largely stable over the lifetime in both males and females. On average across all days, Wolbachia densities in the reproductive tissue in males were more variable over time and higher than those in female reproductive tissue (Tukey’s multiple comparison test: P < 0.0001).

Fig. 8
figure 8

Relative Wolbachia densities (ankyrin repeat domain to rps17) across Ae. aegypti lifetime. a Relationship between Wolbachia densities in the ovaries, abdomen and head + thorax (H + T) of Ae. aegypti females at different time points. n = 14–15 individuals. (Tissue = P ≤ 0.0001; Time = P = 0.50; Time × Tissue = P = 0.60). b Relationship between Wolbachia densities in the testes, abdomen and H + T of Ae. aegypti males at different time points. n = 12–15 individuals. Only sex (P < 0.001) and tissue were significant (P < 0.001)

Full size image

Discussion

The distribution of Wolbachia in somatic tissues varies between species, but the symbiont can be found in the head, muscles, midgut, salivary gland, fat body, and reproductive tissues [40,41,42]. In keeping with previous findings for Drosophila [43] and Aedes [44], the relative Wolbachia densities reported in our study were higher in reproductive tissues compared to somatic tissues. Additionally, we found that Wolbachia densities in the ovaries and carcass, and those in the carcass and eggs, in the same individual, are largely independent of one another. One of the primary drivers of this disconnect could be the distribution of Wolbachia in the early embryo. In Drosophila, Wolbachia attach to the proliferating nuclei and use this relationship to hitchhike through the oocyte [45]. This places some Wolbachia in the periphery of the egg, where reproductive cells are formed [46]. However, a high fraction of the bacteria remains throughout the oocyte [47]. It is believed that this early embryonic distribution is what dictates which somatic tissues will have Wolbachia and partially explains their relative Wolbachia densities [41]. Little is known about Wolbachia’s life-cycle during the embryonic development of mosquitoes. However, Drosophila and Aedes have very similar embryonic developmental stages that differentiate by timing [48].

Local tissue-specific factors could also be driving differences in relative Wolbachia densities, such as immunity, physical niches or access to nutritional resources. For example, the insect immune response can positively or negatively affect Wolbachia densities, in a tissue-specific manner. Autophagy is a pathway that involves the degradation of “unwanted” components, such as pathogenic bacteria. In the somatic cells of male Drosophila, the autophagic response reduces Wolbachia density, but the opposite occurs in germ cells of females [49]. In multiple studies, infection with another bacterium [50] or virus [51, 52] that triggers the innate Toll and immune deficiency (IMD) pathways appears to also cause reductions in Wolbachia density. We know from transcriptional studies that the activity of these pathways varies across mosquito tissues, including the midgut, carcass and salivary gland, when induced by infection [53], but their basal expression can also vary as per an examination of the control data for these same studies [54, 55]. One somatic tissue with a very high Wolbachia relative density in Ae. aegypti is the Malpighian Tubules [40]. These tissues are the main site of nitrogen secretion and as such they may especially facilitate Wolbachia growth, given that the symbiont primarily consumes host nucleotides [56], a large source of nitrogen. This same study also revealed pockets of cells within particular tissues, such as the midgut epithelia, thoracic ganglia and the salivary glands, that exhibit higher relative densities than the surrounding tissues [40]. The reason for either Wolbachia’s tropism to particular cell types or greater replicative success in these sub-tissue level environments is unknown.

Our results did show a correlation between relative Wolbachia densities in the ovaries and eggs produced from the same individual, which is expected given the egg’s origin and Wolbachia’s vertical inheritance [57]. The ongoing success of Wolbachia’s transmission depends on its density in the ovaries. A range of studies on Drosophila shed light on the interactions between Wolbachia and the female germline that may also be relevant for mosquitoes. For example, Wolbachia increases the production of fly proteins in the ovaries that protect the germline from iron toxicity and oxidative stress, and increase the rate of stem-cell division [58]. The increased prevalence of these proteins may aid Wolbachia’s own proliferation and ensure transmission [58]. Also, Wolbachia has a tropism for the ovarian stem-cell niche. Once there, Wolbachia increases germline stem-cell division and stops programmed cell death, resulting in higher egg production [59]. Additionally, Wolbachia’s tropism to ovarian stem-cell niches has been found to increase bacterial density in the germline [60]. Therefore, Wolbachia ensures vertical inheritance by increasing egg production and its own density in the germline.

