| Literature DB >> 29494599 |
Rawadee Kumlert1,2, Kittipong Chaisiri1,3, Tippawan Anantatat4, Alexandr A Stekolnikov5, Serge Morand6, Anchana Prasartvit2, Benjamin L Makepeace3, Sungsit Sungvornyothin1, Daniel H Paris4,7,8,9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conventional gold standard characterization of chigger mites involves chemical preparation procedures (i.e. specimen clearing) for visualization of morphological features, which however contributes to destruction of the arthropod host DNA and any endosymbiont or pathogen DNA harbored within the specimen. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPALEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29494599 PMCID: PMC5832206 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193163
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Schematic overview of images required for morphotyping (template panel).
A minimum set of 16 defined images are required to retrospectively confirm and differentiate chigger mites to the species level; images; 1 Scutum shape; 2 Scutum details; 3 Scutum eye; 4 Dorsal body setae; 5 Chelicerae; 6 Galeal setae; 7 Dorsal palpi; 8–10 Legs I-III; 11 Ventral body; 12 Ventral body setae; 13 Ventral palpi; 14–16 Coxa I-III. : the schematic drawing was prepared by co-author Kittipong Chaisiri.
Summary of rodents and mites collected from the Lao study, with subsequent morphotyping and genotyping.
| Rodent species | Rodents with chiggers | Rodent code | Chigger taxa | Successfully morphotyped | Successfully genotyped |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6/15 (40%) | L0499, L0516 | 4 | 3 | ||
| L0522, L0553 | 2 | 1 | |||
| L0556, L0568 | 18 | 9 | |||
| 6 | 3 | ||||
| 3 | 1 | ||||
| 0/1 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 1/1 | L0563 | 1 | 0 | ||
| 1 | 0 | ||||
| 5 | 2 | ||||
| 3/3 | L0560, L0561, L0562 | 11 | 4 | ||
| 1 | 1 | ||||
| 1 | 0 | ||||
| 3/9 (33%) | L0532, L0533 | 1 | 1 | ||
| L0538 | 7 | 0 | |||
| 3/4 (75%) | L0565, L0566 | 10 | 5 | ||
| L0567 | 1 | 0 | |||
| 2 | 1 | ||||
| 0/20 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 5/10 (50%) | L0523, L0540, L0542 | 7 | 7 | ||
| L0547, L0555 | 6 | 1 | |||
| 1 | 0 | ||||
| 6 | 2 | ||||
| 5/8 (63%) | L0508, L0524 | 10 | 1 | ||
| L0543, L0557 | 1 | 1 | |||
| L0569 | 1 | 0 | |||
| 3 | 1 | ||||
| 4 | 3 | ||||
Fig 2Fluorescence microscopy for trombiculid mite identification.
(A) UV light imaging (no filter) with distinct yellow-orange autofluorescence of the trombiculid mite dorsal scutum. (B) Characteristics of setae or claw structures are more delineated using multilayer bright-field imaging with a FITC filter where multiple composite images are combined into one; Walchia ewingi lupella leg III (scale bar 35 μm). (C) Autofluorescence (AF) imaging with a FITC filter provides clear scutum images of high resolution, ideal for measurements. Note the prominently fluorescing double eyes; Blankaartia acuscutellaris (scale bar 35 μm). (D) Comparison of AF and bright-field (BF) images with FITC filter of the same specimen by switching light-mode; morphological scutum details and setae insertions are rendered more precisely by AF alone, while in panel (E) setae, legs and gnathosome details are sharper when AF is combined with BF illumination, example Helenicula sp. (scale bar 10 μm). (F) The usually difficult-to-see setae on coxa III are clearly visible using AF-BF microscopy with FITC filter (scale bar 10 μm).
Mite characteristics requiring autofluorescence (AF) or bright-field (BF) based imaging.
| The mite specimen is positioned between two cover slips mounted with distilled water, and placed on a microscope glass slide. The double cover slip approach facilitates turning for ventral and dorsal imaging. | ||
| shape and size measurements | coxa I to III setae (base or insertion) | Multilayer images of leg including femur femur (basifemur and telofemur), genu, tibia and tarsus segment |
| setae/sensilla length, shape and arrangement | Leg I: claws, empodium, pretarsala, subterminala, parasubterminala, microtarsala, tarsala, microtibiala, tibialae, genualae and microgenuala | |
| scutum pitting, pigmentation | Gnathosoma; galeal setae | Leg II; claws, empodium, pretarsala, microtarsala, tarsala, tibialae, genuala |
| striate or punctuate patterns eyes | galeal setae (branched or nude) | Leg III; claws, empodium, mastitarsalae, mastitibiala, tibiala, genuala and mastifemorala |
| setae insertions are enhanced (advantage if setae are damaged or lost) | setae/sensilla length, shape and arrangement | 2- or 3-pronged palpal claws |
| striate or punctuate patterns on coxa | scutum pitting, pigmentation | setae on palps |
| arrangement of setae on the idiosoma | ||
| dorsal overview | idiosoma, scutum or legs | |
| barbed or nude | ||
Fig 3Comparison of autofluorescence (top panels) and bright-field (bottom panels) microscopy of the chigger mite scutum.
Fluorescence microscopy enables enhanced visualization of morphological outline, shape and details such as setae insertion points of the scuta. Images represent Ascoschoengastia sp. (A, F), Walchia sp. (B, G), Schoengastiella sp. (C, H) Leptotrombidium sp. (D, I), and Helenicula sp. (E, J).
Fig 4Template of 16 images used to document morphological characteristics prior to genotyping of the specimen.
The different panels depict the following: 1. Scutum shape (scale 35 μm); 2. Scutum details (scale 70 μm); 3. Eyes (scale 70 μm); 4. Dorsal idiosomal setae (scale 70 μm); 5. Chelicerae (scale 35 μm); 6. Galeal setae (scale 35 μm); 7. Dorsal view of palps (scale 35 μm); 8–10. Legs I-III (scale 70 μm); 11. Ventral view of idiosoma (scale 350 μm); 12. Ventral idiosomal setae (scale 70 μm); 13. Ventral view of palps (scale 35 μm); 14–16. Coxae I-III (scale 35 μm).
Fig 5Phylogenetic tree of all currently available coi gene sequences of morphotyped trombiculid mites (n = 52 new; n = 25 from GenBank).
This study provided 52 new coi gene sequences (marked by *, approx. 640 bp length) from Lao PDR (n = 47), Thailand (n = 4), Cambodia (n = 1), and included all available coi sequences from NCBI (n = 25). The phylogenetic tree constructed from these coi gene sequences demonstrated distinct grouping of assigned morphotypes at the genus levels. Although evidence of both genetic and morphological plasticity was found and sample sizes for each species were small, there was preliminary evidence of sub-structuring of chigger populations below the species level. Different branch colors indicate morphological classification of Trombiculidae [25]; blue = Walchia, purple = Neotrombicula, green = Ascoschoengastia, yellow = Schoutedenichia, orange = Schoengastia, pink = Blankaartia, red = Leptotrombidium. Black branch represents sequences of house dust mites (out group). This indicated that DNA extracted from specimens used for autofluorescence analysis was of sufficient quality for downstream PCR amplification.