↓ Skip to main content

Nanopore adaptive sampling for targeted mitochondrial genome sequencing and bloodmeal identification in hematophagous insects

Overview of attention for article published in Parasites & Vectors, February 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Nanopore adaptive sampling for targeted mitochondrial genome sequencing and bloodmeal identification in hematophagous insects
Published in
Parasites & Vectors, February 2023
DOI 10.1186/s13071-023-05679-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Evan J. Kipp, Laramie L. Lindsey, Marissa S. Milstein, Cristina M. Blanco, Julia P. Baker, Christopher Faulk, Jonathan D. Oliver, Peter A. Larsen

Abstract

Blood-feeding insects are important vectors for an array of zoonotic pathogens. While previous efforts toward generating molecular resources have largely focused on major vectors of global medical and veterinary importance, molecular data across a large number of hematophagous insect taxa remain limited. Advancements in long-read sequencing technologies and associated bioinformatic pipelines provide new opportunities for targeted sequencing of insect mitochondrial (mt) genomes. For engorged hematophagous insects, such technologies can be leveraged for both insect mitogenome genome assembly and identification of vertebrate blood-meal sources. We used nanopore adaptive sampling (NAS) to sequence genomic DNA from four species of field-collected, blood-engorged mosquitoes (Aedes and Culex spp.) and one deer fly (Chrysops sp.). NAS was used for bioinformatical enrichment of mtDNA reads of hematophagous insects and potential vertebrate blood-meal hosts using publically available mt genomes as references. We also performed an experimental control to compare results of traditional non-NAS nanopore sequencing to the mt genome enrichment by the NAS method. Complete mitogenomes were assembled and annotated for all five species sequenced with NAS: Aedes trivittatus, Aedes vexans, Culex restuans, Culex territans and the deer fly, Chrysops niger. In comparison to data generated during our non-NAS control experiment, NAS yielded a substantially higher proportion of reference-mapped mtDNA reads, greatly streamlining downstream mitogenome assembly and annotation. The NAS-assembled mitogenomes ranged in length from 15,582 to 16,045 bp, contained between 78.1% and 79.0% A + T content and shared the anticipated arrangement of 13 protein-coding genes, two ribosomal RNAs, and 22 transfer RNAs. Maximum likelihood phylogenies were generated to further characterize each insect species. Additionally, vertebrate blood-meal analysis was successful in three samples sequenced, with mtDNA-based phylogenetic analyses revealing that blood-meal sources for Chrysops niger, Culex restuans and Aedes trivittatus were human, house sparrow (Passer domesticus) and eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), respectively. Our findings show that NAS has dual utility to simultaneously molecularly identify hematophagous insects and their blood-meal hosts. Moreover, our data indicate NAS can facilitate a wide array of mitogenomic systematic studies through novel 'phylogenetic capture' methods. We conclude that the NAS approach has great potential for broadly improving genomic resources used to identify blood-feeding insects, answer phylogenetic questions and elucidate complex pathways for the transmission of vector-borne pathogens.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 17%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 9 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 31%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 11 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 February 2023.
All research outputs
#3,524,531
of 24,229,740 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#765
of 5,708 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,048
of 456,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#14
of 113 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,229,740 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,708 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 456,090 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 113 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.