Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Jul 8;21(7):e0353174. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0353174

Geographic and Orientia infection status influence on the bacterial microbiome of free-living chiggers in North Carolina, USA

Kaiying Chen 1, Nicholas V Travanty 1, Reuben A Garshong 1,2, Gideon Wasserberg 2, Charles S Apperson 1, R Michael Roe 1, Loganathan Ponnusamy 1,*
Editor: Yong Qi3
PMCID: PMC13345271  PMID: 42418460

Abstract

Chiggers (larval Trombiculid mites) serve as vectors for Orientia species that cause scrub typhus, a potentially serious illness in humans with a broadening global distribution. To date, there is limited research on the chigger microbiome in the United States (US) compared to some other parts of the world. Investigating chigger bacterial communities is essential for understanding the potential role they play in pathogen transmission dynamics within these arthropods. This study investigated the bacterial communities of free-living chiggers collected from sites across the three ecoregions in North Carolina using 16S rDNA gene targeted next-generation sequencing. Molecular identification of the chigger revealed three species: Eutrombicula splendens, Eutrombicula tinami, and Pseudoschoengastia sp. All three trombiculid mite species occurred at least once in the Mountains and Piedmont, except for E. tinami, which was absent from the Coastal Plain ecoregion. Microbiome analysis revealed significant differences in alpha and beta diversity among the collection sites for E. splendens. No significant differences in overall microbiome diversity were observed between E. splendens and Pseudoschoengastia sp., the two dominant chigger species. However, the microbiome of E. splendens alone exhibited significant differences in both Shannon diversity and beta diversity between Orientia-infected and uninfected individuals. Within E. splendens, genera like Brevibacillus and Telluria were more abundant in Orientia-positive chiggers, while Methylobacterium was more abundant in Orientia-negative chiggers. We also found potentially pathogenic bacterial genera, including Rickettsia, Listeria, Legionella, Staphylococcus, and Streptococcus sequences. These findings suggest that geography and Orientia infection influence chigger-associated bacterial communities, potentially affecting their vector competence.

Introduction

Chiggers are the ectoparasitic larval stage of mites in the families Trombiculidae and Leeuwenhoekiidae [1] that feed predominantly on terrestrial vertebrates, particularly rodents [2,3]. Worldwide, there are over 3,000 known species of trombiculid mites. Although Orientia has been detected in about 50 of these mite species, only about 10–15 are confirmed competent vectors of Orientia [4–9]. Chiggers typically feed on lymph and skin cells of their host. Their accessory chemicals and/or structures they make when feeding (the stylostome) can cause a type of dermatitis known as trombiculiasis [10], a condition which can affect both humans and animals. Chiggers, like some other arthropods, can be infected with different pathogens. Chiggers harboring Orientia are capable of transmitting the pathogen to humans and other animals during feeding, resulting in scrub typhus. Scrub typhus is a widespread disease, with an estimated one billion people at risk and approximately one million cases reported annually [11]. The median mortality rate for treated scrub typhus patients is approximately 1.4%; however, in untreated individuals, mortality can range from 6% to as high as 40%, depending on geographic location and the pathogenic strain involved [12–15]. Factors that affect chigger distribution, such as climate, geography, and changes in human land use, play a role in the global distribution and abundance of scrub typhus. Historically, scrub typhus was only reported in the region known as the Tsutsugamushi Triangle, which encompasses areas from Pakistan to eastern Russia to northern Australia [16]. Initially, Orientia tsutsugamushi was the only known causative agent of the disease. However, cases of scrub typhus caused by Orientia chuto were reported from the United Arab Emirates in 2006 [17], and Candidatus Orientia chiloensis was identified on Chiloé Island in southern Chile in 2020 [18]. The discovery that the two recently described Orientia species form distinct clades from O. tsutsugamushi and are found in regions outside its known range suggests that scrub typhus may be more geographically widespread and caused by a broader variety of Orientia species than previously recognized.

In addition to Orientia, the detection of other zoonotic microbes in chiggers has increased. Several studies have identified Rickettsia species known to infect humans, such as R. japonica, R. akari, R. felis, R. conorii, R. typhi, and other closely related species, in chiggers collected from wild rodents in Korea [19] and Taiwan [20]. The Candidatus Rickettsia colombianensi and R. felis were detected in chiggers collected from rodents and birds in Brazil [21,22]. More recently, in the United States, our group reported, for the first time, the presence of R. felis and other spotted fever group (SFG) Rickettsia spp. in chiggers collected from wild rodents [23]. Aside from pathogenic bacteria, hantavirus-specific RNA (Bayou strain) has also been detected in both rodent-associated and free-living trombiculid mites in Texas, USA [24]. The factors shaping the chigger microbiome, and thus the presence or absence of specific microbes, may include host biology, ecological interactions, and abiotic environmental conditions.

The microbiomes of organisms are essential to their functioning [25] and can reflect phylogenetic relationships, as different species coexisting in the same habitat often have species-specific microbiomes [26,27]. Studying the chigger microbiome is therefore crucial for understanding how biotic and abiotic factors across space, as well as the presence or absence of pathogenic microbes, shape their bacterial communities. By characterizing the microbiomes of different trombiculid mites and identifying their core and variable components, we may better understand efforts to control scrub typhus. Previous studies from Thailand [3,28,29], Saudi Arabia [30], Japan [31], and the United States [32] have identified over one hundred bacterial genera in free-living and host-associated chiggers. The bacterial composition varies with location and whether the chiggers are collected from hosts or free-living, highlighting the influence of both environment and host association. In Thailand, Takhampunya et al. [29] found that Corynebacterium, Bacillus, and Staphylococcus were dominant among host-associated chiggers and also detected pathogens such as Bartonella, Borrelia, and Orientia, as well as arthropod endosymbionts such as Francisella, Coxiella, Wolbachia, and Candidatus Cardinium. Chaisiri et al. [3] also reported a highly diverse microbiota, including Orientia and Borrelia, in chiggers collected from small mammals. In southwestern Saudi Arabia, Alkathiry et al. [30] reported Burkholderiaceae, Corynebacterium, Candidatus Cardinium, Mycobacterium, Staphylococcus, and Wolbachia as dominant taxa in chiggers from rodents. Similarly, Richardson et al. [32] found Corynebacterium, Propionibacterium, and Methylobacterium to be the most abundant taxa in chiggers from rodents in North Carolina, USA, along with potential pathogens Orientia and Rickettsia. In Japan,Ogawa et al. [31] identified obligate intracellular bacteria such as Rickettsia, Wolbachia, and Rickettsiella in free-living Leptotrombidium scutellare larvae.

Recently, we collected free-living chiggers in 10 different sites across the three ecological regions (i.e., Mountains, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain) of North Carolina, USA, and found that five sites (three in the Piedmont and two in the Coastal Plain) were infected with Orientia spp. [33]. However, that study focused exclusively on characterizing the occurrence of Orientia in US free-living chiggers. Another study examined the microbiome of rodent-associated chiggers from several counties in North Carolina and assessed how it differed across rodent and chigger species [32]. More recently, antibodies to Orientia tsutsugamushi were detected in serum samples from patients with eschars in NC [34]. In this study, we aimed to better understand the microbiome of free-living, unfed, chiggers collected from nine different geographic locations that encompass the three ecoregions of North Carolina. We hypothesize that the composition of the chigger microbiome may influence their vector competence for Orientia and other pathogenic bacteria. Furthermore, we hypothesize that the chigger microbiome is shaped by multiple factors, including geographic location, chigger species, host species, and infection status with Orientia spp. To address these hypotheses, we asked three questions: (1) Do chigger-associated bacterial communities differ in abundance and diversity among chigger species? (2) Does the presence of Orientia affect the abundance and diversity of these bacterial communities? and (3) Does the composition of the chigger microbiome vary by geographic location?

