ArticleScientific reports2019
Species-specific transcriptional profiles of the gut and gut microbiome of Ceratitis quilicii and Ceratitis rosa sensu stricto.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of gut microbiota of ladybug beetle (Harmonia axyridis) after feeding on different artificial diets.BMC microbiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The fruit fly species, Ceratitis rosa sensu stricto and Ceratitis quilicii, are sibling species restricted to the lowland and highland regions, respectively. Until recently, these sibling species were considered as allopatric populations of C. rosa with distinct bionomics. We used deep Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) technology on intact guts of individuals from the two sibling species to compare their transcriptional profiles and simultaneously understand gut microbiome and host molecular processes and identify distinguishing genetic differences between the two species. Since the genomes of both species had not been published previously, the transcriptomes were assembled de novo into transcripts. Microbe-specific transcript orthologs were separated from the assembly by filtering searches of the transcripts against microbe databases using OrthoMCL. We then used differential expression analysis of host-specific transcripts (i.e. those remaining after the microbe-specific transcripts had been removed) and microbe-specific transcripts from the two-sibling species to identify defining species-specific transcripts that were present in only one fruit fly species or the other, but not in both. In C. quilicii females, bacterial transcripts of Pectobacterium spp., Enterobacterium buttiauxella, Enterobacter cloacae and Klebsiella variicola were upregulated compared to the C. rosa s.s. females. Comparison of expression levels of the host transcripts revealed a heavier investment by C. quilicii (compared with C. rosa s.s.) in: immunity; energy production; cell proliferation; insecticide resistance; reproduction and proliferation; and redox reactions that are usually associated with responses to stress and degradation of fruit metabolites.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.