Effects of blood meal source and seasonality on reproductive traits of Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae)

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

This study examines the role of host blood meal source, temperature, and photoperiod on the reproductive traits of Cx. quinquefasciatus, an important vector of numerous pathogens of medical importance. The host use pattern of Cx. quinquefasciatus is interesting in that it feeds on birds during spring and shifts to feeding on mammals towards fall. Various hypotheses have been proposed to explain the seasonal shift in host use in this species but have provided limited evidence. This study examines whether the shifting of host classes from birds to mammals towards autumn offers any reproductive advantages to Cx. quinquefasciatus in terms of enhanced fecundity, fertility, and hatchability of the offspring. The authors found no evidence of this, suggesting that alternate mechanisms may drive the seasonal shift in host use in Cx. quinquefasciatus.

Strengths:

Host blood meal source, temperature, and photoperiod were all examined together.

Weaknesses:

The study was conducted in laboratory conditions with a local population of Cx. quinquefasciatus from Argentina. I'm not sure if there is any evidence for a seasonal shift in the host use pattern in Cx. quinquefasciatus populations from the southern latitudes.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Conceptually, this study is interesting and is the first attempt to account for the potentially interactive effects of seasonality and blood source on mosquito fitness, which the authors frame as a possible explanation for previously observed host-switching of Culex quinquefasciatus from birds to mammals in the fall. The authors hypothesize that if changes in fitness by blood source change between seasons, higher fitness in birds in the summer and on mammals in the autumn could drive observed host switching. To test this, the authors fed individuals from a colony of Cx. quinquefasciatus on chickens (bird model) and mice (mammal model) and subjected each of these two groups to two different environmental conditions reflecting the high and low temperatures and photoperiod experienced in summer and autumn in Córdoba, Argentina (aka seasonality). They measured fecundity, fertility, and hatchability over two gonotrophic cycles. The authors then used a generalized linear mixed model to evaluate the impact of host species, seasonality, and gonotrophic cycle on fecundity and fertility and a null model analysis via data randomization for hatchability. The authors were trying to test their hypothesis by determining whether there was an interactive effect of season and host species on mosquito fitness. This is an interesting hypothesis; if it had been supported, it would provide support for a new mechanism driving host switching. While the authors did report an interactive impact of seasonality and host species, the directionality of the effect was the opposite of that hypothesized. While this finding is interesting and worth reporting, there are significant issues with the experimental design and the conclusions that are drawn from the results, which are described below. These issues should be addressed to make the findings trustworthy.

Strengths:

1. Using a combination of laboratory feedings and incubators to simulate seasonal environmental conditions is a good, controlled way to assess the potentially interactive impact of host species and seasonality on the fitness of Culex quinquefasciatus in the lab.
2. The driving hypothesis is an interesting and creative way to think about a potential driver of host switching observed in the field.

Weaknesses:

1. There is no replication built into this study. Egg lay is a highly variable trait, even within treatments, so it is important to see replication of the effects of treatment across multiple discrete replicates. It is standard practice to replicate mosquito fitness experiments for this reason. Furthermore, the sample size was particularly small for some groups (e.g. 15 egg rafts for the second gonotrophic cycle of mice in the autumn, which was the only group for which a decrease in fecundity and fertility was detected between 1st and 2nd gonotrophic cycles). Replicates also allow investigators to change around other variables that might impact the results for unknown reasons; for example, the incubators used for fall/summer conditions can be swapped, ensuring that the observed effects are not artifacts of other differences between treatments. While most groups had robust sample sizes, I do not trust the replicability of the results without experimental replication within the study.
2. Considering the hypothesis is driven by the host switching observed in the field, this phenomenon is discussed very little. I do not believe Cx. quinquefasciatus host switching has been observed in Argentina, only in the northern hemisphere, so it is possible that the species could have an entirely different ecology in Argentina. It would have been helpful to conduct a blood meal analysis prior to this experiment to determine whether using an Argentinian population was appropriate to assess this question. If the Argentinian populations don't experience host switching, then an Argentinian colony would not be the appropriate colony to use to assess this question. Given that this experiment has already been conducted with this population, this possibility should at least be acknowledged in the discussion. Or if a study showing host switching in Argentina has been conducted, it would be helpful to highlight this in the introduction and discussion.
3. The impacts of certain experimental design decisions are not acknowledged in the manuscript and warrant discussion. For example, the larvae were reared under the same conditions to ensure adults of similar sizes and development timing, but this also prevents mechanisms of action that could occur as a result of seasonality experienced by mothers, eggs, and larvae.
4. There are aspects of the data analysis that are not fully explained and should be further clarified. For example, there is no explanation of how the levels of categorical variables were compared.
5. The results show the opposite trend as was predicted by the authors based on observed feeding switches from birds to mammals in the autumn. However, they only state this once at the end of the discussion and never address why they might have observed the opposite trend as was hypothesized.
6. Generally speaking, the discussion has information that isn't directly related to the results and/or is too detailed in certain parts. Meanwhile, it doesn't dig into the meaning of the results or the ways in which the experimental design could have influenced results.
7. Beyond the issue of lack of replication limiting trust in the conclusions in general, there is one conclusion reached at the end of the discussion that would not be supported, even if additional replicates are conducted. The results do not show that physiological changes in mosquitoes trigger the selection of new hosts. Host selection is never measured, so this claim cannot be made. The results don't even suggest that fitness might trigger selection because the results show that physiological changes are in the opposite direction as what would be hypothesized to produce observed host switches. Similarly, the last sentence of the abstract is not supported by the results.
8. Throughout the manuscript, there are grammatical errors that make it difficult to understand certain sentences, especially for the results.

