| Literature DB >> 26979606 |
Julian Rothen1,2, Naftaly Githaka3, Esther G Kanduma4,5, Cassandra Olds6, Valentin Pflüger7, Stephen Mwaura3, Richard P Bishop3, Claudia Daubenberger8,9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The tick population of Africa includes several important genera belonging to the family Ixodidae. Many of these ticks are vectors of protozoan and rickettsial pathogens including Theileria parva that causes East Coast fever, a debilitating cattle disease endemic to eastern, central and southern Africa. Effective surveillance of tick-borne pathogens depends on accurate identification and mapping of their tick vectors. A simple and reproducible technique for rapid and reliable differentiation of large numbers of closely related field-collected ticks, which are often difficult and tedious to discriminate purely by morphology, will be an essential component of this strategy. Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) is increasingly becoming a useful tool in arthropod identification and has the potential to overcome the limitations of classical morphology-based species identification. In this study, we applied MALDI-TOF MS to a collection of laboratory and field ticks found in Eastern Africa. The objective was to determine the utility of this proteomic tool for reliable species identification of closely related afrotropical ticks.Entities:
Keywords: Amblyomma; Boophilus; COI; Hyalomma; MALDI-TOF MS; Rhipicephalus; Species identification; Ticks; Vector epidemiology
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26979606 PMCID: PMC4792108 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-016-1424-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Overview of 398 ticks that built the basis of this study
| Morphologically assigned species name | Quantity | Sex | Geographical origin | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 21 | 4 F, 15 M, 2 ND | Kenya | Vegetation & Animal |
|
| 4 | 2 F, 1 M, 1 ND | Zimbabwe | Vegetation |
|
| 21 | 4 F, 15 M, 2 ND | Kenya | Lab colony |
|
| 19 | 5 F, 14 M | Kenya | Vegetation & Animal |
|
| 13 | 10 F, 1 M, 2 ND | Sudan | Vegetation |
|
| 3 | 2 M, 1 ND | Kenya | Vegetation & Animal |
|
| 18 | 5 F, 11 M, 2 ND | Kenya | Vegetation & Animal |
|
| 14 | 5 F, 6 M, 3 ND | Kenya | Vegetation & Animal |
|
| 16 | 8 F, 6 M, 2 ND | Kenya | Lab colony |
|
| 22 | 21 F, 1 M | Kenya | Lab colony |
|
| 19 | 19 F | Kenya & Sudan | Animal |
|
| 21 | 21 F | Kenya | Lab colony |
|
| 3 | 3 F | Kenya | Animal |
|
| 40 | 16 F, 23 M, 1 ND | Kenya | Lab colony (Muguga) |
|
| 38 | 15 F, 22 M, 1 ND | Kenya | Vegetation & Animal |
|
| 9 | 8 F, 1 ND | Kenya | Lab colony (Kiambu) |
|
| 27 | 10 F, 16 M, 1 ND | Kenya | Lab colony |
|
| 28 | 7 F, 20 M, 1 ND | Kenya | Vegetation & Animal |
|
| 8 | 5 F, 2 M, 1 ND | Kenya | Vegetation & Animal |
|
| 37 | 21 F, 14 M, 2 ND | Kenya | Vegetation & Animal |
|
| 17 | 8 F, 7 M, 2 ND | Kenya | Vegetation & Animal |
| Total | 398 |
ND sex not determined, M male, F female
Fig. 1Geographical origin of ticks used for MALDI-TOF MS analysis in Kenya. The collection sites of the ambiguous Hyalomma species and the specimens obtained from outside Kenya are not shown
Tabular overview of 33 ticks additionally identified by COI molecular typing
| Morphological identification | BOLD identification | GenBank identification | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tick ID | COI gene length [bp] | Origin | Species ID | Species ID (Identity) | Species ID (Accession Nr.) | Identity |
|
| 711 | Field |
|
|
| |
|
| 688 | Field |
|
|
| |
| 32 | 687 | Field |
|
|
| |
| 109 | 686 | Field |
|
|
| |
|
| 692 | Lab |
|
|
| 97 % |
| 86 | 651a | Field |
|
|
| 99 % |
|
| 702 | Lab |
|
|
| 97 % |
| 27 | 688 | Field |
|
|
| 99 % |
| 74 | 688 | Field |
|
|
| 99 % |
| 118 | 680 | Field |
|
|
| 99 % |
|
| 688 | Lab |
|
|
| 99 % |
|
| 686 | Lab |
|
|
| 99 % |
|
| 680 | Lab |
|
|
| 99 % |
|
| 686 | Lab |
|
|
| 99 % |
|
| 689 | Field |
|
|
| 99 % |
|
| 99 % | |||||
|
| 688 | Field |
|
|
| 99 % |
|
| 684 | Field |
|
|
| 97 % |
|
| 555a | Field |
|
|
| 97 % |
|
| 693 | Lab (Kiambu) |
|
|
| 97 % |
|
| 687 | Lab (Muguga) |
|
|
| 98 % |
|
| 679 | Lab (Muguga) |
|
|
| 98 % |
|
| 687 | Field |
|
|
| 99 % |