Materials and methods

Chigger collection

In 2022, free-living chiggers were collected from nine sites in North Carolina, USA, spanning the states three ecoregions: the Coastal Plain, a flat, humid region in the east with sandy soils, wetlands, pine forests, low to moderate urbanization and large scale farming; the Piedmont, most urbanized among the three ecoregions, forms the central area of NC with rolling hills and clay-rich soils, mixed hardwood forests, and a moderate climate and agriculture; and the Mountain in the west, part of the Appalachian range, characterized by rugged terrain, cooler temperatures, and rich forests including spruce-fir at higher elevations. The Mountain ecoregion is relatively more rural and has limited, small scale agriculture. Aside from each ecoregion having distinct vegetation and wildlife, its environmental conditions also differ, shaping the local ecosystem. The sites by ecoregions were in the mountains, Lake James State Park, (LJSP); Piedmont, Morrow Mountain State Park (MMSP), Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge (PDNWR), Jordan Lake State Recreation Area (JLSRA), William B. Umstead State Park (WBUSP), Falls Lake State Recreation Area (FLSRA); and Kerr Lake State Recreation Area (KLSRA), and Coastal Plain, Lumber River State Park (LRSP) and Croatan National Forest (CNF) (Fig 1). Maps were generated using QGIS (QGIS Development Team). The basemap shapefile used for spatial visualization was obtained from the DIVA-GIS database (https://diva-gis.org/data.html), which provides freely available geographic data for research purposes. Administrative boundary shapefiles from this source were used as the base layer onto which study data were plotted. No proprietary basemap services were used. Chigger collection was conducted under a wildlife collection license issued by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (permit #22-SC01252) and a scientific research and collecting permit issued by the North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation (permit #2022_0642). The black tile method [35] was used to collect the free-living chiggers. Black tiles (10.8 cm each side) were placed on the ground, and after approximately one minute, we visually inspected them for chiggers. They appear as red moving objects (typically <  250 μm) on the tiles. When chiggers were observed, we carefully collected them with a 1.2 mm camelhair brush and transferred them into vials containing 95% ethanol for preservation. Chiggers from each location were stored separately as a group, and once identified, the DNA extraction was conducted separately on individual chiggers.

Fig 1. Map of sites in the different ecoregions of North Carolina, USA where free-living chiggers, with or without Orientia, were collected.

Fig 1

Sites shown with a red triangle indicate where chiggers with Orientia were found. Chigger sites without Orientia are shown with a green diamond symbol.

To ensure the inclusion of only the epidemiologically relevant larval (chigger) stage, all specimens were examined under a stereomicroscope. They were confirmed to be hexapod (six-legged) larvae, thereby distinguishing them from octopod (eight-legged) nymphal and adult stages. For species identification, representative specimens (10–15%) from each collection site were randomly selected, slide-mounted, and examined via compound microscopy (including oil immersion) using standard taxonomic keys [36–38]. Species identification was performed by Dr. Dac Crossley, Curator of the Acari collection at the Georgia Museum of Natural History.

DNA extraction and chigger identification

Individual, free-living chiggers were surfaced sterilized [28] and total nucleic acids were extracted using a QIAGEN DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit (QIAGEN, Valencia, CA, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. A total of 120 chiggers were initially processed individually for DNA extraction. After surface sterilization, each chigger was placed into an individual sterile microcentrifuge tube containing approximately ten sterile 3-mm glass beads (Cat. No. 11-312A, Fisher Scientific) along with appropriate volumes of ATL buffer and Proteinase K, according to the DNA extraction kit protocol. Samples were homogenized using a FastPrep FP120 cell homogenizer (Thermo Electron Corporation, Waltham, MA, USA) and incubated at 56 °C for 1 h. Subsequently, AL buffer was added to each tube, mixed thoroughly, and incubated again at 56 °C for 1 h. DNA was then purified and eluted in 50 μL of nuclease-free water, and the eluate was stored at −20 °C until further use. DNA quantity and quality were initially assessed using NanoDrop spectrophotometry. Twenty-five samples did not yield detectable DNA and were excluded from further analysis. The remaining 95 samples were subjected to molecular identification using 18S ribosomal RNA gene primers and PCR [39]. The PCR products were Sanger sequenced at Eton Bioscience, Inc. (Research Triangle Park, NC, USA).

The sequences were queried using BLASTn against the NCBI nucleotide database to identify the chigger species using homologous sequences. Although 18S amplification was successful for all samples, 26 chigger samples produced ambiguous sequences, likely due to non-specific amplification. Consequently, 69 samples yielded high-quality sequences suitable for identification, while the 26 ambiguous samples were excluded from the final analysis. Sequence similarity thresholds of 99–100% were considered indicative of the same species. To reduce the risk of introducing foreign DNA, we used pre-sterilized tubes, pipettes, and filter tips that were UV-irradiated for 15 minutes prior to use. Dedicated pipettes and filter tips were maintained separately for DNA extraction and PCR setup to prevent cross-contamination. PCR reactions were prepared in a laminar flow hood.

16S rRNA gene amplification, Illumina library construction and sequencing

The 16S rRNA sequence library of individual chiggers was constructed following the Illumina 16S rRNA metagenomics sequencing library preparation protocol (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA). The V3-V4 region of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene was then amplified using 341F/806R primers with previously used thermocycling conditions [40]. Each PCR assay included a negative control, which contained all reagents with DNA-free water as the template. Following amplification, all samples, including the negative control, were analyzed on a 1.5% agarose gel, and no amplification was detected in the negative control. Consequently, the negative controls were not processed for Illumina sequencing. The amplicons were purified using AMPure XP beads (AXYGEN, Big Flats, NY, USA). Then, index PCR was performed to barcode amplicons from each chigger. This was followed by another round of DNA purification using beads. Finally, samples were sent to the Microbiome Core Facility, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (Chapel Hill, NC, USA) for sequencing, on an Illumina MiSeq platform (300 bp paired-end reads).

Bioinformatic and statistical analysis

Illumina FASTQ files were analyzed using the Quantitative Insights into Microbial Ecology 2 (QIIME2) software [41]. The Divisive Amplicon Denoising Algorithm 2 (DADA2) plugin was used for trimming and filtering, denoising, merging paired-end reads, and removing chimeras and amplicon sequence variant (ASV) inference [42]. Low-quality regions, forward and reverse reads were truncated at 280 and 220 nucleotides, respectively. Taxonomy assignments were performed using the Greengenes2 (2024.09) full-length backbone Naive Bayes classifier [43]. Alpha and beta diversity analyses were calculated using the QIIME 2 diversity core-metrics-phylogenetic plugin pipeline, and all the samples were rarefied to 25,000 sequences (based on the lowest read count among samples) to ensure an even sampling depth.

Alpha diversity (diversity within samples) was assessed using three metrics: the number of ASVs, which quantifies richness by counting unique ASVs; Shannon diversity, which accounts for both the abundance and evenness of ASVs [44]; and Faith’s phylogenetic diversity, which incorporates phylogenetic relatedness among ASVs [45]. The Kruskal–Wallis test (p ≤ 0.05) was performed to determine statistical significance of alpha-diversity metrics. Beta diversity (Bray–Curtis index) was calculated using the weighted UniFrac distance metric, which incorporates both phylogenetic relationships and relative abundances. EMPeror [46] was used for visualization of principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) plots. PERMANOVA tests (p ≤ 0.05) were used to test the statistical significance of β-diversity measurements. Statistical differences in bacterial community composition were also tested using PERMANOVA [47], which is particularly appropriate for analyzing unbalanced and non-orthogonal datasets. Analyses were conducted to compare: (i) the two most abundant chigger species (E. splendens and Pseudoschoengastia sp.), (ii) nine collection sites distributed across the ecoregions of NC (sample sizes for each site are provided in S1 Table), and (iii) Eutrombicula splendens chiggers infected versus uninfected with Orientia. We identified bacterial taxa that are differentially abundant between Orientia-infected and uninfected chiggers using ANCOM-BC (Analysis of Composition of Microbiomes with Bias Correction) in the q2-composition plugin, with compositional bias correction, unequal sequencing depths, and controls for false discovery rate to reduce false positives [48].

Phylogenetic analyses of Rickettsia, Listeria, Legionella, Staphylococcus and Streptococcus

Phylogenetic trees were constructed to verify and/or refine the evolutionary relationships of Rickettsia, Listeria, Legionella, Staphylococcus, and Streptococcus sequence variants identified in this study, using closely related sequences retrieved from the NCBI database through BLASTn analysis (accessed on June 12, 2025). Maximum-likelihood (ML) phylogenetic trees were generated using the Kimura two-parameter model in the MEGA 11 software [49]. Bootstrap support values were calculated based on 1,000 resampling iterations. The phylogenetic analysis of Orientia has already been described by Chen et al. [33].

Results

Chigger identification

A total of 69 chigger samples (individual chiggers) used in this study were collected from nine recreational parks in North Carolina, USA (Fig 1). Six to nine chiggers were used from each collection site for this study. To identify the chiggers, 18S ribosomal RNA gene amplicon sequences from each were analyzed by BLASTn. Fifty-four samples showed 99–100% identity with homologous sequences of E. splendens (accession no. KY922159); four samples showed 100% identity with homologous sequences of E. tinami (accession no. ON870584); and eleven samples showed 95.2–96.3% identity with homologous sequences of Pseudoschoengastia petrolinensis. In the latter case because the level of similarity is below the species-level threshold for 18S rRNA (which requires nearly identical sequences due to the conserved nature of the marker), species-level assignment was not reliable. However, morphological characteristics were consistent with the genus Pseudoschoengastia. Therefore, these specimens were assigned only to the genus level.