In contrast to the ovary/egg relationship, we did not see predictability of relative Wolbachia densities across generations for other tissues. In our comparison of Wolbachia density across generations, we considered the relative contributions of genes and environment to the determination of density versus stochastic processes. Temperature and diet have been shown to affect relative Wolbachia densities [28, 29, 61, 62]. However, a previous study showed that wAlbB remains at a constant density between 26 °C and 37 °C [63], and under laboratory rearing conditions our temperatures should be largely constant. Similarly, given the low-density rearing of larvae and ad libitum food delivery in both juveniles and adults, nutrition should have minimal impact on densities in our study design. Host genetic factors cause varying Wolbachia density in arthropods [26, 30]. Our poor cross-generation predictability, however, is more in keeping with the results from a recent study demonstrating that genetic drift is a more likely dictator of density [64]. The cause of this drift can likely be attributed to the uneven passage of Wolbachia from mother to egg, causing siblings to have varying densities [64].

One caveat to our study is that we focused only on the wAlbB Wolbachia strain. Future studies may wish to assess the generality of our findings for other strains in Ae. aegypti. While a previous study in Ae. albopictus [9] also showed no relationship between mother to offspring densities for both the wAlbA and wAlbB strains, the more distantly related wMel strain could differ. A recent study in flies showed very large differences in relative Wolbachia tissue densities depending on the Wolbachia strain:host species pairing [30]. Our findings have potential implications for Wolbachia-based biocontrol in the field. In the longer term, any directional selection on Wolbachia densities in the ovaries may not have a similar predictable effect on the body-wide densities, as well as the converse. This is important as the former is thought to maintain transmission and CI expression [65, 66], whereas the latter is likely to control pathogen blocking [67]. Infection of both types of tissues may have direct impacts on host fitness [68]. This also means that artificial selection to create mosquito lines with higher or lower Wolbachia densities in their various tissues is unlikely to be effective. Identifying Wolbachia strains for transinfection that exhibit differences in density either singly or when in superinfection with other strains [33, 40, 69] may offer the most effective means for generating strain density diversity [70].

Conclusions

The results of this study suggest that, in Ae. aegypti, local tissue-based environments (e.g. nutrition, cellular niches, immunity), initial differential distributions of Wolbachia in the dividing embryo or stochastic factors (e.g. partitioning of density-associated Wolbachia genotypes in the embryo) are likely to be more powerful determinants of relative symbiont densities than shared embryonic environments and shared inheritance through a female genetic line. Our finding of a relatively narrow variation in Wolbachia densities in eggs, ultimately resulting in highly variable densities in adult tissues, is also in keeping with this hypothesis. Future comparative studies may seek to understand how distinct tissue and cellular niches either promote or limit relative Wolbachia densities. The growing use of single-cell RNAseq approaches in insects [71] may assist with these comparisons. At the level of the vector, the effect of environmental conditions, more representative of natural field settings [72], may introduce further variability in densities, Wolbachia inheritance and the expression of Wolbachia-induced traits that are key for biocontrol strategies.

Availability of data and materials

All raw data for the study can be found upon publication in figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.15129894.

