Cargando…

Immune and biochemical responses in skin differ between bovine hosts genetically susceptible and resistant to the cattle tick Rhipicephalus microplus

BACKGROUND: Ticks attach to and penetrate their hosts’ skin and inactivate multiple components of host responses in order to acquire a blood meal. Infestation loads with the cattle tick, Rhipicephalus microplus, are heritable: some breeds carry high loads of reproductively successful ticks, whereas...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Franzin, Alessandra Mara, Maruyama, Sandra Regina, Garcia, Gustavo Rocha, Oliveira, Rosane Pereira, Ribeiro, José Marcos Chaves, Bishop, Richard, Maia, Antônio Augusto Mendes, Moré, Daniela Dantas, Ferreira, Beatriz Rossetti, Santos, Isabel Kinney Ferreira de Miranda
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5282843/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28143523
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13071-016-1945-z
_version_ 1782503403150114816
author Franzin, Alessandra Mara
Maruyama, Sandra Regina
Garcia, Gustavo Rocha
Oliveira, Rosane Pereira
Ribeiro, José Marcos Chaves
Bishop, Richard
Maia, Antônio Augusto Mendes
Moré, Daniela Dantas
Ferreira, Beatriz Rossetti
Santos, Isabel Kinney Ferreira de Miranda
author_facet Franzin, Alessandra Mara
Maruyama, Sandra Regina
Garcia, Gustavo Rocha
Oliveira, Rosane Pereira
Ribeiro, José Marcos Chaves
Bishop, Richard
Maia, Antônio Augusto Mendes
Moré, Daniela Dantas
Ferreira, Beatriz Rossetti
Santos, Isabel Kinney Ferreira de Miranda
author_sort Franzin, Alessandra Mara
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Ticks attach to and penetrate their hosts’ skin and inactivate multiple components of host responses in order to acquire a blood meal. Infestation loads with the cattle tick, Rhipicephalus microplus, are heritable: some breeds carry high loads of reproductively successful ticks, whereas in others, few ticks feed and reproduce efficiently. METHODS: In order to elucidate the mechanisms that result in the different outcomes of infestations with cattle ticks, we examined global gene expression and inflammation induced by tick bites in skins from one resistant and one susceptible breed of cattle that underwent primary infestations with larvae and nymphs of R. microplus. We also examined the expression profiles of genes encoding secreted tick proteins that mediate parasitism in larvae and nymphs feeding on these breeds. RESULTS: Functional analyses of differentially expressed genes in the skin suggest that allergic contact-like dermatitis develops with ensuing production of IL-6, CXCL-8 and CCL-2 and is sustained by HMGB1, ISG15 and PKR, leading to expression of pro-inflammatory chemokines and cytokines that recruit granulocytes and T lymphocytes. Importantly, this response is delayed in susceptible hosts. Histopathological analyses of infested skins showed inflammatory reactions surrounding tick cement cones that enable attachment in both breeds, but in genetically tick-resistant bovines they destabilized the cone. The transcription data provided insights into tick-mediated activation of basophils, which have previously been shown to be a key to host resistance in model systems. Skin from tick-susceptible bovines expressed more transcripts encoding enzymes that detoxify tissues. Interestingly, these enzymes also produce volatile odoriferous compounds and, accordingly, skin rubbings from tick-susceptible bovines attracted significantly more tick larvae than rubbings from resistant hosts. Moreover, transcripts encoding secreted modulatory molecules by the tick were significantly more abundant in larval and in nymphal salivary glands from ticks feeding on susceptible bovines. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with tick-susceptible hosts, genes encoding enzymes producing volatile compounds exhibit significantly lower expression in resistant hosts, which may render them less attractive to larvae; resistant hosts expose ticks to an earlier inflammatory response, which in ticks is associated with significantly lower expression of genes encoding salivary proteins that suppress host immunity, inflammation and coagulation. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13071-016-1945-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5282843
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-52828432017-02-03 Immune and biochemical responses in skin differ between bovine hosts genetically susceptible and resistant to the cattle tick Rhipicephalus microplus Franzin, Alessandra Mara Maruyama, Sandra Regina Garcia, Gustavo Rocha Oliveira, Rosane Pereira Ribeiro, José Marcos Chaves Bishop, Richard Maia, Antônio Augusto Mendes Moré, Daniela Dantas Ferreira, Beatriz Rossetti Santos, Isabel Kinney Ferreira de Miranda Parasit Vectors Research BACKGROUND: Ticks attach to and penetrate their hosts’ skin and inactivate multiple components of host responses in order to acquire a blood meal. Infestation loads with the cattle tick, Rhipicephalus microplus, are heritable: some breeds carry high loads of reproductively successful ticks, whereas in others, few ticks feed and reproduce efficiently. METHODS: In order to elucidate the mechanisms that result in the different outcomes of infestations with cattle ticks, we examined global gene expression and inflammation induced by tick bites in skins from one resistant and one susceptible