Skip to main content
Fig. 5 | Parasites & Vectors

Fig. 5

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

Fig. 5

Functional analysis of genes found tick-infested skins in common across comparisons of resistant (R) and susceptible (S) hosts. The functional analyses were done with MetaCore software (https://portal.genego.com/, Thomson Reuters). a The DEG were recruited to networks and the three most significant (P = 7.44e-13, P = 1.04e-15 and P = 7.44e-13) in Lar and Nym skins from both types of host (R and S) were merged. The merge shows the functional interactions of the recruited DEG: two DEG (HGM1/HGM2 and ISG15/PKR; red circles) were upregulated in RLar and RNym relative to reference skins (pathway depicted by green lines on the right of Fig. 5a) and two DEG (AKR1C2 and AKR1C3; blue circles) were downregulated in RLar and RNym, the same for the pathway depicted by purple lines on the left of Fig. 5a). b Another DEG was recruited to a significant (P = 9.77e-05) network in larvae- and nymph-infested skins from both breeds. The network recruited AL1A1 (blue circle), which was downregulated in RLar and RNym relative to reference skins

Back to article page