Ssfully complete their feeding, ticks have evolved strategies to circumvent innate ?immune responses when feeding on naive hosts and both innate and adaptive immune responses when feeding on get Benzocaine tick-experienced animals. Skin is the interface between the tick and the host. Skin acts as a physical 
barrier and also contains an array of resident immune cells such as eosinophils, mast cells, dendritic cells, macrophages and keratinocytes. Tick feeding and salivary gland molecules skew host immune response away from TH1 and toward a TH2 profile [3]. Salivary gland proteins and extracts have been shown to inhibit immune cells at the bite site and dendritic cell maturation and migration [4]. During tick feeding and attachment, significant morphological changes occur in salivary glands [5]. Salivation is not a continuous process during blood feeding [6] and therepertoire of salivary proteins changes during the course of feeding [7,8]. These temporal patterns allow the saliva proteins of the tick to “prime” the feeding site to different degrees prior to introduction of infectious agents. Not all tick-borne pathogens are transmitted at the same time during the feeding process. Tick-borne encephalitis was ML-281 chemical information observed to be transmitted within the first few hours of attachment/feeding, while Borrelia burgdorferi was observed to be transmitted between 24 and 48 hours post tick attachment/feeding [9,10,11]. We believe that the temporal expression of immunomodulatory tick salivary proteins secreted into the bite site depends on the pathogen it transmits. In this study, we sought to characterize tick-induced changes in cutaneous gene expression at the earliest stages of attachment/feeding by I. scapularis nymphs using Mouse Genome microarrays. This will allow us to understand immunomodulation at the tick-host interface induced by tick saliva that facilitates tick-borne virus transmission.Methods Ethics StatementAll experiments were conducted in an arthropod containment level 2 (ACL-2) facility in accordance with an animal use protocol approved by the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC).Tick-Host InterfaceAnimalsBALB/c mice used in this study were obtained from The Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, ME). Mice were cared for in accordance with guidelines of the Committee on Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (Institute of Laboratory 
Animal Resources National Research Council, Washington, DC).Station 450 and fluorescence detected with an Affymetrix-7G Gene Array scanner using the Affymetrix GeneChip Command Console software (AGCC1.1). Raw data can be accessed through Gene Expression Omnibus record GSE39100.Gene Expression Data AnalysisGene expression changes in comparison to tick-free mice were identified 15900046 using Partek Genomics Suite (Partek, MO) following the default gene expression workflow. The resulting values were then filtered for p-values #0.05 and a fold change # 21.5 or +1.5. Lists of up and downregulated genes at each time point were individually submitted to the Database for Annotation, Visualization, and Integrated Discovery (DAVID) [15,16] website using the Mouse Genome 430A 2.0 array as a background list. The functional annotation clustering tool was used to cluster gene ontology terms with shared genes into groups to allow an easier functional understanding of the array data. Gene expression data was also entered into ingenuity pathway analysis software (Ingenuity Systems, Redwood City, CA).Ssfully complete their feeding, ticks have evolved strategies to circumvent innate ?immune responses when feeding on naive hosts and both innate and adaptive immune responses when feeding on tick-experienced animals. Skin is the interface between the tick and the host. Skin acts as a physical barrier and also contains an array of resident immune cells such as eosinophils, mast cells, dendritic cells, macrophages and keratinocytes. Tick feeding and salivary gland molecules skew host immune response away from TH1 and toward a TH2 profile [3]. Salivary gland proteins and extracts have been shown to inhibit immune cells at the bite site and dendritic cell maturation and migration [4]. During tick feeding and attachment, significant morphological changes occur in salivary glands [5]. Salivation is not a continuous process during blood feeding [6] and therepertoire of salivary proteins changes during the course of feeding [7,8]. These temporal patterns allow the saliva proteins of the tick to “prime” the feeding site to different degrees prior to introduction of infectious agents. Not all tick-borne pathogens are transmitted at the same time during the feeding process. Tick-borne encephalitis was observed to be transmitted within the first few hours of attachment/feeding, while Borrelia burgdorferi was observed to be transmitted between 24 and 48 hours post tick attachment/feeding [9,10,11]. We believe that the temporal expression of immunomodulatory tick salivary proteins secreted into the bite site depends on the pathogen it transmits. In this study, we sought to characterize tick-induced changes in cutaneous gene expression at the earliest stages of attachment/feeding by I. scapularis nymphs using Mouse Genome microarrays. This will allow us to understand immunomodulation at the tick-host interface induced by tick saliva that facilitates tick-borne virus transmission.Methods Ethics StatementAll experiments were conducted in an arthropod containment level 2 (ACL-2) facility in accordance with an animal use protocol approved by the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC).Tick-Host InterfaceAnimalsBALB/c mice used in this study were obtained from The Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, ME). Mice were cared for in accordance with guidelines of the Committee on Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources National Research Council, Washington, DC).Station 450 and fluorescence detected with an Affymetrix-7G Gene Array scanner using the Affymetrix GeneChip Command Console software (AGCC1.1). Raw data can be accessed through Gene Expression Omnibus record GSE39100.Gene Expression Data AnalysisGene expression changes in comparison to tick-free mice were identified 15900046 using Partek Genomics Suite (Partek, MO) following the default gene expression workflow. The resulting values were then filtered for p-values #0.05 and a fold change # 21.5 or +1.5. Lists of up and downregulated genes at each time point were individually submitted to the Database for Annotation, Visualization, and Integrated Discovery (DAVID) [15,16] website using the Mouse Genome 430A 2.0 array as a background list. The functional annotation clustering tool was used to cluster gene ontology terms with shared genes into groups to allow an easier functional understanding of the array data. Gene expression data was also entered into ingenuity pathway analysis software (Ingenuity Systems, Redwood City, CA).
