↓ Skip to main content

Differential sialotranscriptomes of unfed and fed Rhipicephalus haemaphysaloides, with particular regard to differentially expressed genes of cysteine proteases

Overview of attention for article published in Parasites & Vectors, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Differential sialotranscriptomes of unfed and fed Rhipicephalus haemaphysaloides, with particular regard to differentially expressed genes of cysteine proteases
Published in
Parasites & Vectors, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13071-015-1213-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xinmao Yu, Haiyan Gong, Yongzhi Zhou, Houshuang Zhang, Jie Cao, Jinlin Zhou

Abstract

Rhipicephalus haemaphysaloides, a hard tick, is a common ectoparasite and can be found in many countries. It is recognized as the primary vector of bovine babesiosis in the south of China. During blood feeding, the tick's salivary glands secret numerous essential multifunctional proteins. In this study, a R. haemaphysaloides salivary gland transcriptome was described following the production and analysis of the transcripts from the two cDNA libraries of unfed and fed female ticks. The study focused on the differentially expressed genes and cysteine proteases, which play essential roles in the tick life cycle, that were detected most commonly in the up-regulation libraries. The sialotranscriptome was assembled and analyzed though bioinformatic tools and the cysteine protease which is differentially expressed form sialotranscriptome were confirmed by Real-time PCR in salivary glands and different developments of ticks. On the basis of sequence similarities with other species in various databases, we analyzed the unfed and fed sialotranscriptome of R. haemaphysaloides to identify the differentially expressed proteins secreted from the salivary glands during blood feeding and to investigate their biological functions. There were 25,113 transcripts (35 % of the total assembled transcripts) that showed significant similarity to known proteins with high BLAST from other species annotated. In total, 88 % and 89 % of the sequencing reads could be mapped back to assembled sequences in the unfed and fed library, respectively. Comparison of the abundance of transcripts from similar contigs of the two salivary gland cDNA libraries allowed the identification of differentially expressed genes. In total, there were 1179 up-regulated genes and 574 down-regulated genes found by comparing the two libraries. Twenty-five predicted cysteine proteases were screened from the transcript databases, whereas only six protein molecules were confirmed by gene cloning and molecular expression in E.coli which all belonged to the cysteine protease family. Bioinformatic evolutionary analysis showed the relationship of cysteine proteases in ticks with those of other species, suggesting the origin and conservation of these genes. Analysis of sequences from different tick species indicated the further relationships among the proteases, suggesting the closely related function of these genes. Thus, we confirmed their changes in unfed, fed and engorged ticks and salivary glands. The dynamic changes revealed their important roles in the tick life cycle. Our survey provided an insight into the R. haemaphysaloides sialotranscriptome. The dynamic changes of cysteine proteases in ticks will assist further study of these proteases, which may contribute to the development of anti-tick vaccines or drugs, as well as improving understanding of the roles of cysteine proteases in the tick life cycle.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 23%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 18%
Researcher 4 18%
Student > Master 2 9%
Professor 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 3 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 9%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 20 November 2015.
All research outputs
#14,828,686
of 22,833,393 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#3,083
of 5,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#214,220
of 386,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#78
of 157 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,833,393 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,467 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 386,426 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 157 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.