4.4 Article

Identification of field-caught Culicoides biting midges using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time of flight mass spectrometry

期刊

PARASITOLOGY
卷 139, 期 2, 页码 248-258

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0031182011001764

关键词

Culicoides; biting midge; MALDI-TOF MS; identification; insect; vector

资金

  1. Swiss Federal Veterinary Office [1.08.10]
  2. University of Zurich ('Forschungskredit') [4974]
  3. BBSRC [BBS/E/I/00001701] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BBS/E/I/00001701] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Culicoides biting midges are of great importance as vectors of pathogens and elicitors of allergy. As an alternative for the identification of these tiny insects, matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) was evaluated. Protein mass fingerprints were determined for 4-5 field-caught reference (genetically confirmed) individuals of 12 Culicoides species from Switzerland, C. imicola from France, laboratory-reared C. nubeculosus and a non-biting midge. Reproducibility and accuracy of the database was tested in a validation study by analysing 108 mostly field-caught target Culicoides midges and 3 specimens from a non-target species. A reference database of biomarker mass sets containing between 24 and 38 masses for the different species could be established. Automated database-based identification was achieved for 101 of the 108 specimens. The remaining 7 midges required manual full comparison with the reference spectra yielding correct identification for 6 specimens and an ambiguous result for the seventh individual. Specimens of the non-target species did not yield identification. Protein profiling by MALDI-TOF, which is compatible with morphological and genetic identification of specimens, can be used as an alternative, quick and inexpensive tool to accurately identify Culicoides biting midges collected in the field.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据