4.6 Article

Disruption of the Wolbachia surface protein gene wspB by a transposable element in mosquitoes of the Culex pipiens complex (Diptera, Culicidae)

期刊

INSECT MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
卷 16, 期 2, 页码 143-154

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2583.2006.00707.x

关键词

Culex pipiens complex; Wolbachia; insertion element; gene disruption; molecular marker

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [R01 AI051533] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Culex pipiens quinquefasciatus Say and Culex pipiens pipiens Linnaeus are sibling species incriminated as important vectors of emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases worldwide. The two forms differ little morphologically and are differentiated mainly based upon ecological, behavioural, physiological and genetic traits. Within the North American zone of sympatry, populations of Cx. p. quinquefasciatus and Cx. p. pipiens undergo extensive introgression and hybrid forms have been reported in nature. Both Cx. p. quinquefasciatus and Cx. p. pipiens are infected with the endosymbiotic bacteria Wolbachia pipientis. Here, we report the presence of a transposable element belonging to the IS256 family (IS256wPip) associated with Wolbachia in both Cx. p. quinquefasciatus and Cx. p. pipiens populations. Using reverse transcriptase PCR and sequence analysis, we show that IS256wPip has disrupted the wspB locus, a paralogue of the Wolbachia outer membrane protein (wspA) gene. The inactivation of the wspB appears to be specific to Cx. p. quinquefasciatus and to hybrids of the two forms, and was not observed in the surveyed Cx. p. pipiens mosquitoes. Our results support the hypothesis of a different origin of North American Cx. p. quinquefasciatus and Cx. p. pipiens populations. The flux of mobile genetic elements in the Wolbachia wPip genome could explain the high level of crossing types observed among different Culex populations. The insertion of IS256wPip into wspB may comprise a genetic candidate for discriminating Wolbachia symbionts in Culex.

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