| Literature DB >> 30889229 |
Aránzazu Portillo1, Ana M Palomar1, María de Toro2, Sonia Santibáñez1, Paula Santibáñez1, José A Oteo1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to characterize the bacterial microbiome of hard ticks with affinity to bite humans in La Rioja (North of Spain).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30889229 PMCID: PMC6424421 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213384
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Phyla-level relative abundance of reads for each tick species analyzed.
The histograms show the portion of MiSeq 16S rRNA gene sequences assigned to each phylum.
Fig 2Nucleotide alignment of ‘Candidatus Midichloriaceae’ partial 16S rRNA references (according to BLAST) versus closed undefined OTUs (according to Greengenes database).
Percentages of relative abundance of reads for genera within order Rickettsiales for each tick species (also by sex and stage when available) according to BLAST analysis.
| Tick species | Rickettsiales | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 85.011 | 3.526 | ND | 1.400 | 10.063 | |
| Female | 65.916 | 0.001 | ND | 0.010 | ND |
| Male | 0.007 | ND | ND | ND | 0.002 |
| Nymphs | 19.089 | 3.525 | ND | 1.390 | 10.061 |
| 0.976 | 0.018 | 96.697 | 2.059 | 0.251 | |
| Female | 0.242 | ND | 0.036 | 1.397 | ND |
| Male | 0.734 | 0.018 | 96.661 | 0.662 | 0.251 |
| 0.045 | ND | 0.099 | 99.955 | ||
| Female | 0.042 | ND | 0.099 | 69.057 | ND |
| Male | 0.003 | ND | ND | 30.897 | |
| 1.402 | 0.020 | 0.002 | 98.530 | 0.047 | |
| Female | 0.874 | 0.011 | 0.002 | 97.745 | 0.027 |
| Male | 0.528 | 0.009 | ND | 0.785 | 0.020 |
*Relative abundance of reads lower than 0.001%.
ND: not detected.
I.: Ixodes; H.: Haemaphysalis; D.: Dermacentor; R.: Rhipicephalus.
Compared values (mean and standard deviation) of alpha diversity indexes for tick species.
| Index values | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chao1 | 172.860 | 112.686 | 115.990 | 129.805 | |
| 18.502 | 26.982 | 32.106 | 31.377 | ||
| Fisher | 18.543 | 10.312 | 10.430 | 11.894 | |
| 2.818 | 2.747 | 3.825 | 3.370 | ||
| Margalef | 13.805 | 8.199 | 8.276 | 9.335 | |
| 1.776 | 2.021 | 2.752 | 2.419 | ||
| Observed OTUs | 163.200 | 99.704 | 101.636 | 114.467 | |
| 19.579 | 26.159 | 33.894 | 29.688 | ||
| PD whole tree | 14.642 | 9.881 | 10.732 | 11.006 | |
| 1.605 | 2.158 | 2.509 | 2.329 | ||
| Shannon | 3.381 | 0.529 | 0.453 | 1.060 | |
| 1.653 | 0.498 | 0.426 | 0.582 | ||
| Simpson | 0.698 | 0.114 | 0.096 | 0.301 | |
| 0.295 | 0.131 | 0.117 | 0.192 | ||
| Singles | 12.750 | 15.481 | 16.955 | 16.267 | |
| 6.995 | 5.352 | 5.085 | 5.058 | ||
std: standard deviation; I.: Ixodes; H.: Haemaphysalis; R.: Rhipicephalus; s.l.: sensu lato; D.: Dermacentor.
Fig 3Chao1 alpha diversity index showing differences among tick species.
Fig 4Principal Component Analysis (PCoA) generated among groups at genus level using Weighted UniFrac metric (a measure of differences in bacterial community structure).
Fig 5Cluster dendrogram generated among samples at OTU level using Bray Curtis distance index.