This study is driven by an interesting question and has the potential to be a valuable contribution to the literature.

Author Response

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The study was conducted in laboratory conditions with a local population of Cx. quinquefasciatus from Argentina. I'm not sure if there is any evidence for a seasonal shift in the host use pattern in Cx. quinquefasciatus populations from the southern latitudes.

Unfortunately, studies conducted in South America to understand host use by Culex mosquitoes are very limited, and there are virtually no studies on the seasonal pattern of host use. In Argentina, there is some evidence (Stein et al., 2013; Beranek, 2018) regarding the seasonal change in host use by Culex species, including Culex quinquefasciatus, where the inclusion of mammals during the autumn has been observed. As part of a comprehensive study on characterizing bridge vectors for SLE and WN viruses, our research group is currently working on the molecular identification of blood meals from engorged females to gain deeper insights into the seasonal host use by Culex mosquitoes.

While the seasonal change in host use by Culex quinquefasciatus has not been reported in Argentina so far, there has been an observed increase in reported cases of SLE virus in humans between summer and autumn (Spinsanti et al., 2008). It is based on this evidence that we hypothesize there is a seasonal change in host use by Culex quinquefasciatus, similar to what occurs in the United States. This is also considering that both countries (Argentina and the United States) have regions with similar climatic conditions (temperate climates with thermal and hydrological seasonality).

I think the authors need to discuss more about the bigger question they were addressing. I think that the discussion section can be strengthened greatly by elaborating on whether there is evidence for a seasonal shift in host use pattern in Cx. quinquefasciatus in the southern latitudes. If yes, what alternate mechanisms they believe could be driving the seasonal change in host use in this species in the southern latitudes now that they show the 'deriving reproductive advantages' hypothesis to be not true for those populations.

We will restructure our discussion to align it with our results, as suggested.

Grammar and writing

The manuscript will be grammatically revised.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

There is no replication built into this study. Egg lay is a highly variable trait, even within treatments, so it is important to see replication of the effects of treatment across multiple discrete replicates. It is standard practice to replicate mosquito fitness experiments for this reason. Furthermore, the sample size was particularly small for some groups (e.g. 15 egg rafts for the second gonotrophic cycle of mice in the autumn, which was the only group for which a decrease in fecundity and fertility was detected between 1st and 2nd gonotrophic cycles). Replicates also allow investigators to change around other variables that might impact the results for unknown reasons; for example, the incubators used for fall/summer conditions can be swapped, ensuring that the observed effects are not artifacts of other differences between treatments. While most groups had robust sample sizes, I do not trust the replicability of the results without experimental replication within the study.

We agree egg lay is a variable trait and so we consider high numbers of mosquitoes and egg lay during experiments compared to our studies of the same topics. Evaluating variables such as fecundity, fertility, or other types of variables (collectively referred to as "life tables") is a challenging issue that depends on several intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Because of all of this, in some experiments, sample sizes might not be very large, and in several articles, lower sample sizes could be found. For instance, in Richards et al. (2012), for Culex quinquefasciatus, during the second gonotrophic cycle, some experiments had 13 or even 6 egg rafts. For species like Aedes aegypti, the sample size for life table analysis is also usually small. As an example, Muttis et al. (2018) reported between 1 and 4 engorged females (without replicates). Because of this, we do find our sample sizes quite robust for our results.