Summary of chigger sampling and identification is in S1 Table.

Overall sequencing results

A total of 11,548,050 raw sequencing reads were obtained across the 69 chigger samples using Illumina 16S rRNA sequencing. Following quality filtering and denoising with the DADA2 algorithm, 6,554,232 high-quality reads were retained, with a median of 108,534 reads per sample. A total of 3,575 ASVs were obtained and used in downstream analyses. The median observed ASVs per sample was 91. The percentages of ASVs classified were phylum (100%), class (100%), order (99.2%), family (98.2%), and genus (93.0%). These sequencing reads were taxonomically classified into 38 bacterial phyla, 77 classes, 213 orders, 407 families, and 797 genera, reflecting a diverse and complex bacterial community associated with the chigger samples. The rarefaction curves of observed ASVs reached plateaus for all samples, indicating that a sequencing depth of 25,000 was adequate to retrieve most of the bacterial taxa in our samples (Fig 2, Fig 3, S1 Fig).

Fig 2. Rarefaction curves of the average number of observed features of free-living chiggers, Eutrombicula splendens, among nine different collection sites.

Fig 2

Error bars represent the standard error of the means. Each symbol corresponds to chiggers collected from a specific site. LJSP, Lake James State Park; MMSP, Morrow Mountain State Park; PDNWR, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge; LRSP, Lumber River State Park; JLSRA, Jordan Lake State Recreational Area; WBUSP, William B. Umstead State Park; FLSRA, Falls Lake State Recreational Area; KLSRA, Kerr Lake State Recreational Area; CNF, Croatan National Forest.

Fig 3. Rarefaction curves of the average number of observed features of free-living Eutrombicula splendens chiggers with or without Orientia.

Fig 3

Error bars represent the standard error of the means.

Alpha diversity

Comparison among chigger species: Three metrics were used to measure the bacterial species diversity constituting the chigger microbiome, namely observed ASVs, the Shannon’s diversity index and the Faith’s phylogenetic diversity index. Due to the limited number of samples available for E. tinami (n = 4), these were excluded from the diversity analysis. No significant differences in Observed ASVs, which focuses on the richness in terms of the number of unique ASVs, were detected between E. splendens and Pseudoschoengastia sp. (Kruskal–Wallis test, H = 1.68, p = 0.19; S2A Fig). Similarly, Shannon diversity, which accounts for species richness and evenness, revealed no significant differences between the two groups (Kruskal–Wallis test, H = 0.13, p = 0.71; S2B Fig). The Faith’s phylogenetic diversity, which incorporates phylogenetic relatedness, also did not differ significantly between species (Kruskal–Wallis test, H = 0.13, p = 0.71; S2C Fig).

Effect of geographic location: We selected only E. splendens samples, the most abundant and present in all nine sites among the three chigger species, to test whether microbiome composition varied across sites. The number of observed ASVs differed significantly among the sites (Kruskal–Wallis test, H = 25.33, p = 0.001; Fig 4A). Similarly, the Shannon diversity index indicated significant differences in diversity across sites (Kruskal–Wallis test, H = 30.16, p = 0.002; Fig 4B). In contrast, the Faith’s phylogenetic diversity metric did not reveal significant differences among locations (Kruskal–Wallis test, H = 12.28, p = 0.14; Fig 4C).

Fig 4. Alpha diversity measures of the bacterial microbiomes of free-living chiggers Eutrombicula splendens among nine different collection sites.

Fig 4

(A) Observed ASVs, (B) Shannon diversity and (C) Faith’s phylogenetic diversity. LJSP, Lake James State Park; MMSP, Morrow Mountain State Park; PDNWR, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge; LRSP, Lumber River State Park; JLSRA, Jordan Lake State Recreational Area; WBUSP, William B. Umstead State Park; FLSRA, Falls Lake State Recreational Area; KLSRA, Kerr Lake State Recreational Area; CNF, Croatan National Forest.

We also investigated whether the presence of Orientia was associated with differences in microbiome diversity within E. splendens. No significant differences were found between Orientia-positive and -negative samples based on Observed ASVs (Kruskal–Wallis test, H = 0.69, p = 0.41; Fig 5A) or the Faith’s phylogenetic diversity (Kruskal–Wallis test, H = 1.13, p = 0.29; Fig 5C). However, a significant difference was observed using the Shannon diversity index (Kruskal–Wallis test, H = 10.54, p = 0.001; Fig 5B).

Fig 5. Alpha diversity measures of the microbiomes of free-living chiggers, Eutrombicula splendens, with or without Orientia.

Fig 5

(A) Observed ASVs, (B) Shannon diversity and (C) Faith’s phylogenetic diversity.

Beta diversity

Beta diversity was assessed using weighted UniFrac distances. By species, Principal Coordinates Analysis (PCoA) revealed no distinct clustering and no significant differences between E. splendens and Pseudoschoengastia sp. (S3 Fig; PERMANOVA, p = 0.125). In contrast, significant differences in bacterial microbiome composition were observed among E. splendens samples from the nine sites (Fig 6; PERMANOVA, p = 0.001), as well as between samples positive and negative for Orientia (Fig 7; PERMANOVA, p = 0.001). Pairwise PERMANOVA comparisons among the nine collection sites for E. splendens are summarized in S2 Table. Again, beta diversity for E. tinami was not analyzed due to its small sample size.

Fig 6. Principal Coordinate Analysis (PCoA) of the bacterial composition of free-living chiggers, Eutrombicula splendens, among the nine different collection sites.

Fig 6

Each site is represented by a different color. Analysis was based on the weighted Unifrac metric. LJSP, Lake James State Park; MMSP, Morrow Mountain State Park; PDNWR, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge; LRSP, Lumber River State Park; JLSRA, Jordan Lake State Recreational Area; WBUSP, William B. Umstead State Park; FLSRA, Falls Lake State Recreational Area; KLSRA, Kerr Lake State Recreational Area; CNF, Croatan National Forest.

Fig 7. Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) of the bacterial microbiome of free-living chiggers, Eutrombicula splendens, infected and uninfected with Orientia.

Fig 7

Bacterial community composition

The four most abundant bacterial genera across all chigger samples from E. splendens were Sphingomonas (15.53%), Telluria (13.78%), Brevibacillus (10.59%), and Methylobacterium (5.43%). Fig 8 displays the relative abundance of genus level bacterial taxa in chiggers collected from the nine sites. Brevibacillus, Telluria, and Sphingomonas were particularly abundant in samples from LRSP (27.2%, 28.4%, and 15.3%, respectively), JLSRA (15.5%, 31.5%, and 26.1%), WBUSP (9.1%, 19.3%, and 19.7%), FLSRA (11.3%, 23.4%, and 27.4%), and KLSRA (35.6%, 31.0%, and 20.5%). In contrast, Flavobacterium showed higher relative abundance in samples from LJSP (6.1%), MMSP (5.3%), PDNWR (8.3%), and CNF (10.7%).

Fig 8. Relative abundance of major bacteria at genus level for Eutrombicula splendens chiggers collected from nine different sites in North Carolina, NC.

Fig 8

Some of the taxa were only identified to class or family level. In the legend, “Other” refers to the taxa with relative abundance lower than 1%, “f_” represents family and “g_” represents genus. LJSP, Lake James State Park; MMSP, Morrow Mountain State Park; PDNWR, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge; LRSP, Lumber River State Park; JLSRA, Jordan Lake State Recreational Area; WBUSP, William B. Umstead State Park; FLSRA, Falls Lake State Recreational Area; KLSRA, Kerr Lake State Recreational Area; CNF, Croatan National Forest.

Additionally, we detected a potentially pathogenic genus Rickettsia, found in 4.3% of samples, with a median relative abundance of 0.15% in the infected samples. Genus Listeria was detected in 2.8% of samples, with a median relative abundance of 0.18% among the infected samples. Genus Legionella was detected in 13.0% of samples, with a median relative abundance of 0.05% among the infected samples. Genus Staphylococcus was detected in 87.0% of samples, with a median relative abundance of 1.6% among the infected samples. Genus Streptococcus was detected in 75.4% of samples, with a median relative abundance of 0.65% among the infected samples.

The relative abundance of bacterial taxa in chiggers with and without Orientia are shown in Fig 9. Brevibacillus, Telluria, and Sphingomonas were the dominant genera in Orientia-positive chiggers (31.2%, 30.1%, and 17.9%, respectively) and were also present, though at lower abundances, in Orientia-negative chiggers (5.3%, 9.6%, and 14.9%, respectively). The bacterial community in chiggers without Orientia appeared more diverse, with no single genus overwhelmingly dominating. Differentially abundant taxa between Orientia-positive and Orientia-negative chiggers were identified using the ANCOM-BC test, with results presented in S4 Fig. In Orientia-positive chiggers, the genera Brevibacillus, Variovorax, Delftia, Paenibacillus, Cohnella, Telluria and Sphingomonas, and the family Paenibacillaceae were significantly more abundant. In contrast, Propionibacterium was the most significantly depleted genus compared to Orientia-negative chiggers (Fig 9).

