4.1 Article

Characterization of Haemaphysalis longicornis microbiome collected from different regions of Korean peninsula

期刊

ENTOMOLOGICAL RESEARCH
卷 52, 期 6, 页码 271-280

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1748-5967.12600

关键词

hard tick; H; longicornis; Korean Peninsula; microbiome

资金

  1. Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency [4851-304-21014]
  2. Government-wide R&D Fund project for infectious disease research [HG18C0028020019]
  3. National Research Foundation [NRF-2021R1A6A1A03039503/NRF-2017R1D1A3B06034971]
  4. Soonchunhyang University Research Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reports for the first time the microbiome diversity of H. longicornis ticks in Korea, including variations in region, stage, and sex. The establishment of a microbial community database allows for the identification of singularities in each region.
Ticks are vectors that cause disease by transmitting bacteria, viruses, and protozoa to humans or animals. The Asian longhorned tick Haemaphysalis longicornis, a vector of medical and veterinary importance, is widely distributed in the Korean peninsula and can transmit various pathogens including Rickettsia spp., Borrelia spp., Francisella spp., Coxiella spp., and severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome virus (SFTS virus). Despite the abundance and importance, studies on the microbiome of H. longicornis in Korea are limiting. Here we first report the microbiome diversity of H. longicornis in terms of region, stage, and sex. H. longicornis used in this study were collected from 16 different regions. The V3-V4 region was amplified and sequenced by MiSeq platform. The microbial diversity analysis was performed using Qiime2. A total of 1,754,418 non-chimeric reads were obtained from a total of 46 samples, and an average of 126 operational taxonomic units (OTUs) and a total of 1,398 OTUs were identified. Our results were used for H. longicornis microbial community database construction for each region that enables to identify singularities in each region.

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

4.1
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