Abbreviations

CI:

Cytoplasmic incompatibility

CP:

Crossing point

H + T:

Head and thorax

WMPB:

Wolbachia-Mediated Pathogen Blocking

References

  1. Souza-Neto JA, Powell JR, Bonizzoni M. Aedes aegypti vector competence studies: a review. Infect Genet Evol. 2019;67:191–209.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kraemer MUG, Reiner RC, Brady OJ, Messina JP, Gilbert M, Pigott DM, et al. Past and future spread of the arbovirus vectors Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus. Nat Microbiol. 2019;4:854–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Merle H, Donnio A, Jean-Charles A, Guyomarch J, Hage R, Najioullah F, et al. Ocular manifestations of emerging arboviruses: dengue fever, chikungunya, Zika virus, West Nile virus, and yellow fever. J Fr Ophtalmol. 2018;41:e235–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hilgenboecker K, Hammerstein P, Schlattmann P, Telschow A, Werren JH. How many species are infected with Wolbachia?—A statistical analysis of current data. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2008;281:215–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Werren JH, Baldo L, Clark ME. Wolbachia: master manipulators of invertebrate biology. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2008;6:741–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Moreira LA, Iturbe-Ormaetxe I, Jeffery JA, Lu G, Pyke AT, Hedges LM, et al. A Wolbachia symbiont in Aedes aegypti limits infection with dengue, chikungunya, and Plasmodium. Cell. 2009;139:1268–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bian G, Xu Y, Lu P, Xie Y, Xi Z. The endosymbiotic bacterium Wolbachia induces resistance to dengue virus in Aedes aegypti. PLOS Pathog. 2010;6:1–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Dutra HLC, Rocha MN, Dias FBS, Mansur SB, Caragata EP, Moreira LA. Wolbachia blocks currently circulating Zika virus isolates in Brazilian Aedes aegypti mosquitoes. Cell Host Microbe. 2016;19:771–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Ahantarig A, Trinachartvanit W, Kittayapong P. Relative Wolbachia density of field-collected Aedes albopictus mosquitoes in Thailand. J Vector Ecol. 2008;33:173–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Xi Z, Dean JL, Khoo C, Dobson SL. Generation of a novel Wolbachia infection in Aedes albopictus (Asian tiger mosquito) via embryonic microinjection. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2005;35:903–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Xi Z, Khoo CCH, Dobson SL. Wolbachia establishment and invasion in an Aedes aegypti laboratory population. Science. 2005;310:326–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Walker T, Johnson PH, Moreira LA, Iturbe-Ormaetxe I, Frentiu FD, McMeniman CJ, et al. The wMel Wolbachia strain blocks dengue and invades caged Aedes aegypti populations. Nature. 2011;476:450–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. McMeniman CJ, Lane RV, Cass BN, Fong AWC, Sidhu M, Wang YF, et al. Stable introduction of a life-shortening Wolbachia infection into the mosquito Aedes aegypti. Science. 2009;323:141–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Shropshire JD, Leigh B, Bordenstein SR. Symbiont-mediated cytoplasmic incompatibility: what have we learned in 50 years? eLife. 2020;9:1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hoffmann AA, Montgomery BL, Popovici J, Iturbe-Ormaetxe I, Johnson PH, Muzzi F, et al. Successful establishment of Wolbachia in Aedes populations to suppress dengue transmission. Nature. 2011;476:454–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nazni WA, Hoffmann AA, NoorAfizah A, Cheong YL, Mancini MV, Golding N, et al. Establishment of Wolbachia strain wAlbB in Malaysian populations of Aedes aegypti for dengue control. Curr Biol. 2019;29:4241-4248.e5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Caputo B, Moretti R, Manica M, Serini P, Lampazzi E, Bonanni M, et al. A bacterium against the tiger: preliminary evidence of fertility reduction after release of Aedes albopictus males with manipulated Wolbachia infection in an Italian urban area. Pest Manag Sci. 2020;76:1324–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tantowijoyo W, Andari B, Arguni E, Budiwati N, Nurhayati I, Fitriana I, et al. Stable establishment of wMel Wolbachia in Aedes aegypti populations in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. PLOS Negl Trop Dis. 2020;14:1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Clancy DJ, Hoffmann AA. Environmental effects on cytoplasmic incompatibility and bacterial load in Wolbachia-infected Drosophila simulans. Entomol Exp Appl. 1998;86:13–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Noda H, Koizumi Y, Zhang Q, Deng K. Infection density of Wolbachia and incompatibility level in two planthopper species, Laodelphax striatellus and Sogatella furcifera. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2001;31:727–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Veneti Z, Clark ME, Zabalou S, Karr TL, Savakis C, Bourtzis K. Cytoplasmic incompatibility and sperm cyst infection in different Drosophila-Wolbachia associations. Genetics. 2003;164:545–52.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Calvitti M, Marini F, Desiderio A, Puggioli A, Moretti R. Wolbachia density and cytoplasmic incompatibility in Aedes albopictus: concerns with using artificial Wolbachia infection as a vector suppression tool. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:1–19.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Chrostek E, Marialva MSP, Esteves SS, Weinert LA, Martinez J, Jiggins FM, et al. Wolbachia variants induce differential protection to viruses in Drosophila melanogaster: a phenotypic and phylogenomic analysis. PLoS Genet. 