| Literature DB >> 20529354 |
Sandra R Maruyama1, Elen Anatriello, Jennifer M Anderson, José M Ribeiro, Lucinda G Brandão, Jesus G Valenzuela, Beatriz R Ferreira, Gustavo R Garcia, Matias Pj Szabó, Sonal Patel, Richard Bishop, Isabel Kf de Miranda-Santos.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ticks secrete a cement cone composed of many salivary proteins, some of which are rich in the amino acid glycine in order to attach to their hosts' skin. Glycine-rich proteins (GRPs) are a large family of heterogeneous proteins that have different functions and features; noteworthy are their adhesive and tensile characteristics. These properties may be essential for successful attachment of the metastriate ticks to the host and the prolonged feeding necessary for engorgement. In this work, we analyzed Expressed Sequence Tags (ESTs) similar to GRPs from cDNA libraries constructed from salivary glands of adult female ticks representing three hard, metastriate species in order to verify if their expression correlated with biological differences such as the numbers of hosts ticks feed on during their parasitic life cycle, whether one (monoxenous parasite) or two or more (heteroxenous parasite), and the anatomy of their mouthparts, whether short (Brevirostrata) or long (Longirostrata). These ticks were the monoxenous Brevirostrata tick, Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus, a heteroxenous Brevirostrata tick, Rhipicephalus sanguineus, and a heteroxenous Longirostrata tick, Amblyomma cajennense. To further investigate this relationship, we conducted phylogenetic analyses using sequences of GRPs from these ticks as well as from other species of Brevirostrata and Longirostrata ticks.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20529354 PMCID: PMC2901319 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-11-363
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genomics ISSN: 1471-2164 Impact factor: 3.969
Characteristics cDNA libraries constructed using salivary glands (SG) dissected from three feeding female Ixodid ticks: Rhipicephalus sanguineus (Rs), Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus (Rm) and Amblyomma cajennense (Ac).
| Library | ESTs | Contigs | ESTs/Transcripts | ESTs encoding GRPs | Contigs of GRPs | Average n° GRP ESTs/Contig of GRP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SGFRm | 1,152 | 533 | 2.16 | 57 (4.94)a | 33 (6.19)a | 1.72 |
| SGFRs | 874 | 455 | 1.92 | 47 (5.37)a | 16 (3.51)a | 2.93 |
| SGFAc | 929 | 418 | 2.22 | 23 (2.90)a | 11 (3.82)a | 2.09 |
a Percent of total
Description of matches with glycine-rich proteins present in the Arachnida protein database for transcripts from A. cajennense, R. sanguineus and R. microplus
| Best Match to Arachnida Database | Accession number of Best Match | Size (amino acid) | % Glycine of Best match | Library | Transcript name (Number of ESTs) | % Glycine in respective transcript* | E-value of Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| cement-like antigen [ | gi 116642505 | 179 | 34,63 | SGFAc | Ac147 (1) | 28,81 | 9E-005 |
| SGFRs | Rs345 (1) | 21,78 | 5E-009 | ||||
| SGFRm | Rm62 (1) | 21,11 | 5E-009 | ||||
| SGFRm | Rm115 (2) | 22,91 | 1E-011 | ||||
| SGFRm | Rm 519 (1) | 23,37 | 3E-007 | ||||
| SGFRm | Rm61 (3) | 32,2 | 1E-020 | ||||
| cement-like antigen [ | gi 125597020 | 217 | 38,7 | SGFRm | Rm265 (1) | 22,22 | 1E-009 |
| SGFRm | Rm71 (1) | 41,32 | 1E-017 | ||||
| SGFRm | Rm470 (1) | 31,79 | |||||