Regarding the need to repeat the experiments in order to give more robustness to the study we also agree. However, after a review of the literature (articles cited in the original manuscript), it is apparent that similar experiments are not frequently repeated as such. Examples of this are the studies of Richards et al. (2012), Demirci et al. (2014) or Telang & Skinner (2019), which even manipulate several cages at a time as “replicates”, they are not true replicates because they summarise and manipulate all data together, and do not repeat the experiment several times. We see these “replicates” as a way of getting a greater N.

As it was stated by the reviewer, repetition is a resource and time consuming activity that we are not able to do. Replicating the experiment poses a significant time challenge. The original experiment took over three months to complete, and it is anticipated that a similar timeframe would be necessary for each replication (6 months in total considering two more replicates). Given our existing commitments and obligations, dedicating such an extensive period solely to this would impede progress on other crucial projects and responsibilities. Given the limitations of resources and time and the infrequent use of experimental repetition in this type of studies, we suggest performing a simulation-based analysis. This approach involves generating synthetic data that mimics the expected characteristics of the original experiment and subsequently subjecting it to the same analysis routine. The main goal of this simulation will be to evaluate the potential spuriousness and randomness of the results that might arise due to the experimental conditions. We will introduce this simulation-based analysis in the next revised version of the manuscript.

Considering the hypothesis is driven by the host switching observed in the field, this phenomenon is discussed very little. I do not believe Cx. quinquefasciatus host switching has been observed in Argentina, only in the northern hemisphere, so it is possible that the species could have an entirely different ecology in Argentina. It would have been helpful to conduct a blood meal analysis prior to this experiment to determine whether using an Argentinian population was appropriate to assess this question. If the Argentinian populations don't experience host switching, then an Argentinian colony would not be the appropriate colony to use to assess this question. Given that this experiment has already been conducted with this population, this possibility should at least be acknowledged in the discussion. Or if a study showing host switching in Argentina has been conducted, it would be helpful to highlight this in the introduction and discussion.

We are aware that few studies regarding host shifting in South America are available, some such those conducted by Stein et al. (2013) and Beranek (2018) reported a moderate host switch for Culex quinquefasciatus in Argentina. We have already performed a study about seasonal host feeding patterns for this species. As you suggested, we could mention it in the discussion to highlight our partial findings. However, even though there are few studies regarding host shifting, our hypothesis is based mainly in the seasonality of human cases of WNV and SLEV, a pattern that has been demonstrated for our region, see for example the study of Spinsanti et al. (2008).

The impacts of certain experimental design decisions are not acknowledged in the manuscript and warrant discussion. For example, the larvae were reared under the same conditions to ensure adults of similar sizes and development timing, but this also prevents mechanisms of action that could occur as a result of seasonality experienced by mothers, eggs, and larvae.

We understand the confusion that may have arisen due to a lack of further details in the methodology. If we are not mistaken, you are referring to our oversight regarding the consideration of carry-over effects of larvae rearing that could potentially impact reproductive traits. When investigating the effects of temperature or other environmental factors on reproductive traits, it is possible to acclimate either larvae or adults. This is due to the significant phenotypic plasticity that mosquitoes exhibit throughout their entire ontogenetic cycle. In our study, we followed an approach similar to that of other authors where the adults are exposed to experimental conditions (temperature and photoperiod). For a similar approach you can refer to the studies conducted by Ferguson et al. (2018) for Cx. pipiens, Garcia Garcia & Londoño Benavides (2007) for Cx. quinquefasciatus and Christiansen-Jucht et al. (2014, 2015) for Anopheles gambiae.

Beyond the issue of lack of replication limiting trust in the conclusions in general, there is one conclusion reached at the end of the discussion that would not be supported, even if additional replicates are conducted. The results do not show that physiological changes in mosquitoes trigger the selection of new hosts. Host selection is never measured, so this claim cannot be made. The results don't even suggest that fitness might trigger selection because the results show that physiological changes are in the opposite direction as what would be hypothesized to produce observed host switches. Similarly, the last sentence of the abstract is not supported by the results.

We agree with this observation. However, we did not evaluate the impact of fitness on host selection in this study. Instead, we aimed to investigate the potential influence of seasonality on mosquito fitness as a potential trigger for a shift in host selection. We agree that we have incorrectly used the term “host selection” when we should actually be discussing “host use change”. Our results indicate a seasonal alteration in mosquito fitness in response to temperature and photoperiod changes. Building upon this observation, we will discuss into our hypotheses and theoretical model to explain this seasonal shift in host use.

Grammar and writing

The manuscript will be grammatically revised by a professional translator.