Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32257962›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2020

Methodological Insight Into Mosquito Microbiome Studies.

Sonia M Rodríguez-Ruano, Eliška Juhaňáková, Jakub Vávra, Eva Nováková

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Microbiota variation inMicrobiology spectrum · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Therapeutic Effects ofMicroorganisms · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sonia M Rodríguez-RuanoDepartment of Parasitology, Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia, Ceske Budejovice, Czechia.
Eliška JuhaňákováDepartment of Parasitology, Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia, Ceske Budejovice, Czechia.
Jakub VávraDepartment of Parasitology, Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia, Ceske Budejovice, Czechia.
Eva NovákováDepartment of Parasitology, Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia, Ceske Budejovice, Czechia.
University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice · CZCzech Academy of Sciences, Biology Centre · CZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Symbiotic bacteria affect competence for pathogen transmission in insect vectors, including mosquitoes. However, knowledge on mosquito-microbiome-pathogen interactions remains limited, largely due to methodological reasons. The current, cost-effective practice of sample pooling used in mosquito surveillance and epidemiology prevents correlation of individual traits (i.e., microbiome profile) and infection status. Moreover, many mosquito studies employ laboratory-reared colonies that do not necessarily reflect the natural microbiome composition and variation in wild populations. As a consequence, epidemiological and microbiome studies in mosquitoes are to some extent uncoupled, and the interactions among pathogens, microbiomes, and natural mosquito populations remain poorly understood. This study focuses on the effect the pooling practice poses on mosquito microbiome profiles, and tests different approaches to find an optimized low-cost methodology for extensive sampling while allowing for accurate, individual-level microbiome studies. We tested the effect of pooling by comparing wild-caught, individually processed mosquitoes with pooled samples. With individual mosquitoes, we also tested two methodological aspects that directly affect the cost and feasibility of broad-scale molecular studies: sample preservation and tissue dissection. Pooling affected both alpha- and beta-diversity measures of the microbiome, highlighting the importance of using individual samples when possible. Both RNA and DNA yields were higher when using inexpensive reagents such as NAP (nucleic acid preservation) buffer or absolute ethanol, without freezing for short-term storage. Microbiome alpha- and beta-diversity did not show overall significant differences between the tested treatments compared to the controls (freshly extracted samples or dissected guts). However, the use of standardized protocols is highly recommended to avoid methodological bias in the data.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaAedesAnimalsBacteriaCulexGastrointestinal MicrobiomeMicrobiological TechniquesMosquito VectorsPreservation, Biologicaldissectionepidemiologymicrobiomemosquitopoolingpreservationvector

Identifiers

PMID32257962
PMCPMC7089923
OpenAlexW3010669459

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.