Fig 9. Relative abundance of major bacteria at the genus level for free-living Eutrombicula splendens chiggers with or without Orientia.

Fig 9

Some of the taxa were only identified to class or family level. In the legend, “Other” refers to the taxa with relative abundance lower than 1%, “f_” represents family and “g_” represents genus.

Phylogenetic analyses

To further identify Rickettsia spp. sequences, one ASV classified within the genus Rickettsia and 14 closely related species identified via BLASTn searches were used to construct phylogenetic trees using the maximum-likelihood (ML) method (S5 Fig). The phylogenetic analysis indicated that the Rickettsia ASV clustered with the R. bellii strain 369L42-1 (NR_036774) and the R. akari strain MK Kaplan (NR_029154) with 100% sequence similarity, and with R. australis (L36101) with 99.75% similarity. In genus Listeria, three ASVs were classified, and 17 closely related species were included in a phylogenetic tree constructed using the same ML approach (S6 Fig). The analysis revealed that Listeria ASV #1 clustered with Listeria monocytogenes (MK014484) with 100% similarity. Listeria ASVs #2 and #3 were most closely related to the L. immobilis strain FSL L7-1519 (NR_181103), showing over 98.13% sequence similarity. In the genus Legionella, 8 ASVs were identified. Phylogenetic analysis (S7 Fig) revealed that 6 AVS were closely related to Legionella pneumophila and L. fallonii (97.34%–97.98%). Two ASVs were closely related to L. massiliensis (97.66%–97.89%). In Staphylococcus, 48 ASVs were identified, with pairwise sequence similarities ranging from 97.6% to 99.9%. Phylogenetic analysis (S8 Fig) revealed three major groups: Group 1 (25 ASVs) was closely related to S. epidermidis and S. capitis (98.36%–99.9%); Group 2 (16 ASVs) to S. aureus S. warneri and S. ratti (98.23%–99.9%); and Group 3 (7 ASVs) to S. pettenkoferi (98.1%–100%) showing sequence similarity with their closest relatives. In Streptococcus, 38 ASVs were identified, with pairwise similarities ranging from 96.4% to 100%. Phylogenetic analysis (S9 Fig) grouped them into six clusters: Group 1 (7 ASVs) was closely related to S. vulneris (98.5%–100%), Group 2 (8 ASVs) to S. australis (99.4%–99.9%), Group 3 (3 ASVs) to S. sanguinis (99.53%–100%), Group 4 (7 ASVs) to S. lingualis (97.1%–99.8%), Group 5 (6 ASVs) to S. anginosus (90.06%–99.9%) and Group 6 (8 ASVs) to S. parasalivarius (98.6%–99.8%).

Discussion

Chiggers are widespread on the planet and found in diverse ecological regions [3,50,51]. However, little to no knowledge exists on the microbiome of chiggers in the United States. The goal of our work here was to determine whether chigger species, ecological region and Orientia infection affect the microbiome of free-living chiggers in the US in North Carolina. Understanding more about the microbiome of free-living chiggers and the factors that influence it will improve our knowledge of the risks these mites pose to humans in North America.

Orientia spp. which cause the human disease, scrub typhus, has traditionally been associated with transmission through the bites of free-living chiggers in the Asia-Pacific region. However, more recent studies have detected Orientia in the Middle East and South America [17,50,52,53], raising the possibility of its presence in North America as well. We recently reported, for the first time in North America, specifically in North Carolina, USA, the presence of Orientia in both free-living chiggers [33] and rodent attached chiggers [32]. This challenges the current paradigm in the United States, which holds that chiggers do not transmit disease-causing microbes to humans. Our findings suggest that Orientia is likely circulating enzootically within the U.S., warranting further investigation into its potential public health impact. In addition to Orientia, chiggers have been found to harbor other pathogens, including Rickettsia, Borrelia, Bartonella, and Anaplasma spp., as well as hantavirus [50], though their role as vectors of these microbes to humans remains uncertain.

Distribution of different free-living chigger species in NC

In this current study, we haphazardly surveyed for free-living chiggers on a west to east transit covering three ecological areas, i.e., the mountains, the Piedmont and the coastal plain of NC (Fig 1). All collections were in public parks where people are exposed to chigger bites. Eutrombicula splendens was found in all three ecoregions and at all collection sites except for the Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge (PDNWR; Fig 1) in the Piedmont ecoregion suggesting that E. splendens is a common chigger species not restricted to a specific ecoregion of NC. The E. splendens within each ecoregion are more local than ephemeral because the distance from our western mountain collection sites to close to the ocean in the east is 518–766 km with very different types of vegetation and climates and can therefore not be transported from the mountain ecoregion in the west to the eastern coastal ecoregion. Pseudoschoengastia sp., which was first recorded in Brazil in 2019 [54] but never in the USA, was not found in our mountain site (S1 Table) but was collected North to South in the piedmont as well as the Coastal regions. In contrast, E. tinami was found only at our mountain site and at two of our Piedmont sites. Alternatively, the low number collected and at limited sites could indicate that the species are rare or were simply missed based on our haphazard sampling design. The season we collected these chiggers probably affected our detection of these trombiculid mite species. Some chigger species prefer one season over others [55]. This may also be a reason for observing low abundances of Pseudoschoengastia sp. and E. tinami compared to E. splendens. A more thorough surveillance design, which will incorporate the effect of seasonal variations and site locations (i.e., north, mid, or south), could probably provide a better understanding of the mite species distribution across the state. Chaisiri et al. [3] in Thailand found that chigger species richness was positively correlated with latitude and negatively correlated with human land use. Chigger diversity was also higher in the dry season. Another study in China [56] found a humped shape pattern between chigger diversity on hosts and latitude. The negative effect of human land use on chigger species richness was attributed to loss of biodiversity with increasing anthropogenic activities such as agriculture and urbanization [3].

Differences in the microbiomes between chigger species

Orientia-infection was found in 13 E. splendens and one Pseudoschoengastia sp. collected from three sites in the Piedmont and one site in the coastal plain (Fig 1). All the four E. tinami were negative for Orientia, but this may be due to their small sample size (n = 4) and hence, their exclusion from the microbiome comparisons. No differences in the microbiomes were found between E. splendens and Pseudoschoengastia sp. based on all three alpha diversity measures, i.e., observed ASV numbers (S2-A Fig), Shannon diversity (S2-B Fig), and the Faith’s phylogenetic diversity (S2-C Fig). Similar to alpha diversity metrics, the beta diversity analysis also showed no significant difference between E. splendens and Pseudoschoengastia sp. (S3 Fig). This result was unexpected, as the comparison involved different chigger genera. However, they were collected at the same geographical sites suggesting their environmental exposure to bacteria would be the same, and this might explain their similar microbiome. These results also suggest they have similar mechanisms to internalize bacteria from their common habitat. There is clear evidence of species-specific microbial signatures in some ticks [57], while others have remarkable similarities across different species and genera (where ticks share similar habitats, host ranges, or physiological characteristics). Namina et al. [58] found significant overlap in the core microbiomes of Ixodes ricinus and I. persulcatus which was attributed to their common environmental exposure and feeding behavior. Thus, the similar diversity metrics observed in E. splendens and Pseudoschoengastia sp. may reflect a stable, functionally constrained microbiome derived from the environment rather than taxon-specific microbial diversity.