2013;9: e1003896.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Martinez J, Longdon B, Bauer S, Chan YS, Miller WJ, Bourtzis K, et al. Symbionts commonly provide broad spectrum resistance to viruses in insects: a comparative analysis of Wolbachia strains. PLoS Pathog. 2014;10:e1004369.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Amuzu HE, McGraw EA. Wolbachia-based dengue virus inhibition is not tissue-specific in Aedes aegypti. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10:1–18.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. López-Madrigal S, Duarte EH. Titer regulation in arthropod-Wolbachia symbioses. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2020;366:1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Chrostek E, Teixeira L. Within host selection for faster replicating bacterial symbionts. PLoS ONE. 2018;13: e0191530.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Mouton L, Henri H, Charif D, Boulétreau M, Vavre F. Interaction between host genotype and environmental conditions affects bacterial density in Wolbachia symbiosis. Biol Lett. 2007;3:210–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Serbus LR, White PM, Silva JP, Rabe A, Teixeira L, Albertson R, et al. The impact of host diet on Wolbachia titer in Drosophila. PLoS Pathog. 2015;11:1–25.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Kaur R, Martinez J, Rota-Stabelli O, Jiggins FM, Miller WJ. Age, tissue, genotype and virus infection regulate Wolbachia levels in Drosophila. Mol Ecol. 2020;29:2063–79.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Duron O, Fort P, Weill M. Influence of aging on cytoplasmic incompatibility, sperm modification and Wolbachia density in Culex pipiens mosquitoes. Heredity. 2007;98:368–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Osborne SE, Iturbe-Ormaetxe I, Brownlie JC, O’Neill SL, Johnson KN. Antiviral protection and the importance of Wolbachia density and tissue tropism in Drosophila simulans. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2012;78:6922–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Ant TH, Herd CS, Geoghegan V, Hoffmann AA, Sinkins SP. The Wolbachia strain wAu provides highly efficient virus transmission blocking in Aedes aegypti. PLoS Pathog. 2018;14:1–19.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Ant TH, Sinkins SP. A Wolbachia triple-strain infection generates self-incompatibility in Aedes albopictus and transmission instability in Aedes aegypti. Parasit Vectors. 2018;11:1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Emerson KJ, Glaser RL. Cytonuclear epistasis controls the density of symbiont Wolbachia pipientis in nongonadal tissues of mosquito Culex quinquefasciatus. G3 (Bethesda). 2017;7:2627–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Xu J, Hopkins K, Sabin L, Yasunaga A, Subramanian H, Lamborn I, et al. ERK signaling couples nutrient status to antiviral defense in the insect gut. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013;110:15025–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Livak KJ, Schmittgen TD. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2−ΔΔCT method. Methods. 2001;25:402–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Axford JK, Ross PA, Yeap HL, Callahan AG, Hoffmann AA. Fitness of wAlbB Wolbachia infection in Aedes aegypti: parameter estimates in an outcrossed background and potential for population invasion. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2016;94:507–16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Ford SA, Allen SL, Ohm JR, Sigle LT, Sebastian A, Albert I, et al. Selection on Aedes aegypti alters Wolbachia-mediated dengue virus blocking and fitness. Nat Microbiol. 2019;4:1832–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Joubert DA, Walker T, Carrington LB, De Bruyne JT, Kien DHT, Hoang NLT, et al. Establishment of a Wolbachia superinfection in Aedes aegypti mosquitoes as a potential approach for future resistance management. PLOS Pathog. 2016;12:1–19.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Pietri JE, DeBruhl H, Sullivan W. The rich somatic life of Wolbachia. MicrobiologyOpen. 2016;5:923–36.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Jervis MA. Insects as natural enemies. Dordrecht: Springer; 2005.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  43. Martinez J, Ok S, Smith S, Snoeck K, Day JP, Jiggins FM. Should symbionts be nice or selfish? Antiviral effects of Wolbachia are costly but reproductive parasitism is not. PLoS Pathog. 2015;11:1–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Zouache K, Voronin D, Tran-Van V, Mousson L, Failloux AB, Mavingui P. Persistent Wolbachia and cultivable bacteria infection in the reproductive and somatic tissues of the mosquito vector Aedes albopictus. PLoS One. 2009;4: e6388.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Kose H, Karr TL. Organization of Wolbachia pipientis in the Drosophila fertilized egg and embryo revealed by an anti-Wolbachia monoclonal antibody. Mech Dev. 1995;51:275–88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Serbus LR, Sullivan W. A cellular basis for Wolbachia recruitment to the host germline. PLoS Pathog. 2007;3:1930–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Veneti Z, Clark ME, Karr TL, Savakis C, Bourtzis K. Heads or tails: host-parasite interactions in the Drosophila–Wolbachia system. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004;70:5366–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Clemons A, Haugen M, Flannery E, Tomchaney M, Kast K, Jacowski C, et al. Aedes aegypti: an emerging model for vector mosquito development. Cold Spring Harb Protoc. 2010; 2010(10):pdb.emo141. https://doi.org/10.1101/pdb.emo141.

