| Literature DB >> 29793520 |
Chaima Bensaoud1, Milton Yutaka Nishiyama2, Cherif Ben Hamda3, Flavio Lichtenstein4, Ursula Castro de Oliveira2, Fernanda Faria4, Inácio Loiola Meirelles Junqueira-de-Azevedo2, Kais Ghedira3, Ali Bouattour5, Youmna M'Ghirbi1, Ana Marisa Chudzinski-Tavassi4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hard ticks are hematophagous ectoparasites characterized by their long-term feeding. The saliva that they secrete during their blood meal is their crucial weapon against host-defense systems including hemostasis, inflammation and immunity. The anti-hemostatic, anti-inflammatory and immune-modulatory activities carried out by tick saliva molecules warrant their pharmacological investigation. The Hyalomma dromedarii Koch, 1844 tick is a common parasite of camels and probably the best adapted to deserts of all hard ticks. Like other hard ticks, the salivary glands of this tick may provide a rich source of many compounds whose biological activities interact directly with host system pathways. Female H. dromedarii ticks feed longer than males, thereby taking in more blood. To investigate the differences in feeding behavior as reflected in salivary compounds, we performed de novo assembly and annotation of H. dromedarii sialotranscriptome paying particular attention to variations in gender gene expression.Entities:
Keywords: Camels; Gene enrichment; Gene expression; Hyalomma dromedarii tick; Sialotranscriptome; Tunisia
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29793520 PMCID: PMC5968504 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-018-2874-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Filter of Hyalomma dromedarii RNA-Seq raw data results
| Female | Male | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of reads | % of reads | No. of reads | % of reads | |
| Total reads (raw data) | 133,633,885 | – | 196,651,764 | – |
| Total good reads (approved) | 13,037,8067 | 97.56 | 191,575,365 | 97.42 |
| Total filtered reads (removed) | 3,255,818 | 2.44 | 5,076,399 | 2.58 |
| Too short after clip | 2,723,639 | 2.04 | 4,198,316 | 2.13 |
| Filtered on quality | 488,212 | 0,37 | 796,059 | 0.4 |
| Filtered on homopolymer | 39,730 | 0.03 | 75,314 | 0.04 |
| Filtered on low complexity | 4,237 | 0 | 6,710 | 0 |
| Trimmed reads (not totally removed) | 22,868,516 | 17.11 | 32,950,850 | 16.76 |
Fig. 1Functional classification of Hyalomma dromedarii tick transcripts. a Sialotranscriptome of H. dromedarii was divided into 4 categories: Housekeeping, Uncharacterized, Transposable elements and Secreted. b Housekeeping class of transcripts found in the sialotranscriptome of Hyalomma dromedarii (only families with high transcript count were represented)
Number of transcripts, KEGG orthologs (KOs) and enzymes summarized by class
| Transcripts | KOs | Enzymes | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oxidoreductases | 263 | 137 | 101 |
| Transferases | 628 | 365 | 209 |
| Hydrolases | 357 | 197 | 123 |
| Lyases | 79 | 50 | 39 |
| Isomerases | 52 | 32 | 24 |
| Ligases | 128 | 65 | 45 |
| No Enzymes | 1625 | 960 | 0 |
Fig. 2Secreted class of transcripts of the sialotranscriptome of Hyalomma dromedarii
Fig. 3Relative abundance for each secreted protein family
Fig. 4Differentially expressed enzyme families in H. dromedarii male and female ticks
Fig. 5Differentially expressed protease inhibitor families in H. dromedarii male and female ticks
Fig. 6a Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of putative monolaris based on the Kunitz domain. The sequences from Hyalomma dromedarii were obtained in this study and sequences from other ticks species and vertebrates are indicated and referred to their GenBank accession numbers. b LFC between genders, for Monolaris, only female significant transcripts were found
Fig. 7Calculated LFC = log2 (TPMfemale / TPM male) of H. dromedarri SG transcripts for different families. a Lipocalin. b Glycine-rich. Only transcripts with absolute value of LFC greater equal to 1 are plotted
Identification of ultra-conserved eukaryotic proteins from BUSCO
| Description | Total | % of total |
|---|---|---|
| Complete single-copy BUSCOs | 525 | 53.7 |
| Complete duplicated BUSCOs | 393 | 40.2 |
| Fragmented BUSCOs | 19 | 1.9 |
| Missing BUSCOs | 41 | 4.2 |
| Total BUSCO groups searched | 978 | – |
Fig. 8Enzyme Classification (EC) analysis of the transcriptome of H dromedarii. Number of EC number distribution of H. dromedarii compared with the number of transcripts, KEGG orthologs and enzymes