Geographical variations in the E. splendens microbiome

Most of the chiggers we collected were E. splendens and occurred in all three ecoregions. We therefore used this species to examine whether there were geographical differences in the free-living chigger microbiomes. The results were mixed, i.e., the numbers of observed ASVs were different (Fig 4A) across ecoregions and so was the Shannon diversity index (Fig 4B), but there was no difference in the Faith’s phylogenetic diversity metric (Fig 4C). These findings were not too surprising since we do not expect phylogenetic variations within the same species. There exist differences in bacterial microbiome alpha diversity across different spaces. Previous studies have shown before that latitudinal gradients were positively correlated with increased chigger species richness [3,59]. However, research on the impact of the environment on the microbiome of free-living chiggers is scarce and most of what we do understand is from host associated chiggers. This is mainly because the convenience of collecting attached chiggers from trapped rodents is greater than actively searching for highly aggregated, free-living chiggers that walk across small black tiles. For host associated chiggers collected from small mammals in oil palm in Malaysia (which included chiggers from the genus Eutrombicula and Leptotrombidium), the dry season increased chigger populations and Orientia infection, thereby increasing the risk for scrub typhus [60]. Possible explanations are a change in the chigger microbiome and/or in chigger host interactions across seasons. Elliott et al. [61] found that O. tsutsugamushi-positive hosts and chiggers were related to the ending dry and wet seasons. It also was shown that human scrub typhus infection rates were associated with higher relative humidity [62] although the mechanism is unknown. Our group has recently found geographical differences in the microbiome of rodent collected chiggers within the same ecoregions of NC [32]. This study showed that the highest bacterial species richness and percentage of unique ASVs were from the hispid cotton rat in the eastern part of the Piedmont ecoregion. However, other parts of the Piedmont had low but unique ASVs. Chiggers collected in the mountain ecoregion close to the western Piedmont had similar alpha diversity to those that were some distance away in the Piedmont. Environment can affect host microbiomes and in turn that of host-associated chiggers [32,63]. In addition, specific chigger endosymbionts [28,64], the digestive system microbiome, and co-feeding on the same animal can also affect the internal bacterial community. For example, relative to the latter, O. tsutsugamushi was horizontally transferred from infected chiggers to uninfected chiggers of a different species while both were feeding on the same host [65,66]. Furthermore, Orientia infection may also be a factor influencing the chigger internal microbiome (discussed later), and Richardson et al. [32] found that chiggers collected from hispid cotton rats had greater bacterial diversity compared to chiggers collected from the white-footed mouse. Our research here makes a significant advancement in understanding the impact of habitat on the microbiome of free-living chiggers, and clearly more work is needed to understand the factors that shape this larval mite microbiome. In NC, the only positive chiggers for Orientia were found close to the border between the Piedmont and coastal plain. This coastal plain and the Piedmont area is comprised of flat land and used for agriculture, implying that human land use changes may be positively driving Orientia infection rates among chiggers in NC.

Bacterial composition of Orientia infected and non Orientia infected chiggers

The microbiome of Orientia infected chiggers was clearly different from chiggers not infected with Orientia (Fig 9). Brevibacillus, Telluria and Sphignomonas were abundant in Orientia positive chiggers at 31.2%, 30.1%, and 17.9%, respectively, as compared to Orientia negative chiggers at 5.3%, 9.6%, and 14.9%, respectively. The bacterial community in the latter was more diverse with no single genus overwhelmingly dominating the community. The ANCOM-BC test showed Brevibacillus, Variovorax, Delftia, Paenibacillus, Cohnella, Telluria, Paenibacillaceae, and Sphingomonas were enhanced when Orientia was present, while Propionibacterium was less abundant when compared to chiggers without Orientia. These observations are correlative and do not prove a biological function. This impact of Orientia presence on the microbiome was shown before in chiggers. Infection with O. tsutsugamushi influenced the abundance and diversity of other bacterial taxa in L. imphalum. A mutualistic relationship was observed between O. tsutsugamushi and a novel Amoebophilaceae species in a laboratory colony of chiggers in Thailand [28]. This discovery in free living chiggers in NC and its similarity to a similar finding for chiggers in Thailand, strongly suggest Orientia infection might require co-infection with other bacteria, likely due to both contributing to each other, factors that sustain their chigger infection. This co-dependence may also be important at some level in vertebrate host infections. This clearly needs further study.

The free-living chigger microbiome is expected to be different from that of host-associated chiggers due to the possible acquisition of internal and external bacteria from the host in variable proportions. A microbiome analysis of rodent collected chiggers in Saudi Arabia found the dominant genera to be Corynebacterium, Mycobacterium, Staphylococcus, Candidatus Cardinium, Burkholderiaceae and Wolbachia along with potential pathogenic O. chuto and a Coxiella burnetii-like microbe in the chiggers, Ericotrombidium kazeruni and Pentidionis agamae [30]. Chaisiri et al. [3] found as dominant in rodent collected Thailand chiggers Sphingobium, Mycobacterium, Neisseriaceae and Bacillales. They also found O. tsutsugamushi, Borrelia spp. (in L. delicense), Staphylococcus and Haemophilus parainfluenzae from multiple chigger species. Richardson et al. [32] studying the microbiome of chiggers collected from hispid cotton rats, Sigmodon hispidus and white-footed mouse, Peromyscus leucopus, in North Carolina, USA, found that the chigger microbiomes were atypical, except for those from Saudi Arabia [30] which were the most similar to NC. This similarity could reflect similarity in the microbial environment of the rodent hosts between the two geographically distinct collection sites Only a few studies have looked at the effect of factors, such as, life stage and the presence or absence of pathogens [28], host [3,32], seasonality, habitat and the environment [3], on the chigger microbiome.

Presence of other potentially pathogenic bacteria

We detected Rickettsia spp. in only three chiggers (4.3%) across all E. splendens collections from nine sampling locations in NC. In contrast, Richardson et al. [32] reported a higher prevalence (16.7%) of Rickettsia spp. in host-associated chiggers. Field-collected chiggers have also been found infected with Rickettsia spp. in Thailand [67], Taiwan [20], and NC, US [23]. In the US study, the Rickettsia-positive chiggers were collected, and sequence analyses revealed high similarity to Rickettsia bellii, R. australis, and R. akari [23]. These species are known human pathogens typically transmitted by ticks, mites, or fleas. These findings raise further questions about the role of chiggers in the transmission of Rickettsia spp. to humans, particularly regarding pathogens more commonly linked to other arthropod vectors.

We also detected Legionella spp. in 9 chiggers collected during our survey. This was unexpected, raising questions about the potential role of chiggers in the ecology of these bacteria. While Legionella is predominantly known as an aquatic bacterium residing within protozoa [68], its presence has been sporadically reported in association with other terrestrial and arthropod systems, underscoring its adaptability. More critically, Legionella is known to survive and replicate within free-living amoebae, which themselves can be found in association with various arthropods (e.g., in tick guts or mosquito larvae) as part of their environmental microbiome [69]. This indirect association suggests that arthropods could potentially carry Legionella-laden amoebae or Legionella cells acquired from environmental sources. To our knowledge, this study may represent the first report of Legionella pneumophila detection in chiggers, highlighting the potential need to expand surveillance and preventive efforts beyond established rodent-borne pathogens to include L. pneumophila as a possible zoonotic threat.

A noteworthy observation was the substantial amount of genus Streptococcus and Staphylococcus present in free living NC chiggers. Staphylococcus, a potentially pathogenic genus that was the most prevalent taxa among all samples with a higher frequency in both Orientia-infected and uninfected chiggers. The association of the Staphylococcus genus with chiggers was significant and aligns with a growing body of literature demonstrating the widespread association of these bacterial groups with various arthropods. Numerous studies have identified Staphylococcus species in various tick species, often within their gut, salivary glands, and even transovarial movement [70,71]. Tick bites, in general, are recognized as potential entry points for secondary bacterial infections, including those caused by Staphylococcus aureus [72]. This aligns with previous studies that found Staphylococcus in Leptotrombidium imphalum and Amblyomma cajennense [28,73,74]. While the role of Staphylococcus in the chigger microbiome remains unclear, it may be linked to the horizontal transmission of chigger-borne pathogens from the host skin microbiome [75]. Similarly, Streptococcus spp. have also been detected in ticks, although they are not typically considered primary tick-borne disease agents in the same way as Borrelia or Rickettsia. Microbiome studies of various tick species, including Ixodes scapularis, reveal diverse bacterial communities, which can include Streptococcus as part of the acquired environmental or host-derived flora [76,77]. Similar to tick bites, chigger bites that break the skin can become secondarily infected by common skin bacteria, including Streptococcus spp., leading to localized cellulitis or have other infections [72]. While direct research on Streptococcus persistence or replication within tick tissues is less extensive compared to other pathogens, their presence indicates exposure and potential for transient carriage.

Conclusions

We found multiple species of larval trombiculid mites chiggers in NC with E. splendens and Pseudoschoengastia sp. dominant across ecoregions. Orientia-infected chiggers in NC were exclusive to the border between the Piedmont and coastal plain. It is not clear whether this is a consequence of our limited, haphazard sampling or the true effect of habitat, the environment, host effects, and/or a founder effect. The chigger microbiome was similar by multiple measures between the two widely distributed chigger species from different genera. In the dominant chigger species, E. splendens, the microbiome changed by most measures based on NC geography, and the microbiome diversity in these chiggers was greatly reduced by Orientia infection with clear dominant non-Orientia bacteria. This association of Orientia with a particular subset of bacterial species suggests that the establishment of Orientia in chiggers might be affected by the bacterial community composition, which in turn might also be affected by the local environmental conditions. Orientia vertebrate host infection in North America including NC has not been examined yet. Since the current public recommendation in the US is that chiggers do not transmit microbes that cause human disease and yet chiggers are known to cause human disease in Asia, the Middle East and South America and free-living and rodent-attached chiggers in the US are infected with Orientia, more research is needed to better understand the chigger microbiomes in the US and its impact on vertebrates.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Summary of chigger sampling and identification results.

