Decontamination protocols affect the internal microbiota of ticks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies on the microbiota of ticks have promoted hypotheses about the combined effects of the bacterial community, its functional contributions to the tick's physiology or probable competition effects with some tick-borne pathogens. However, knowledge on the origin of the microbiota of newly hatched larvae is missing. This study aimed to elucidate the source(s) of the microbiota in unfed tick larvae, addressing the composition of the "core microbiota" and the best ways to decontaminate eggs for microbiota studies. We applied laboratory degree bleach washes and/or ultraviolet light treatments on engorged Rhipicephalus australis females and/or their eggs. No significant effects of these treatments on the reproductive parameters of females and the hatching rates of eggs were observed. However, the different treatments did show striking effects on the composition of the microbiota. The results indicated that bleach washes disrupted the internal tick microbiota in females, implying that bleach may have entered the tick and subsequently affected the microbiota. Furthermore, the analyses of results demonstrated that the ovary is a main source of tick microbiota, while the contribution of Gené's organ (a part of the female reproductive system that secretes a protective wax coat onto tick eggs) or the male's spermatophore requires further investigation. Further studies are needed to identify best practice protocols for the decontamination of ticks for microbiota studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".