4.5 Article

Culture-dependent and culture-independent characterization of microorganisms associated with Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) (L.) and dynamics of bacterial colonization in the midgut

期刊

ACTA TROPICA
卷 115, 期 3, 页码 275-281

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2010.04.011

关键词

Aedes aegypti; Midgut; Bacterial colonization; Serratia

资金

  1. FAPERJ
  2. CNPq

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this work we show that the lumen of Aedes aegypti midgut is highly colonized by bacteria that were identified by culture-dependent and culture-independent methods. rDNA sequences obtained were compared with those from GenBank and the main bacterial genera identified were: Serratia, Klebsiella, Asaia, Bacillus, Enterococcus, Enterobacter, Kluyvera and Pantoea. All genera were identified in midgut except Enterobacter that was observed only in eggs. Asaia and Pantoea were also identified in eggs and ovary, respectively. In addition two yeast genera were observed in A. aegypti: Pichia isolated from midgut and Candida identified in midgut and ovary. The genus Serratia was dominant in all isolation assays representing 54.5% of the total of microorganisms. Thirty-nine and 24 bacterial clones were successfully obtained from midguts 24 and 48 h after blood feeding (ABF), respectively. The majority of clones obtained were from Serratia sp. (48.7% and 50% for 24 and 48 h ABF, respectively). Light microscopy showed that bacteria were located preferentially in the posterior midgut, around the blood meal and associated with peritrophic matrix. Scanning electron microscopy images showed a high number of bacteria in midgut during blood digestion and the peak of bacterial enumeration was reached 48 h ABF, stage in which lumen was almost totally occupied by bacteria that were also interacting with epithelial microvilli. Our results show the dynamics of microbial colonization and their distribution in midgut during blood digestion. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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