The nine collection sites are arranged from west to east of North Carolina, USA. Chigger identification was conducted using 18S ribosomal RNA gene amplicon sequences. The number of chiggers and the percent identity are included in parentheses after each species.

(DOCX)

pone.0353174.s001.docx (32KB, docx)
S2 Table. Pairwise PERMANOVA analysis results for free-living chiggers, Eutrombicula splendens, collected from nine different locations based on the weighted UniFrac.

LJSP, Lake James State Park; MMSP, Morrow Mountain State Park; PDNWR, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge; LRSP, Lumber River State Park; JLSRA, Jordan Lake State Recreational Area; WBUSP, William B. Umstead State Park; FLSRA, Falls Lake State Recreational Area; KLSRA, Kerr Lake State Recreational Area; CNF, Croatan National Forest.

(DOCX)

pone.0353174.s002.docx (33.6KB, docx)
S1 Fig. Rarefaction curves of the mean number of observed ASVs in Eutrombicula splendens and Pseudoschoengastia sp. chiggers.

Error bars represent the standard error of the mean.

(TIF)

pone.0353174.s003.tif (133.3KB, tif)
S2 Fig. Alpha diversity measures the microbiome in Eutrombicula splendens and Pseudoschoengastia sp. chiggers.

(A) Observed ASVs, Shannon diversity, (B) Shannon diversity, and (C) Faiths phylogenetic diversity.

(TIF)

pone.0353174.s004.tif (40.4KB, tif)
S3 Fig. Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) of the bacterial composition of Eutrombicula splendens and Pseudoschoengastia sp. chiggers.

Analysis was based on the weighted Unifrac metric.

(TIF)

pone.0353174.s005.tif (237.8KB, tif)
S4 Fig. Plot of log fold change in taxon abundance for taxa which significantly differed (p < 0.001) between free-living chiggers Eutrombicula splendens with or without Orientia.

(TIF)

pone.0353174.s006.tif (99.2KB, tif)
S5 Fig. Molecular phylogenetic analysis of Rickettsia amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) identified in this study (in red text) and closest related species.

Phylogenetic tree constructed by the Maximum-likelihood (ML) method based on the 16S rRNA gene. The Orientia tsutsugamushi strain (NR 025860) was included as an outgroup.

(TIF)

pone.0353174.s007.tif (2.6MB, tif)
S6 Fig. Molecular phylogenetic analysis of Listeria amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) identified in this study (in red text) and closest related species.

Phylogenetic tree constructed by the Maximum-likelihood (ML) method based on 16S rRNA gene. The Brochothrix campestris strain (NR044824) was included as an outgroup.

(TIF)

pone.0353174.s008.tif (5.1MB, tif)
S7 Fig. Molecular phylogenetic analysis of Legionella amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) identified in this study (in red text) and closest related species.

Phylogenetic tree constructed by the Maximum-likelihood (ML) method based on 16S rRNA gene.

(TIF)

pone.0353174.s009.tif (1.4MB, tif)
S8 Fig. Molecular phylogenetic analysis of Staphylococcus amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) identified in this study (in red text) and closest related species.

This tree is collapsed with nodes organized by sequence differences of 0.002. Phylogenetic tree constructed by the Maximum-likelihood (ML) method based on 16S rRNA gene.

(TIF)

pone.0353174.s010.tif (3.7MB, tif)
S9 Fig. Molecular phylogenetic analysis of Streptococcus amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) identified in this study (in red text) and closest related species.

This tree is collapsed with nodes organized by sequence differences of 0.002. Phylogenetic tree constructed by the Maximum-likelihood (ML) method based on 16S rRNA gene.

(TIF)

pone.0353174.s011.tif (2.9MB, tif)

Data Availability

The bacterial microbiome raw datasets have been submitted to the NCBI Sequence Read Archive (SRA) under the BioProject SUB15424311. Additionally, sequences data are available at accession number PRJNA1285095.