| NPL-2 [ | gi 51011404 | 78 | 38,46 | SGFRm | Rm234 (1) | 21,35 | 1E-006 |
| putative cement protein [ | gi 50363174 | 119 | 50,42 | SGFRm | Rm388 (1) | 20,43 | 5E-007 |
| putative cement protein RIM36 [ | gi 21885262 | 334 | 24,55 | SGFAc | Ac52 (2) | 20,57 | 8E-024 |
| SGFRm | Rm77 (1) | 25,82 | 2E-009 | ||||
| salivary gland-associated protein 64P [ | gi 20069012 | 154 | 29,22 | SGFAc | Ac109 (1) | 20 | 4E-012 |
| SGFRs | Rs12 (13) | 30,43 | 1E-025 | ||||
| Unknown [ | gi 45479213 | 506 | 25,29 | SGFAc | Ac9 (10) | 24,8 | 2E-028 |
| SGFRs | Rs17 (5) | 22,05 | 1E-149 | ||||
| SGFRs | Rs19 (1) | 20,31 | 7E-062 | ||||
| SGFRs | Rs20 (1) | 21,1 | 3E-082 | ||||
| SGFRs | Rs156 (1) | 30,37 | 1E-020 | ||||
| SGFRs | Rs402 (1) | 25,77 | 2E-028 | ||||
| SGFRs | Rs428 (1) | 30,72 | 2E-028 | ||||
| SGFRm | Rm29 (11) | 36,94 | 3E-060 | ||||
| SGFRm | Rm70 (2) | 31,19 | 2E-024 | ||||
| SGFRm | Rm30 (1) | 30,51 | 2E-020 | ||||
| SGFRm | Rm31 (1) | 26,08 | 3E-022 | ||||
| SGFRm | Rm67 (3) | 20,38 | 3E-074 | ||||
| SGFRm | Rm85 (2) | 11,34 | 3E-025 | ||||
| SGFRm | Rm479 (1) | 23,76 | 4E-010 | ||||
| acanthoscurrin 1 precursor [ | gi 27524417 | 156 | 62,17 | SGFAc | Ac354 (1) | 42,85 | 3E-014 |
| SGFRs | Rs26 (6) | 31,95 | 2E-019 | ||||
| flagelliform silk protein [ | gi 13561982 | 1.002 | 56,78 | SGFAc | Ac233 (1) | 30,47 | 3E-005 |
| SGFRm | Rm259 (1) | 22,22 | 1E-005 | ||||
| flagelliform silk protein [ | gi 13561980 | 651 | 47,31 | SGFRm | Rm533 (1) | 30,91 | 1E-017 |
| flagelliform silk protein [ | gi 2833647 | 871 | 46,84 | SGFRs | Rs54 (3) | 33,14 | 9E-020 |
| SGFRm | Rm35 (1) | 20,68 | 2E-011 | ||||
| SGFRm | Rm36 (1) | 22,53 | 8E-010 | ||||
| SGFRm | Rm32 (3) | 25 | 4E-018 | ||||
| flagelliform silk protein [ | gi 7106224 | 2.249 | 54,37 | SGFRs | Rs130 (1) | 21,42 | 4E-004 |
| SGFRm | Rm34 (3) | 25,54 | 7E-012 | ||||
| SGFRm | Rm129 (2) | 26,82 | 5E-012 | ||||
| flagelliform silk protein [ | gi 7106228 | 1.884 | 51,8 | SGFRm | Rm33 (2) | 27,48 | 3E-021 |
| SGFRm | Rm37 (1) | 21,64 | 7E-011 | ||||
| flagelliform silk protein [ | gi 7106229 | 626 | 47,12 | SGFRm | Rm76 (2) | 17,22 | 7E-008 |
| SGFRm | Rm197 (1) | 25 | 2E-004 | ||||
| fibroin 2 [ | gi 89113990 | 623 | 35,63 | SGFRs | Rs29 (5) | 23,92 | 6E-011 |
| SGFRm | Rm433 (1) | 23,8 | 1E-005 | ||||
| major ampullate spidroin 1 [ | gi 89276817 | 1.065 | 41,22 | SGFRm | Rm324 (1) | 48,38 | 1E-019 |
| major ampullate dragline silk protein-2 [ | gi 27228959 | 429 | 27,03 | SGFAc | Ac13 (3) | 32,46 | 3E-009 |
| major ampullate spidroin 2-1 [ | gi 47007938 | 185 | 47,02 | SGFAc | Ac15 (1) | 35,92 | 2E-013 |
| SGFRm | Rm381 (1) | 22,97 | 7E-017 | ||||
| SGFRm | Rm418 (1) | 21 | 9E-008 | ||||
| major ampullate spidroin 2-2 [ | gi 47007952 | 214 | 49,53 | SGFAc | Ac14 (1) | 32,33 | 3E-025 |
| Ac17 (1) | 32,09 | 2E-010 | |||||
| Ac16 (1) | 31,96 | 1E-014 | |||||
| SGFRs | Rs38 (1) | 17,35 | 1E-010 | ||||
| SGFRs | Rs37 (3) | 31,09 | 6E-018 | ||||
| SGFRs | Rs70 (2) | 31,65 | 1E-022 | ||||
| spidroin 1 [ | gi 2911274 | 544 | 40,25 | SGFRs | Rs84 (2) | 45,23 | 2E-004 |
| SPD1_NEPCL Spidroin-1 [ | gi 1174414 | 747 | 42,3 | SGFRm | Rm185 (1) | 26,25 | 4E-005 |
* Computation of glycine content was calculated based on translated consensus sequence
Figure 1Venn diagram showing the distribution of glycine rich protein (GRP) ESTs among three species of hard ticks, . Numbers in parentheses represent types of GRP according to the classification in Table 2.