  49. Deehan M, Lin W, Blum B, Emili A, Frydman H. Intracellular density of Wolbachia is mediated by host autophagy and the bacterial cytoplasmic incompatibility gene cifB in a cell type-dependent manner in Drosophila melanogaster. MBio. 2021;12:1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Ye YH, Woolfit M, Rancès E, O’Neill SL, McGraw EA. Wolbachia-associated bacterial protection in the mosquito Aedes aegypti. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7: e2362.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Tortosa P, Courtiol A, Moutailler S, Failloux AB, Weill M. Chikungunya-Wolbachia interplay in Aedes albopictus. Insect Mol Biol. 2008;17:677–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Ware-Gilmore F, Sgrò CM, Xi Z, Dutra HLC, Jones MJ, Shea K, et al. Microbes increase thermal sensitivity in the mosquito Aedes aegypti, with the potential to change disease distributions. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021;15: e0009548.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Sigle LT, McGraw EA. Expanding the canon: non-classical mosquito genes at the interface of arboviral infection. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2019;109:72–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Bonizzoni M, Dunn WA, Campbell CL, Olson KE, Marinotti O, James AA. Complex modulation of the Aedes aegypti transcriptome in response to dengue virus infection. PLoS ONE. 2012;7: e50512.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Sim S, Ramirez JL, Dimopoulos G. Dengue virus infection of the Aedes aegypti salivary gland and chemosensory apparatus induces genes that modulate infection and blood-feeding behavior. PLOS Pathog. 2012;8: e1002631.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Wu M, Sun LV, Vamathevan J, Riegler M, Deboy R, Brownlie JC, et al. Phylogenomics of the reproductive parasite Wolbachia pipientis wMel: a streamlined genome overrun by mobile genetic elements. PLoS Biol. 2004;2:327–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Horne-Badovinac S. The Drosophila egg chamber—a new spin on how tissues elongate. Integr Comp Biol. 2014;54:667–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Christensen S, Pérez Dulzaides R, Hedrick VE, Momtaz AJMZ, Nakayasu ES, Paul LN, et al. Wolbachia endosymbionts modify Drosophila ovary protein levels in a context-dependent manner. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2016;82:5354–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Fast EM, Toomey ME, Panaram K, Desjardins D, Kolaczyk ED, Frydman HM. Wolbachia enhance Drosophila stem cell proliferation and target the germline stem cell niche. Science. 2011;334:990–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Toomey ME, Panaram K, Fast EM, Beatty C, Frydman HM. Evolutionarily conserved Wolbachia-encoded factors control pattern of stem-cell niche tropism in Drosophila ovaries and favor infection. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013;110:10788–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Mouton L, Henri H, Bouletreau M, Vavre F. Strain-specific regulation of intracellular Wolbachia density in multiply infected insects. Mol Ecol. 2003;12:3459–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Madhav M, Brown G, Morgan JAT, Asgari S, McGraw EA, James P. Transinfection of buffalo flies (Haematobia irritans exigua) with Wolbachia and effect on host biology. Parasit Vectors. 2020;13:296.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Ross PA, Wiwatanaratanabutr I, Axford JK, White VL, Endersby-Harshman NM, Hoffmann AA. Wolbachia infections in Aedes aegypti differ markedly in their response to cyclical heat stress. PLoS Pathog. 2017;13: e1006006.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Bénard A, Henri H, Noûs C, Vavre F, Kremer N, Duncan A, et al. Wolbachia load variation in Drosophila is more likely caused by drift than by host genetic factors. Peer Community Evol Biol. 2021;1:e38. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.29.402545.