Funding Statement

The study was financially supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (grant no. 1R03AI166406-01) and the Southeast Center for Agricultural Health and Injury Prevention to L.P. The research was also funded by the Department of the Army, US Army Contracting Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Edgewood Contracting Division, Ft Detrick MD, Deployed Warfighter Protection (DWFP) Program Grant W911QY1910003 and W911SR2210005 to R.M.R. The work was also supported by the Research Capacity Fund (HATCH), project award no. 02853, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture. This work was also supported by the National Science Foundation’s Mid-Career Advancement, Award number: 2322213 to G.W. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and should not be construed to represent any official USDA or U.S. Government determination or policy. the funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Nielsen DH, Robbins RG, Rueda LM. Annotated world checklist of the Trombiculidae and Leeuwenhoekiidae (1758–2021) (Acari: Trombiculoidea), with notes on nomenclature, taxonomy, and distribution. Zootaxa. 2021;4967(1):1243. 10.11646/zootaxa.4967.1.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Lakshana P. A new species of trombiculid mite infesting scorpions in Thailand (Acarina, Trombiculidae). J Med Entomol. 1966;3(3):258–60. doi: 10.1093/jmedent/3.3-4.258 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Chaisiri K, Gill AC, Stekolnikov AA, Hinjoy S, McGarry JW, Darby AC, et al. Ecological and microbiological diversity of chigger mites, including vectors of scrub typhus, on small mammals across stratified habitats in Thailand. Anim Microbiome. 2019;1(1):18. doi: 10.1186/s42523-019-0019-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Weitzel T, Silva-de la Fuente MC, Martínez-Valdebenito C, Stekolnikov AA, Pérez C, Pérez R, et al. Novel vector of scrub typhus in sub-Antarctic Chile: evidence from human exposure. Clin Infect Dis. 2022;74(10):1862–5. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciab748 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Watt G, Parola P. Scrub typhus and tropical rickettsioses. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2003;16(5):429–36. doi: 10.1097/00001432-200310000-00009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Tilak R, Kunwar R, Wankhade UB, Tilak VW. Emergence of Schoengastiella ligula as the vector of scrub typhus outbreak in Darjeeling: has Leptotrombidium deliense been replaced?. Indian J Public Health. 2011;55(2):92–9. doi: 10.4103/0019-557X.85239 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Stekolnikov AA, González-Acuña D. A review of Chilean chiggers (Acari: Trombiculidae), with the description of a new genus and ten new species. Zootaxa. 2015;3964(1):1–43. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.3964.1.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Liu Q-Y, Fan R, Song W-Y, Peng P-Y, Zhao Y-F, Jin D-C, et al. The distribution and host-association of the vector chigger species Leptotrombidium imphalum in Southwest China. Insects. 2024;15(7):504. doi: 10.3390/insects15070504 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Acosta-Jamett G, Martínez-Valdebenito C, Beltrami E, Silva-de La Fuente MC, Jiang J, Richards AL, et al. Identification of trombiculid mites (Acari: Trombiculidae) on rodents from Chiloé Island and molecular evidence of infection with Orientia species. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020;14(1):e0007619. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007619 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Faccini JLH, Santos ACG, Santos SB, Jacinavicius F de C, Bassini-Silva R, Barros-Battesti DM. Trombiculiasis in domestic goats and humans in the state of Maranhão, Brazil. Rev Bras Parasitol Vet. 2017;26(1):104–9. doi: 10.1590/S1984-29612016088 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Xu G, Walker DH, Jupiter D, Melby PC, Arcari CM. A review of the global epidemiology of scrub typhus. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11(11):e0006062. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006062 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bonell A, Lubell Y, Newton PN, Crump JA, Paris DH. Estimating the burden of scrub typhus: a systematic review. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11(9):e0005838. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005838 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Taylor AJ, Paris DH, Newton PN. A systematic review of mortality from untreated scrub typhus (Orientia tsutsugamushi). PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9(8):e0003971. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003971 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Cho N-H, Kim H-R, Lee J-H, Kim S-Y, Kim J, Cha S, et al. The Orientia tsutsugamushi genome reveals massive proliferation of conjugative type IV secretion system and host-cell interaction genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104(19):7981–6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0611553104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kawamura A. Tsutsugamushi disease. 1995.
  • 16.Kelly DJ, Fuerst PA, Ching W-M, Richards AL. Scrub typhus: the geographic distribution of phenotypic and genotypic variants of Orientia tsutsugamushi. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;48 Suppl 3:S203-30. doi: 10.1086/596576 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Izzard L, Fuller A, Blacksell SD, Paris DH, Richards AL, Aukkanit N, et al. Isolation of a novel Orientia species (O. chuto sp. nov.) from a patient infected in Dubai. J Clin Microbiol. 2010;48(12):4404–9. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01526-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Abarca K, Martínez-Valdebenito C, Angulo J, Jiang J, Farris CM, Richards AL, et al. Molecular description of a novel Orientia species causing scrub typhus in Chile. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26(9):2148–56. doi: 10.3201/eid2609.200918 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Choi Y-J, Lee E-M, Park J-M, Lee K-M, Han S-H, Kim J-K, et al. Molecular detection of various rickettsiae in mites (acari: trombiculidae) in southern Jeolla Province, Korea. Microbiol Immunol. 2007;51(3):307–12. doi: 10.1111/j.1348-0421.2007.tb03912.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kuo CC, Lee PL, Wang HC. Molecular identification of Rickettsia spp. in chigger mites in Taiwan. Med Vet Entomol. 2022;36:223–229. 10.1111/mve.12560. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Jacinavicius F de C, Bassini-Silva R, Muñoz-Leal S, Welbourn C, Ochoa R, Labruna MB, et al. Molecular detection of Rickettsia genus in chigger mites (Trombidiformes: Trombiculidae) collected on small mammals in southeastern brazilian. Rev Bras Parasitol Vet. 2019;28(4):563–8. doi: 10.1590/S1984-29612019069 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Bassini-Silva R, de Castro Jacinavicius F, Muñoz-Leal S, Maturano R, Takatsu JC, Tolesano-Pascoli GV, et al. Bacterial pathogens’ screening in Brazilian chigger mites (Trombidiformes: Trombiculidae), with the first report of ’Candidatus Rickettsia colombianensi’-like in avian-associated chiggers. Arch Microbiol. 2023;205(1):51. doi: 10.1007/s00203-022-03393-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Ponnusamy L, Garshong R, McLean BS, Wasserberg G, Durden LA, Crossley D, et al. Rickettsia felis and other Rickettsia species in chigger mites collected from wild rodents in North Carolina, USA. Microorganisms. 2022;10(7):1342. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms10071342 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Houck MA, Qin H, Roberts HR. Hantavirus transmission: potential role of ectoparasites. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2001;1(1):75–9. doi: 10.1089/153036601750137723 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Rojas CA, Ramírez-Barahona S, Holekamp KE, Theis KR. Host phylogeny and host ecology structure the mammalian gut microbiota at different taxonomic scales. Anim Microbiome. 2021;3(1):33. doi: 10.1186/s42523-021-00094-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Youngblut ND, Reischer GH, Walters W, Schuster N, Walzer C, Stalder G, et al. Host diet and evolutionary history explain different aspects of gut microbiome diversity among vertebrate clades. Nat Commun. 2019;10(1):2200. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-10191-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Pereira H, Chakarov N, Caspers BA, Gilles M, Jones W, Mijoro T, et al. The gut microbiota of three avian species living in sympatry. BMC Ecol Evol. 2024;24(1):144. doi: 10.1186/s12862-024-02329-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ponnusamy L, Willcox AC, Roe RM, Davidson SA, Linsuwanon P, Schuster AL, et al. Bacterial microbiome of the chigger mite Leptotrombidium imphalum varies by life stage and infection with the scrub typhus pathogen Orientia tsutsugamushi. PLoS One. 2018;13(12):e0208327. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208327 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Takhampunya R, Korkusol A, Pongpichit C, Yodin K, Rungrojn A, Chanarat N, et al. Metagenomic approach to characterizing disease epidemiology in a disease-endemic environment in Northern Thailand. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:319. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00319 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Alkathiry HA, Alghamdi SQ, Sinha A, Margos G, Stekolnikov AA, Alagaili AN, et al. Microbiome and mitogenomics of the chigger mite Pentidionis agamae: potential role as an Orientia vector and associations with divergent clades of Wolbachia and Borrelia. BMC Genomics. 2024;25(1):380. doi: 10.1186/s12864-024-10301-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ogawa M, Takahashi M, Matsutani M, Takada N, Noda S, Saijo M. Obligate intracellular bacteria diversity in unfed Leptotrombidium scutellare larvae highlights novel bacterial endosymbionts of mites. Microbiol Immunol. 2020;64(1):1–9. doi: 10.1111/1348-0421.12745 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Richardson EA, Garshong R, Chen K, Crossley D, Mclean BS, Wasserberg G, et al. Orientia, Rickettsia, and the microbiome in rodent attached chiggers in North Carolina, USA. PLoS One. 2024;19(12):e0311698. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0311698 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Chen K, Travanty NV, Garshong R, Crossley D, Wasserberg G, Apperson CS, et al. Detection of Orientia spp. bacteria in field-collected free-living eutrombicula chigger mites, United States. Emerg Infect Dis. 2023;29(8):1676–9. doi: 10.3201/eid2908.230528 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Abernathy HA, Ursery L, Merdjane BA, Giandomenico DA, Boyce RM. Orientia tsutsugamushi antibodies in patients with eschars and suspected tickborne disease. Emerg Infect Dis. 2025;31(11):2187–90. doi: 10.3201/eid3111.250763 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Upham Jr RW, Hubert AA, Phang OW, Mat YB, Rapmund G. Distribution of Leptotrombidium (Leptotrombidium) arenicola (Acarina: Trombiculidae) on the ground in West Malaysia. J Med Entomol. 1971;8(4):401–6. doi: 10.1093/jmedent/8.4.401 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Wharton G. A manual of the chiggers. Mem Entomol Soc Wash. 1952;4:1–185. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Brennan JM, J EK. Keys to the chiggers of North America with synonymic notes and descriptions of two genera (Acarina: Trombiculidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am. 1959;52:7–16. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Bennett SG, Crossley DJ, Durden LA, Goff ML. Eutrombicula cinnabaris (Ewing, 1920)(Acari: Trombiculidae) is the common pest chigger mite of the Eastern United States. J Entomol Sci. 2014;49(4):413–4. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Otto JC, Wilson K. Assessment of the usefulness of ribosomal 18S and mitochondrial COI sequences in Prostigmata phylogeny. In: Acarology: Proceedings of the 10th International Congress. 2001.
  • 40.Caporaso JG, Lauber CL, Walters WA, Berg-Lyons D, Huntley J, Fierer N, et al. Ultra-high-throughput microbial community analysis on the Illumina HiSeq and MiSeq platforms. ISME J. 2012;6(8):1621–4. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2012.8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Bolyen E, Rideout JR, Dillon MR, Bokulich NA, Abnet CC, Al-Ghalith GA, et al. Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat Biotechnol. 2019;37(8):852–7. doi: 10.1038/s41587-019-0209-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Callahan BJ, McMurdie PJ, Rosen MJ, Han AW, Johnson AJA, Holmes SP. DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat Methods. 2016;13(7):581–3. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3869 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.McDonald D, Jiang Y, Balaban M, Cantrell K, Zhu Q, Gonzalez A, et al. Greengenes2 unifies microbial data in a single reference tree. Nat Biotechnol. 2024;42(5):715–8. doi: 10.1038/s41587-023-01845-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Shannon CE. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal. 1948;27(3):379–423. doi: 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Faith DP. Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biol Conserv. 1992;61(1):1–10. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Vázquez-Baeza Y, Pirrung M, Gonzalez A, Knight R. EMPeror: a tool for visualizing high-throughput microbial community data. Gigascience. 2013;2(1):16. doi: 10.1186/2047-217X-2-16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Anderson MJ. Permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA). 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Lin H, Peddada SD. Analysis of compositions of microbiomes with bias correction. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):3514. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-17041-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Tamura K, Stecher G, Kumar S. MEGA11: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 11. Mol Biol Evol. 2021;38(7):3022–7. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msab120 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Chaisiri K, Linsuwanon P, Makepeace BL. The chigger microbiome: big questions in a tiny world. Trends Parasitol. 2023;39(8):696–707. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2023.05.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Chen K, Roe RM, Ponnusamy L. Biology, systematics, microbiome, pathogen transmission and control of chiggers (Acari: Trombiculidae, Leeuwenhoekiidae) with emphasis on the United States. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(22):15147. doi: 10.3390/ijerph192215147 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Kocher C, Jiang J, Morrison AC, Castillo R, Leguia M, Loyola S, et al. Serologic evidence of scrub typhus in the Peruvian Amazon. Emerg Infect Dis. 2017;23(8):1389–91. doi: 10.3201/eid2308.170050 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Weitzel T, Dittrich S, López J, Phuklia W, Martinez-Valdebenito C, Velásquez K, et al. Endemic Scrub Typhus in South America. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(10):954–61. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1603657 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Jacinavicius F d C, Bassini-Silva R, de Oliveira GMB, Horta MC, Welbourn C, Ochoa R. Description of Pseudoschoengastia petrolinensis n. sp. (Trombidiformes: Trombiculidae), and new records of chiggers from northeastern Brazil. Int J Acarol. 2019;45(4):227–32. 10.1080/01647954.2019.1601766. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Park G-M, Shin H-S. Geographical distribution and seasonal indices of chigger mites on small mammals collected on the east coast of the Republic of Korea. J Parasitol. 2016;102(2):193–8. doi: 10.1645/15-760 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Peng P-Y, Guo X-G, Ren T-G, Song W-Y, Dong W-G, Fan R. Species diversity of ectoparasitic chigger mites (Acari: Prostigmata) on small mammals in Yunnan Province, China. Parasitol Res. 2016;115(9):3605–18. doi: 10.1007/s00436-016-5127-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Chicana B, Couper LI, Kwan JY, Tahiraj E, Swei A. Comparative microbiome profiles of sympatric tick species from the far-western United States. Insects. 2019;10(10):353. doi: 10.3390/insects10100353 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Namina A, Kazarina A, Lazovska M, Akopjana S, Ulanova V, Kivrane A, et al. Comparative microbiome analysis of three epidemiologically important tick species in Latvia. Microorganisms. 2023;11(8):1970. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms11081970 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Guo Y, Zhou J-X, Guo X-G, Song W-Y, Zhao C-F, Zhang Z-W, et al. Species diversity and related ecology of chiggers on small mammals in a unique geographical area of Yunnan Province, southwest China. Exp Appl Acarol. 2023;91(3):439–61. doi: 10.1007/s10493-023-00841-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Alkathiry H, Al-Rofaai A, Ya’cob Z, Cutmore TS, Mohd-Azami SNI, Husin NA, et al. Habitat and season drive chigger mite diversity and abundance on small mammals in peninsular malaysia. Pathogens. 2022;11(10):1087. doi: 10.3390/pathogens11101087 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Elliott I, Thangnimitchok N, Chaisiri K, Wangrangsimakul T, Jaiboon P, Day NPJ, et al. Orientia tsutsugamushi dynamics in vectors and hosts: ecology and risk factors for foci of scrub typhus transmission in northern Thailand. Parasit Vectors. 2021;14(1):540. doi: 10.1186/s13071-021-05042-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Bhopdhornangkul B, Meeyai AC, Wongwit W, Limpanont Y, Iamsirithaworn S, Laosiritaworn Y, et al. Non-linear effect of different humidity types on scrub typhus occurrence in endemic provinces, Thailand. Heliyon. 2021;7(2):e06095. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06095 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Karimian F, Koosha M, Choubdar N, Oshaghi MA. Comparative analysis of the gut microbiota of sand fly vectors of zoonotic visceral leishmaniasis (ZVL) in Iran; host-environment interplay shapes diversity. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2022;16(7):e0010609. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010609 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Sonenshine DE, Stewart PE. Microbiomes of blood-feeding arthropods: genes coding for essential nutrients and relation to vector fitness and pathogenic infections. a review. Microorganisms. 2021;9(12):2433. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms9122433 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Elliott I, Pearson I, Dahal P, Thomas NV, Roberts T, Newton PN. Scrub typhus ecology: a systematic review of Orientia in vectors and hosts. Parasit Vectors. 2019;12(1):513. doi: 10.1186/s13071-019-3751-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Frances SP, Watcharapichat P, Phulsuksombati D, Tanskul P. Transmission of Orientia tsutsugamushi, the aetiological agent for scrub typhus, to co-feeding mites. Parasitology. 2000;120 (Pt 6):601–7. doi: 10.1017/s0031182099005909 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Linsuwanon P, Krairojananan P, Rodkvamtook W, Leepitakrat S, Davidson S, Wanja E. Surveillance for scrub typhus, rickettsial diseases, and leptospirosis in US and multinational military training exercise cobra gold sites in Thailand. US Army Med Dep J. 2018;(1–18):29–39. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Fields BS, Benson RF, Besser RE. Legionella and Legionnaires’ disease: 25 years of investigation. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2002;15(3):506–26. doi: 10.1128/CMR.15.3.506-526.2002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Thomas V, Herrera-Rimann K, Blanc DS, Greub G. Biodiversity of amoebae and amoeba-resisting bacteria in a hospital water network. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006;72(4):2428–38. doi: 10.1128/AEM.72.4.2428-2438.2006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Arreguin-Perez CA, Cossio-Bayugar R, Aguilar-Diaz H, Miranda-Miranda E. In situ localization of Staphylococcus shinii and Staphylococcus succinus in Infected Rhipicephalus microplus ticks: Implications for biocontrol strategies. Pathogens. 2024;13(12):1025. doi: 10.3390/pathogens13121025 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Hayes BM, Radkov AD, Yarza F, Flores S, Kim J, Zhao Z, et al. Ticks resist skin commensals with immune factor of bacterial origin. Cell. 2020;183(6):1562-1571.e12. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.10.042 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.McGinley-Smith DE, Tsao SS. Dermatoses from ticks. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2003;49(3):363–92; quiz 393–6. doi: 10.1067/s0190-9622(03)01868-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Machado-Ferreira E, Vizzoni VF, Piesman J, Gazeta GS, Soares CAG. Bacteria associated with Amblyomma cajennense tick eggs. Genet Mol Biol. 2015;38(4):477–83. doi: 10.1590/S1415-475738420150040 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Andreotti R, Pérez de León AA, Dowd SE, Guerrero FD, Bendele KG, Scoles GA. Assessment of bacterial diversity in the cattle tick Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus through tag-encoded pyrosequencing. BMC Microbiol. 2011;11(1):6. doi: 10.1186/1471-2180-11-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Du L-F, Zhang M-Z, Yuan T-T, Ni X-B, Wei W, Cui X-M, et al. New insights into the impact of microbiome on horizontal and vertical transmission of a tick-borne pathogen. Microbiome. 2023;11(1):50. 10.1186/s40168-023-01485-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Paulson AR, Lougheed SC, Huang D, Colautti RI. Multiomics reveals symbionts, pathogens, and tissue-specific microbiome of blacklegged ticks (Ixodes scapularis) from a lyme disease hot spot in Southeastern Ontario, Canada. Microbiol Spectr. 2023;11(3):e0140423. doi: 10.1128/spectrum.01404-23 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Varela-Stokes AS, Park SH, Kim SA, Ricke SC. Microbial communities in North American ixodid ticks of veterinary and medical importance. Front Vet Sci. 2017;4:179. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2017.00179 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Yong Qi

