↓ Skip to main content

Reliability of molecular host-identification methods for ticks: an experimental in vitro study with Ixodes ricinus

Overview of attention for article published in Parasites & Vectors, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Reliability of molecular host-identification methods for ticks: an experimental in vitro study with Ixodes ricinus
Published in
Parasites & Vectors, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13071-015-1043-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elsa Léger, Xiangye Liu, Sébastien Masseglia, Valérie Noël, Gwenaël Vourc’h, Sarah Bonnet, Karen D. McCoy

Abstract

Reliable information on host use by arthropod vectors is required to study pathogen transmission ecology and to predict disease risk. Direct observation of host use is often difficult or impossible and indirect methods are therefore necessary. However, the reliability of currently available methods to identify the last host of blood-feeding arthropods has not been evaluated, and may be particularly problematic for ticks because host blood has been digested at capture. Biases in host detection may lead to erroneous conclusions on both vector ecology and pathogen circulation. Here, we experimentally tested for biases in host detection using the generalist three-host tick Ixodes ricinus as a model system. We fed ticks using an artificial feeding system and amplified blood meal traces post-moult (i.e., in the succeeding unfed life stage) via both a quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction assay and a reverse line blotting method. We then experimentally tested for three types of biases in host detection: 1) time post-moult, 2) tick life stage and 3) host type (non-nucleated mammal blood versus nucleated avian blood), and compared these biases between the two molecular methods. Our results show that all three factors can influence host detection in ticks but not necessarily in the expected way. Although host detection rates decreased with time post-moult, mammal blood tended to be more readily detected than bird blood. Tick life stage was also an important factor; detection was higher in nymphs than in adults and, in some cases, remnants from both larval and nymphal blood meals could be detected in the adult stage. These biases were similar for the two detection techniques. We show that different factors associated with questing ticks may influence our ability to correctly infer previous host use and that these factors may bias inferences from field-based studies. As these biases may be common to other vector-borne disease systems, their implications for our understanding of vector ecology and disease transmission require more explicit consideration.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Colombia 1 1%
Russia 1 1%
Unknown 65 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 32%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Student > Master 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 4%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 10 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 18%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 6 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 4%
Environmental Science 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 10 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 September 2015.
All research outputs
#6,423,996
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#1,462
of 5,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,719
of 266,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#20
of 130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,463 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,223 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 130 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.