Differential Abundance of Transcripts and Diversity of Types of GRPs in Salivary Gland Libraries from females of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus SGFRm), Rhipicephalus sanguineus (SGFRs)and Amblyomma cajennense (SGFAc)
| Representation of Transcripts Coding for GRPs | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SGFRm | 57 | 59.620 | SGFRs | 47 | 45.380 | P = 0.821 | |
| SGFRm | 57 | 45.333 | SGFAc | 23 | 35.667 | ||
| SGFRs | 47 | 34.421 | SGFAc | 23 | 35.579 | ||
| SGFRm | 33 | 27.312 | SGFRs | 16 | 22.688 | P = 0.072 | |
| SGFRm | 33 | 25.617 | SGFAc | 11 | 19.383 | ||
| SGFRs | 16 | 14.130 | SGFAc | 11 | 12.870 | P = 0.592 | |
| gi|45479213|unknown | SGFRm | 21 | 17.678 | SGFRs | 10 | 13.322 | P = 0.372 |
| SGFRm | 21 | 17.217 | SGFAc | 10 | 13.783 | P = 0.232 | |
| Acanthoscurrin | SGFRs | 6 | 3,301 | SGFAc | 1 | 3,699 | P = 0.424 |
| 64P | SGFRs | 13 | 9.432 | SGFAc | 1 | 4.568 | |
| Silk-like proteins from true spiders | SGFRm | 23 | 22,749 | SGFRs | 17 | 17,251 | P = 0.936 |
| SGFRm | 23 | 17,247 | SGFAc | 8 | 13,753 | P = 0.056 | |
| SGFRs | 17 | 12,185 | SGFAc | 8 | 12,815 | P = 0.396 | |
*Chi-square test for representation of the glycine-rich proteins distributed in the three cDNA libraries.
Figure 2Dendogram of Glycine-rich proteins of . The protein sequences were aligned by the Clustal X program (Thompson et al., 1997), and the dendrogram was calculated using the Mega package (Kumar et al., 2004) after 10,000 bootstraps with the neighbor joining (NJ) algorithm. The bar at the bottom represents 20% amino acid substitution. The Roman numerals in the figure indicate the three most distinct clades. Filled symbols are transcripts that presented matches with spider silk proteins and empty symbols are transcripts that displayed matches with cement-like proteins of ticks in Arachnida database (from NCBI). Circle: R. microplus; square: R. sanguineus; triangle: A. cajennense. All similarities (best match against Arachnida database) of transcripts in dendrogram can be observed in Table 2.
Figure 3Multiple alignment of Glycine-rich proteins of . The transcript protein sequences of clades numbered in figure 3 were aligned in the Clustal X program and analyzed with Bioedit software. Clade 1: transcripts from R. microplus that were homologous with flagelliform silk protein of orb-web weaving spiders. Clade 2: transcripts from A. cajennense were homologous with major ampullate spidroin protein of non-orb-web weaving spiders. Clade 3: transcripts from R. sanguineus and R. microplus that were homologous with an "unknown", cement-like protein from R.. haemaphysaloides.
Figure 4Dendogram of glycine-rich proteins that present similarities with spider silk proteins. Transcripts of proteins described in this work (●: R. microplus; ■: R. sanquineus; ▲: A. cajennense) and transcripts of proteins obtained in the catalogue of annotated salivary proteins available in Francischetti et al. (2009) were used to construct phylogenies (Amb var: A. variegatum; Amby am: A. americanum; Der and: D. andersoni; Rh ap: R. appendiculatus; Rh micro: R. microplus; the numbers refer to contig in Sup-Table1 [18]).
Figure 5Dendogram of glycine-rich proteins that present similarities with cement-like proteins. Transcripts of proteins described in this work (●: R. microplus; ■: R. sanquineus; ▲: A. cajennense) and transcripts of proteins obtained in the annotated catalog of Francischetti et al. (2009) were used to construct phylogenies (Amb var: A. variegatum; Amby am: A. americanum; Amb caj: A. cajennense; Der and: D. andersoni; Rh ap: R. appendiculatus; Rh micro: R. microplus, the numbers refer to contig in Sup-Table1 [18]).