| 146 | 673 | Field |
|
|
| 99 % |
|
| 690 | Lab |
|
|
| 99 % |
|
| 585a | Lab |
|
|
| 100 % |
|
| 689 | Field |
|
|
| 99 % |
|
| 694 | Field |
|
|
| 98 % |
|
| 688 | Lab |
|
|
| 98 % |
| 370 | 688 | Field |
|
|
| |
| 396 | 702 | Field |
|
|
| |
|
| 702 | Field |
|
|
| 99 % |
|
| 701 | Field |
|
|
| |
|
| 690 | Field |
|
|
|
ano consensus sequence
Marked in bold: Ticks later used for SSp. design
No reliable ID: Identity with top match < 97 %
Fig. 2Comparison of R. (B) microplus mass profiles to assess intraspecies reproducibility. a Visual comparison of spectral profiles derived from four specimens (A–D) indicates both significant similarity as well as individual differences in mass fingerprints. b Comparative analysis of 16 mass spectra, corresponding to ticks A–D measured in quadruplicates (spectrum 1–4). Vertically arranged are the total 93 different masses found amongst the 16 spectra. A white field indicates absence, a black or green field presence of the given mass in the respective spectrum. Highly conserved protein masses are marked in dark green (100 % abundance) or light green (abundant in at least 3 out of 4 technical replicates in all specimens)
Fig. 3Cladogram (neighbour joining algorithm) illustrating the inter species specificity of tick mass spectra. Spectral profiles of two technical replicates (A and B) of the 33 COI gene sequenced ticks were integrated to the analysis. Two spectra (*) of a solely morphologically identified R. pulchellus tick were added to the dataset to maintain a minimum number of two specimens per species
Superspectra designed in this study
| Name of SSp. | Condensed Mass Count | N (COI-typed) | Origin (N) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 24 | 4 (2) | Field (4) |
|
| 30 | 4 (2) | Lab (3), Field (1) |
|
| 29 | 4 (4) | Lab (4) |
|
| 24 | 4 (2) | Field (4) |
|
| 23 | 4 (2) | Field (4) |
|
| 14 | 4 (1) | Lab (2), Field (2) |
|
| 16 | 4 (2) | Lab (3), Field (1) |
|
| 21 | 4 (3) | Lab Muguga (2), Field (2) |
|
| 18 | 4 (1) | Lab Kiambu (4) |
|
| 19 | 4 (2) | Lab (2), Field (2) |
|
| 26 | 4 (1) | Field (4) |
|
| 18 | 4 (2) | Field (4) |
| Total | 48 (24) | Lab (20), Field (28) |
Validation of SSp. with 333 ticks
| Tick species name | N | True ID assigneda | No ID assigneda | Wrong ID assigneda | Sensitivity | Specificity | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4× CC | 3× CC 1× N | 2× CC 2× N | 3× CC 1× C | other | ||||||
|
| 21 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 81.00 % | 100.00 % |
|
| 36 | 16 | 9 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 100.00 % | 100.00 % |
|
| 15 | 11 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 86.70 % | 100.00 % |
|
| 14 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 85.70 % | 100.00 % |
|
| 10 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 90.00 % | 100.00 % |
|
| 37 | 25 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 100.00 % | 100.00 % |
|
| 20 | 6 | 8 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 100.00 % | 100.00 % |
|
| 74 | 53 | 13 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 98.60 % | 100.00 % |
|
| 5 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 80.00 % | 100.00 % |
|
| 51 | 34 | 9 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 98.00 % | 98.00 % |
|
| 33 | 15 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 100.00 % | 100.00 % |
|
| 17 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 94.10 % | 100.00 % |
| 182 | 66 | 23 | 19 | 29 | ||||||
| Total | 333 | 319 | 13 | 1 | 96.10 % | 99.70 % | ||||
aFor each tick, four technical replicate mass spectra were matched against designed SSp. and a final ID assigned accordingly
CC: one correct SSp. matching; C: multiple SSp. matching, correct SSp. as top match; N: no matching SSp
other: true ID was assigned based on a different combination
Fig. 4Phylogenetic relationship of 11 reference (NCBI) and 36 study ticks based on their COI gene sequences, illustrated as a maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree. Accentuated in green are top matching GenBank reference sequences. Asterisks (*) indicate non-consensus sequences. Scale: The bar length corresponds to 0.03 % (20 nt) difference in nucleotide sequence. Ref: Reference tick used to design SSp