4.6 Article

Comparison of synganglion neuropeptides, neuropeptide receptors and neurotransmitter receptors and their gene expression in response to feeding in Ixodes scapularis (Ixodidae) vs. Ornithodoros turicata (Argasidae)

期刊

INSECT MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
卷 25, 期 1, 页码 72-92

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/imb.12202

关键词

Illumina; transcriptomics; synganglion; gene ontology; neuropeptides; neuropeptide receptors; neurotransmitters; quantitative PCR; gene expression; blood feeding

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Illumina GAII high-throughput sequencing was used to compare expressed genes for female synganglion neuropeptides, neuropeptide receptors and neurotransmitter receptors of the soft tick Ornithodoros turicata with the hard tick Ixodes scapularis. Gene ontology molecular level three mapping revealed no significant differences amongst the same categories represented in O. turicata and I. scapularis. Transcripts predicting 22 neuropeptides or their receptors in the O. turicata synganglion were similar to annotations for 23 neuropeptides or receptors previously identified from I scapularis, with minor exceptions. A transcript predicting ecdysis triggering hormone receptor was identified in O. turicata; transcripts encoding for proprotein convertase and glycoprotein B were identified in both species. Transcripts predicting the same neurotransmitter receptors were found in the synganglion of both species. Gene expression of the transcripts showed numerous differences in response to feeding. Major differences were observed in expression of genes believed important in regulating slow vs. rapid feeding, blood water elimination, cuticle synthesis plasticity and in signalling reproductive activity. Although the glutamate receptor was strongly upregulated in both species, the gamma aminobutyric acid receptor, which inhibits glutamate, was upregulated significantly only in I. scapularis. These differences are consistent with the slow vs. rapid action of the pharyngeal pump in the two species.

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