ArticleBMC microbiology2026
Comparative tissue-specific microbiome analyses identify keystone endosymbionts shaping pathogen interactions in dromedary camel ticks.
Article in BMC microbiology, 2026. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTicks are blood-feeding arthropods that carry diverse pathogenic and nonpathogenic microorganisms, yet their dynamics within tick tissues remain poorly understood. We compared the microbial communities in the haemolymph, saliva, ovaries, midgut, and salivary glands of individual Amblyomma gemma and Hyalomma rufipes sampled from dromedary camel using V1-V2 16S rRNA gene metabarcoding.
resultsThe haemolymph exhibited the highest bacterial diversity, followed by the saliva and ovaries, while the midgut and salivary glands had lower diversities. Keystone taxa exhibited varied connectivity across different tissues and played a crucial role in structuring microbial communities in both tick species. We exclusively detected Rickettsia africae in Am. gemma and Rickettsia aeschlimannii in Hy. rufipes. Both Rickettsia species showed negative correlations with dominant endosymbionts and environmental bacteria across multiple tissues. Coxiella endosymbionts were detected solely in Am. gemma and were most abundant in the salivary glands, while Francisella endosymbionts were dominant in Hy. rufipes’ salivary glands. Francisella endosymbionts were less abundant when R. aeschlimannii was high. In Am. gemma’s haemolymph and saliva, Wolbachia endosymbionts were prevalent, where they were inversely associated with R. africae at the individual tick level. In Hy. rufipes, Wolbachia endosymbionts were present in the ovaries, but not in the midgut. Candidatus Midichloria mitochondrii was found in all tissues of Hy. rufipes and predominantly in saliva, but was only detected in the ovaries, midgut, and salivary glands of Am. gemma. Positive interactions were found between Ca. Midichloria mitochondrii and R. aeschlimannii in Hy. rufipes’ saliva and ovaries, and Ca. Midichloria mitochondrii and Francisella endosymbionts in Am. gemma’s ovaries. Rickettsiella spp. were found in the saliva and haemolymph but not the midgut in both tick species. Environmental bacteria, such as Pseudomonas, Acinetobacter, Staphylococcus, and Corynebacterium, whilst abundant in the haemolymph and saliva were scarce in other tissues.
conclusionsTick tissue significantly influences bacterial composition, with tissue-specific interactions between pathogens and endosymbionts suggesting bacterial functional specialization. The complex interactions observed between key endosymbionts and Rickettsia pathogens across tissues, including negative correlations with Coxiella, Francisella, and Wolbachia endosymbionts, and positive correlations between Ca. Midichloria mitochondrii and R. aeschlimannii, require further investigation. Identified keystone taxa may serve as targets for anti-microbiota vaccines.
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.