4.3 Article

Tick salivary gland transcriptomics and proteomics

期刊

PARASITE IMMUNOLOGY
卷 43, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/pim.12807

关键词

proteome; salivary gland; sialome; tick; transcriptome

资金

  1. Grant Agency of the Czech Republic [19-382 07247S]
  2. ERD Funds, project CePaVip OPVVV [384 CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_019/0000759]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of 'omics' technologies has allowed for the identification of numerous tick molecules involved in tick feeding and disease transmission. Deep sequencing methods have been crucial in studying disease vectors without reference genomes. Understanding the tick 'sialome' through functional analysis is important for developing strategies to prevent pathogen transmission and discovering new pharmacologically active compounds for human diseases.
'Omics' technologies have facilitated the identification of hundreds to thousands of tick molecules that mediate tick feeding and play a role in the transmission of tick-borne diseases. Deep sequencing methodologies have played a key role in this knowledge accumulation, profoundly facilitating the study of the biology of disease vectors lacking reference genomes. For example, the nucleotide sequences of the entire set of tick salivary effectors, the so-called tick 'sialome', now contain at least one order of magnitude more transcript sequences compared to similar projects based on Sanger sequencing. Tick feeding is a complex and dynamic process, and while the dynamic 'sialome' is thought to mediate tick feeding success, exactly how transcriptome dynamics relate to tick-host-pathogen interactions is still largely unknown. The identification and, importantly, the functional analysis of the tick 'sialome' is expected to shed light on this 'black box'. This information will be crucial for developing strategies to block pathogen transmission, not only for anti-tick vaccine development but also the discovery and development of new, pharmacologically active compounds for human diseases.

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

4.3
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