breed of cattle that underwent primary infestations with larvae and nymphs of R. microplus. We also examined the expression profiles of genes encoding secreted tick proteins that mediate parasitism in larvae and nymphs feeding on these breeds. RESULTS: Functional analyses of differentially expressed genes in the skin suggest that allergic contact-like dermatitis develops with ensuing production of IL-6, CXCL-8 and CCL-2 and is sustained by HMGB1, ISG15 and PKR, leading to expression of pro-inflammatory chemokines and cytokines that recruit granulocytes and T lymphocytes. Importantly, this response is delayed in susceptible hosts. Histopathological analyses of infested skins showed inflammatory reactions surrounding tick cement cones that enable attachment in both breeds, but in genetically tick-resistant bovines they destabilized the cone. The transcription data provided insights into tick-mediated activation of basophils, which have previously been shown to be a key to host resistance in model systems. Skin from tick-susceptible bovines expressed more transcripts encoding enzymes that detoxify tissues. Interestingly, these enzymes also produce volatile odoriferous compounds and, accordingly, skin rubbings from tick-susceptible bovines attracted significantly more tick larvae than rubbings from resistant hosts. Moreover, transcripts encoding secreted modulatory molecules by the tick were significantly more abundant in larval and in nymphal salivary glands from ticks feeding on susceptible bovines. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with tick-susceptible hosts, genes encoding enzymes producing volatile compounds exhibit significantly lower expression in resistant hosts, which may render them less attractive to larvae; resistant hosts expose ticks to an earlier inflammatory response, which in ticks is associated with significantly lower expression of genes encoding salivary proteins that suppress host immunity, inflammation and coagulation. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13071-016-1945-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-01-31 /pmc/articles/PMC5282843/ /pubmed/28143523 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13071-016-1945-z Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Franzin, Alessandra Mara
Maruyama, Sandra Regina
Garcia, Gustavo Rocha
Oliveira, Rosane Pereira
Ribeiro, José Marcos Chaves
Bishop, Richard
Maia, Antônio Augusto Mendes
Moré, Daniela Dantas
Ferreira, Beatriz Rossetti
Santos, Isabel Kinney Ferreira de Miranda
Immune and biochemical responses in skin differ between bovine hosts genetically susceptible and resistant to the cattle tick Rhipicephalus microplus
title Immune and biochemical responses in skin differ between bovine hosts genetically susceptible and resistant to the cattle tick Rhipicephalus microplus
title_full Immune and biochemical responses in skin differ between bovine hosts genetically susceptible and resistant to the cattle tick Rhipicephalus microplus
title_fullStr Immune and biochemical responses in skin differ between bovine hosts genetically susceptible and resistant to the cattle tick Rhipicephalus microplus
title_full_unstemmed Immune and biochemical responses in skin differ between bovine hosts genetically susceptible and resistant to the cattle tick Rhipicephalus microplus
title_short Immune and biochemical responses in skin differ between bovine hosts genetically susceptible and resistant to the cattle tick Rhipicephalus microplus
title_sort immune and biochemical responses in skin differ between bovine hosts genetically susceptible and resistant to the cattle tick rhipicephalus microplus
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5282843/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28143523
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13071-016-1945-z
work_keys_str_mv AT franzinalessandramara immuneandbiochemicalresponsesinskindifferbetweenbovinehostsgeneticallysusceptibleandresistanttothecattletickrhipicephalusmicroplus
AT maruyamasandraregina immuneandbiochemicalresponsesinskindifferbetweenbovinehostsgeneticallysusceptibleandresistanttothecattletickrhipicephalusmicroplus
AT garciagustavorocha immuneandbiochemicalresponsesinskindifferbetweenbovinehostsgeneticallysusceptibleandresistanttothecattletickrhipicephalusmicroplus
AT oliveirarosanepereira immuneandbiochemicalresponsesinskindifferbetweenbovinehostsgeneticallysusceptibleandresistanttothecattletickrhipicephalusmicroplus
AT ribeirojosemarcoschaves immuneandbiochemicalresponsesinskindifferbetweenbovinehostsgeneticallysusceptibleandresistanttothecattletickrhipicephalusmicroplus
AT bishoprichard immuneandbiochemicalresponsesinskindifferbetweenbovinehostsgeneticallysusceptibleandresistanttothecattletickrhipicephalusmicroplus
AT maiaantonioaugustomendes immuneandbiochemicalresponsesinskindifferbetweenbovinehostsgeneticallysusceptibleandresistanttothecattletickrhipicephalusmicroplus
AT moredanieladantas immuneandbiochemicalresponsesinskindifferbetweenbovinehostsgeneticallysusceptibleandresistanttothecattletickrhipicephalusmicroplus
AT ferreirabeatrizrossetti immuneandbiochemicalresponsesinskindifferbetweenbovinehostsgeneticallysusceptibleandresistanttothecattletickrhipicephalusmicroplus
AT santosisabelkinneyferreirademiranda immuneandbiochemicalresponsesinskindifferbetweenbovinehostsgeneticallysusceptibleandresistanttothecattletickrhipicephalusmicroplus