Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38844266›Full record

ArticleMolecular and biochemical parasitology2024

Comparison of the effect of bacterial stimulation on the global epigenetic landscape and transcription of immune genes in primarily zoophilic members of the Anopheles gambiae complex (Diptera: Culicidae).

Nashrin F Patel, Blaženka D Letinić, Leanne Lobb, Jacek Zawada, Dumsani M Dlamini, Nondumiso Mabaso, Givemore Munhenga, Shüné V Oliver

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular and biochemical parasitology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

8 authors.

Nashrin F PatelCentre for Emerging Zoonotic and Parasitic Diseases, National Institute for Communicable Diseases of the National Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg, South Africa; Wits Research Institute for Malaria, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Blaženka D LetinićCentre for Emerging Zoonotic and Parasitic Diseases, National Institute for Communicable Diseases of the National Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg, South Africa; Wits Research Institute for Malaria, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Leanne LobbCentre for Emerging Zoonotic and Parasitic Diseases, National Institute for Communicable Diseases of the National Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg, South Africa; Wits Research Institute for Malaria, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa; Clinical HIV Research Unit, Wits Health Consortium, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Jacek ZawadaCentre for Emerging Zoonotic and Parasitic Diseases, National Institute for Communicable Diseases of the National Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg, South Africa; Wits Research Institute for Malaria, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa; South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) National Zoological Gardens, Pretoria, South Africa.
Dumsani M DlaminiWits Research Institute for Malaria, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Nondumiso MabasoWits Research Institute for Malaria, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Givemore MunhengaCentre for Emerging Zoonotic and Parasitic Diseases, National Institute for Communicable Diseases of the National Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg, South Africa; Wits Research Institute for Malaria, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Shüné V OliverCentre for Emerging Zoonotic and Parasitic Diseases, National Institute for Communicable Diseases of the National Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg, South Africa; Wits Research Institute for Malaria, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. Electronic address: shuneo@nicd.ac.za.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Members of the Anopheles gambiae complex vary in their vector competence, and this is often attributed to behavioural differences. Similarly, there are differences in transmission capabilities of the zoophilic members of this complex despite exhibiting similar behaviours. Therefore, behavioural differences alone cannot fully explain vector competence variation within members of the An. gambiae complex. The immune system of mosquitoes plays a key role in determining susceptibility to parasite infection and consequently transmission capacity. This study aimed to examine variations in the immune response of An. arabiensis, An. merus and An. quadriannulatus, a major, minor, and non-vector respectively. The global epigenetic landscape was characterised and the expression of Defensin-1 and Gambicin was assessed in response to Gram-positive (Streptococcus pyogenes) and Gram-negative (Escherichia coli) bacterial infections. The effect of insecticide resistance in An. arabiensis on these aspects was also assessed. The immune system was stimulated by a blood-borne bacterial supplementation. The 5mC, 5hmC, m6A methylation levels and Histone Acetyl Transferase activity were assessed with commercial ELISA kits. The transcript levels of Defensin-1 and Gambicin were assessed by quantitative Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction. Species-specific differences in 5mC and m6A methylation existed both constitutively as well as post immune stimulation. The epigenetic patterns observed in the laboratory strains were largely conserved in F1 offspring of wild-caught adults. The methylation patterns in the major vector typically differed from that of the minor/non-vectors. The differences between insecticide susceptible and resistant An. arabiensis were more reflected in the expression of Defensin-1 and Gambicin. The expression of these peptides differed in the strains only after bacterial stimulation. Anopheles merus and An. quadriannulatus expressed significantly higher levels of antimicrobial peptides, both constitutively and after immune stimulation. These findings suggest molecular variations in the immune response of members of the An. gambiae complex.

Indexed as

AnophelesEpigenesis, GeneticAnimalsDefensinsEscherichia coliFemaleInsect ProteinsDefensinsInsect ProteinsAnopheles arabiensisAntimicrobial peptidesEpigeneticsHistonesInsecticide resistanceMethylation

Identifiers

PMID38844266
PMCPMC11611454

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.