  65. Layton EM, On J, Perlmutter JI, Bordenstein SR, Shropshire JD. Paternal grandmother age affects the strength of Wolbachia-induced cytoplasmic incompatibility in Drosophila melanogaster. MBio. 2019;10: e01879-19.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Walker T, Quek S, Jeffries CL, Bandibabone J, Dhokiya V, Bamou R, et al. Stable high-density and maternally inherited Wolbachia infections in Anopheles moucheti and Anopheles demeilloni mosquitoes. Curr Biol. 2021;31:2310-2320.e5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Terradas G, Allen SL, Chenoweth SF, McGraw EA. Family level variation in Wolbachia-mediated dengue virus blocking in Aedes aegypti. Parasit Vectors. 2017;10:1–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Ritchie SA, Townsend M, Paton CJ, Callahan AG, Hoffmann AA. Application of wMelPop Wolbachia strain to crash local populations of Aedes aegypti. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9:1–17.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Dutton TJ, Sinkins SP. Strain-specific quantification of Wolbachia density in Aedes albopictus and effects of larval rearing conditions. Insect Mol Biol. 2004;13:317–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Joubert DA, O’Neill SL. Comparison of stable and transient Wolbachia infection models in Aedes aegypti to block dengue and West Nile viruses. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11:1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Li H. Single-cell RNA sequencing in Drosophila: technologies and applications. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Dev Biol. 2021;10:e396.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Foo IJH, Hoffmann AA, Ross PA. Cross-generational effects of heat stress on fitness and Wolbachia density in Aedes aegypti mosquitoes. Trop Med Infect Dis. 2019;4:13.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Zhiyong Xi and Pablo Manrique-Saide for providing the wAlbB and wildtype Ae. aegypti lines, respectively. We thank the McGraw lab for their support and helpful discussions with the methods and results of this study. We also thank three reviewers for their contributions to improving our paper.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAD) grant RP and EAM (R01 151166).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Entomology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Austin J. Mejia & E. A. McGraw

  2. The Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics, The Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Austin J. Mejia, H. L. C. Dutra, M. J. Jones & E. A. McGraw

  3. Department of Biology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    H. L. C. Dutra, M. J. Jones & E. A. McGraw

  4. Center for Vector-Borne Infectious Diseases, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 80523, USA

    R. Perera

Authors
  1. Austin J. Mejia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. L. C. Dutra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. J. Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. Perera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. E. A. McGraw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AJM, RP, and EAM designed the study. AJM, HLCD, and MJJ carried out the experimental work. AJM, HLCD, and EAM analyzed and interpreted the data. All authors assisted with manuscript preparation. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. A. McGraw.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

All authors have read the article and consented to publication.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Figure S1.

