4.6 Article

The characterization and manipulation of the bacterial microbiome of the Rocky Mountain wood tick, Dermacentor andersoni

期刊

PARASITES & VECTORS
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13071-015-1245-z

关键词

Ticks; Microbiome; Endosymbiont

资金

  1. NIH [AI4405]
  2. NIH/NIGMS [T32 GM008336]
  3. NSF ADVANCE transitions grant
  4. CVM intramural funds
  5. [USDA-ARS-CRIS5348-32000-033-00D]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In North America, ticks are the most economically impactful vectors of human and animal pathogens. The Rocky Mountain wood tick, Dermacentor andersoni (Acari: Ixodidae), transmits Rickettsia rickettsii and Anaplasma marginale to humans and cattle, respectively. In recent years, studies have shown that symbiotic organisms are involved in a number of biochemical and physiological functions. Characterizing the bacterial microbiome of D. andersoni is a pivotal step towards understanding symbiont-host interactions. Findings: In this study, we have shown by high-throughput sequence analysis that the composition of endosymbionts in the midgut and salivary glands in adult ticks is dynamic over three generations. Four Proteobacteria genera, Rickettsia, Francisella, Arsenophonus, and Acinetobacter, were identified as predominant symbionts in these two tissues. Exposure to therapeutic doses of the broad-spectrum antibiotic, oxytetracycline, affected both proportions of predominant genera and significantly reduced reproductive fitness. Additionally, Acinetobacter, a free-living ubiquitous microbe, invaded the bacterial microbiome at different proportions based on antibiotic treatment status suggesting that microbiome composition may have a role in susceptibility to environmental contaminants. Conclusions: This study characterized the bacterial microbiome in D. andersoni and determined the generational variability within this tick. Furthermore, this study confirmed that microbiome manipulation is associated with tick fitness and may be a potential method for biocontrol.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据