Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36993663›Full record

ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2023

Shivanand Hegde, Laura E Brettell, Shannon Quek, Kayvan Etebari, Miguel A Saldaña, Sassan Asgari, Kerri L Coon, Eva Heinz, Grant L Hughes

Open access · greenAbstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Shivanand HegdeDepartments of Vector Biology and Tropical Disease Biology, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool L3 5QA, UK.
Laura E BrettellDepartments of Vector Biology and Tropical Disease Biology, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool L3 5QA, UK.
Shannon QuekDepartments of Vector Biology and Tropical Disease Biology, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool L3 5QA, UK.
Kayvan EtebariAustralian Infectious Disease Research Centre, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Miguel A SaldañaDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, USA.
Sassan AsgariAustralian Infectious Disease Research Centre, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Kerri L CoonDepartment of Bacteriology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
Eva HeinzDepartments of Vector Biology and Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool L3 5QA, UK.
Grant L HughesDepartments of Vector Biology and Tropical Disease Biology, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool L3 5QA, UK.
Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine · GBThe University of Queensland · AUThe University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston · USUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

EMERGING AND TROPICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASEST32AI007526 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BR GALVESTON · PI SOONG, LYNN · 1997 to 2025
$3.1M
Exploiting gnotobiotic systems to examine microbiota acquisition in mosquitoes and for microbiome transplantationsR21AI138074 · NIAID · TMLIVERPOOL SCHOOL OF TROPICAL MEDICINE · PI HUGHES, GRANT LESLIE · 2018 to 2019
$296k
NIAID NIH HHS R21 AI138074NIAID NIH HHS T32 AI007526
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The mosquito microbiome is critical for host development and plays a major role in many aspects of mosquito biology. While the microbiome is commonly dominated by a small number of genera, there is considerable variation in composition among mosquito species, life stages, and geography. How the host controls and is affected by this variation is unclear. Using microbiome transplant experiments, we asked whether there were differences in transcriptional responses when mosquitoes of different species were used as microbiome donors. We used microbiomes from four different donor species spanning the phylogenetic breadth of the Culicidae, collected either from the laboratory or field. We found that when recipients received a microbiome from a donor reared in the laboratory, the response was remarkably similar regardless of donor species. However, when the donor had been collected from the field, far more genes were differentially expressed. We also found that while the transplant procedure did have some effect on the host transcriptome, this is likely to have had a limited effect on mosquito fitness. Overall, our results highlight the possibility that variation in mosquito microbiome communities are associated with variability in host-microbiome interactions and further demonstrate the utility of the microbiome transplantation technique.

Indexed as

Aedes aegyptiInsectMicrobiomeMosquitoRNA-SeqTranscriptomeTransplant

Identifiers

PMID36993663
PMCPMC10055144
OpenAlexW4327862453

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.