2017
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189647
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Chagas disease vector blood meal sources identified by protein mass spectrometry

Abstract: Chagas disease is a complex vector borne parasitic disease involving blood feeding Triatominae (Hemiptera: Reduviidae) insects, also known as kissing bugs, and the vertebrates they feed on. This disease has tremendous impacts on millions of people and is a global health problem. The etiological agent of Chagas disease, Trypanosoma cruzi (Kinetoplastea: Trypanosomatida: Trypanosomatidae), is deposited on the mammalian host in the insect’s feces during a blood meal, and enters the host’s blood stream through muc… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
31
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 73 publications
(95 reference statements)
0
31
0
Order By: Relevance
“… 13 However, false-positive detection of human DNA not acquired from a blood meal is an important limitation of this detection methodology. 5 A study conducted by Keller et al 7 compared the effectiveness of short interspersed nuclear elements (SINE)-based PCR and liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) in laboratory-raised T. protracta in detection of laboratory mouse ( Mus musculus ) hemoglobin and albumin from a blood meal. LC-MS/MS was able to detect mouse hemoglobin up to four weeks post-feeding and 12 weeks post-molting in T. protracta whereas, the DNA-based detection technique using mouse-specific SINE-DNA was able to detect mouse blood up to one-week post-feeding, and did not detect mouse blood in the post-molt triatomines.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“… 13 However, false-positive detection of human DNA not acquired from a blood meal is an important limitation of this detection methodology. 5 A study conducted by Keller et al 7 compared the effectiveness of short interspersed nuclear elements (SINE)-based PCR and liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) in laboratory-raised T. protracta in detection of laboratory mouse ( Mus musculus ) hemoglobin and albumin from a blood meal. LC-MS/MS was able to detect mouse hemoglobin up to four weeks post-feeding and 12 weeks post-molting in T. protracta whereas, the DNA-based detection technique using mouse-specific SINE-DNA was able to detect mouse blood up to one-week post-feeding, and did not detect mouse blood in the post-molt triatomines.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… 2 Several techniques have been developed using DNA- and proteomics-based methodologies in an attempt to determine the blood meal sources of triatomines. 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 These procedures are sensitive and specific for identifying a blood meal source, but are not readily adaptable to field use. They require access to a laboratory with sophisticated equipment and trained personnel, are labor intensive, and are vulnerable to contamination and degradation of the blood meal.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As mentioned before, the lack of blood source detection by PCR can indicate either a recent blood meal from taxa not included in the survey or no recent blood meal [4,20,41]. Strong support for no recent blood meal is provided by recent studies based on mass spectrometry [54,55] including domestic vectors from El Salvador that show DNA based methods have a short window for blood meal detection [54], it would be interesting to examine T. dimidiata where no blood sources were detected by PCR from these three localities to strengthen the Ecohealth strategies proposed by this study.…”
Section: Blood Meal Source Profilesmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Recently, we have shown the usefulness of a protein-based method based on liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) for blood meal source identification. 29 A few studies have compared different methodologies directly. For example, Lucero et al compared 12 S sequencing and qPCR, 30 while Stevens et al compared 12 S sequencing and cytochrome b.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%