Crossing point values of rps17 in the ovaries and the carcass of Ae. aegypti in the same generation of mothers (P1). These data pertain to Fig. 2 in the main text. n = 206, P < 0.0001 (paired t-test). Bars indicate tissue means ± SE; ****Significant difference at P ≤ 0.0001.

Additional file 2: Figure S2.

Crossing point values of rps17 in the ovaries, carcass and eggs of Ae. aegypti. These data pertain to Fig. 4 in the main text. One-way ANOVA P < 0.0001; post-hoc Tukey’s test: ovaries vs eggs: P < 0.0001; carcass vs eggs: P < 0.0001; ovaries vs carcass: P < 0.0001. n = 18 individuals. Bars indicate tissue means ± SE. ****Significant difference at P ≤ 0.0001.

Additional file 3: Figure S3.

Relative Wolbachia densities (ankyrin repeat domain to rps17) in the ovaries, carcass and eggs of Ae. aegypti in replicate group 2. One-way ANOVA P < 0.0001; post-hoc Tukey’s test: ovaries vs eggs: P < 0.0001; carcass vs eggs: P < 0.0001; ovaries vs carcass: P = 0.33. n = 18 individuals. Bars indicate tissue means ± SE. ns, not significant; asterisks indicate significant difference at ***P ≤ 0.001 and ****P ≤ 0.0001, respectively.

Additional file 4: Figure S4.

Relative Wolbachia densities (ankyrin repeat domain to rps17) in the ovaries, carcass and eggs of Ae. aegypti in replicate group 2. A Wolbachia densities in the eggs vs the ovaries of Ae. aegypti in replicate group 2. B. Wolbachia densities in the eggs vs the carcass of Ae. aegypti in replicate group 2. n = 18 individuals.

Additional file 5: Figure S5.

Crossing point values of rps17 in the tissues of mothers (P1) and daughters (F1). These data pertain to Fig. 6 in the main text. A Crossing point values of rps17 of P1 in Ae. aegypti. B Crossing point values of rps17 of F1 in Ae. aegypti. Figure A has n = 31 individuals while B has n = 78 individuals. Bars indicate tissue means ± SE; ****P ≤ 0.0001.

Additional file 6: Figure S6.

Crossing point values of rps17 in the eggs of mothers (P1) and tissues of daughters (F1). These data pertain to Fig. 7 in the main text. For P1 eggs n = 20 individuals, while for ovaries and carcass n = 94 individuals. Bars indicate tissue means ± SE. ns, Not significant; asterisks indicate significant difference at ****P ≤ 0.0001.

Additional file 7: Figure S7.

Relative Wolbachia densities (ankyrin repeat domain to rps17) in the ovaries and the carcass of Ae. aegypti in the same generation of daughters (F1). n = 79, P = 0.21 (paired t-test). Bars indicate tissue means ± SE. ns, Not significant.

Additional file 8: Figure S8.

Relationship between relative Wolbachia densities in the ovaries and the carcass of Ae. aegypti in the same generation of daughters (F1). n = 79.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mejia, A.J., Dutra, H.L.C., Jones, M.J. et al. Cross-tissue and generation predictability of relative Wolbachia densities in the mosquito Aedes aegypti. Parasites Vectors 15, 128 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-022-05231-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-022-05231-9

Keywords

Parasites & Vectors

ISSN: 1756-3305

Contact us