Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 687

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Two Chikungunya Isolates from the Outbreak of La Reunion (Indian Ocean) Exhibit Different Patterns of Infection in the Mosquito, Aedes albopictus

Open access
Vazeille, Marie, Moutailler, Sara, Coudrier, Daniel, Rousseaux, Claudine, Khun, Huot, Huerre, Michel, Thiria, Julien, Dehecq, Jean-Sébastien, Fontenille, Didier, Schuffenecker, Isabelle, Despres, Philippe, Failloux, Anna-Bella·2007·PLoS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A Chikungunya (CHIK) outbreak hit La Réunion Island in 2005-2006. The implicated vector was Aedes albopictus. Here, we present the first study on the susceptibility of Ae. albopictus populations to sympatric CHIKV isolates from La Réunion Island and compare it to other virus/vector combinations. METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS: We orally infected 8 Ae. albopictus collections from La Réunion and 3 from Mayotte collected in March 2006 with two Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) from La Réunion: (i) strain 05.115 collected in June 2005 with an Alanine at the position 226 of the glycoprotein E1 and (ii) strain 06.21 collected in November 2005 with a substitution A226V. Two other CHIKV isolates and four additional mosquito strains/species were also tested. The viral titer of the infectious blood-meal was 10(7) plaque forming units (pfu)/mL. Dissemination rates were assessed by immunofluorescent staining on head squashes of surviving females 14 days after infection. Rates were at least two times higher with CHIKV 06.21 compared to CHIKV 05.115. In addition, 10 individuals were analyzed every day by quantitative RT-PCR. Viral RNA was quantified on (i) whole females and (ii) midguts and salivary glands of infected females. When comparing profiles, CHIKV 06.21 produced nearly 2 log more viral RNA copies than CHIKV 05.115. Furthermore, females infected with CHIKV 05.115 could be divided in two categories: weakly susceptible or strongly susceptible, comparable to those infected by CHIKV 06.21. Histological analysis detected the presence of CHIKV in salivary glands two days after infection. In addition, Ae. albopictus from La Réunion was as efficient vector as Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus from Vietnam when infected with the CHIKV 06.21. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the hypothesis that the CHIK outbreak in La Réunion Island was due to a highly competent vector Ae. albopictus which allowed an efficient replication and dissemination of CHIKV 06.21.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0001168

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 687

Metadata

Authors
Vazeille, M., Moutailler, S., Coudrier, D., Rousseaux, C., Khun, H., Huerre, M., Thiria, J., Dehecq, J.-S., Fontenille, D., Schuffenecker, I., Despres, P., & Failloux, A.-B.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2007-11-14
Volume
2
Issue
11
Pages
e1168
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1984332517
Cited by
687
References
0
FWCI
34.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Two Chikungunya Isolates from the Outbreak of La Reunion (Indian Ocean) Exhibit Different Patterns of Infection in the Mosquito, Aedes albopictus. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0001168
The paper
Vazeille, M., Moutailler, S., Coudrier, D., Rousseaux, C., Khun, H., Huerre, M., Thiria, J., Dehecq, J.-S., Fontenille, D., Schuffenecker, I., Despres, P., & Failloux, A.-B. (2007). Two Chikungunya Isolates from the Outbreak of La Reunion (Indian Ocean) Exhibit Different Patterns of Infection in the Mosquito, Aedes albopictus. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0001168

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.