25 Jan 2026

-->PONE-D-25-67871-->-->Geographic and Orientia infection status influence on the bacterial microbiome of free-living chiggers in North Carolina, USA-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Ponnusamy,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 11 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Yong Qi

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“The study was financially supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (grant no. 1R03AI166406-01) and the Southeast Center for Agricultural Health and Injury Prevention. The research was also funded by the Department of the Army, US Army Contracting Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Edgewood Contracting Division, Ft Detrick MD, Deployed Warfighter Protection (DWFP) Program Grant W911QY1910003 and E911SR2210005. The work was also supported by the Research Capacity Fund (HATCH), project award no. 02853, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and should not be construed to represent any official USDA or U.S. Government determination or policy.”

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“The study was financially supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (grant no. 1R03AI166406-01) and the Southeast Center for Agricultural Health and Injury Prevention. The research was also funded by the Department of the Army, US Army Contracting Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Edgewood Contracting Division, Ft Detrick MD, Deployed Warfighter Protection (DWFP) Program Grant W911QY1910003 and E911SR2210005.  The work was also supported by the Research Capacity Fund (HATCH), project award no. 02853, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and should not be construed to represent any official USDA or U.S. Government determination or policy.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

5. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“The study was financially supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (grant no. 1R03AI166406-01) and the Southeast Center for Agricultural Health and Injury Prevention. The research was also funded by the Department of the Army, US Army Contracting Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Edgewood Contracting Division, Ft Detrick MD, Deployed Warfighter Protection (DWFP) Program Grant W911QY1910003 and E911SR2210005.  The work was also supported by the Research Capacity Fund (HATCH), project award no. 02853, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and should not be construed to represent any official USDA or U.S. Government determination or policy.”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

7. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) [#] to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

8. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: Comments to the Author

This study investigates the bacterial microbiome of free-living chiggers in North Carolina, USA, and explores its associations with geographic factors and Orientia infection. While the research question is relevant, the manuscript contains fundamental methodological deficiencies. These deficiencies primarily concern the identification of free-living chigger specimens, the description of sampling background, and the confirmation of life-history stages.

Major Comments (must be revised or clearly explained)

1. Inadequate identification of free-living chiggers and absence of morphological evidence

The internationally accepted research framework for chiggers (Trombiculidae) is based on the examination of parasitic larvae collected directly from the body surface of animal hosts. Chiggers parasitize small mammals exclusively at the larval stage, during which they feed on host blood. After feeding, larvae detach from the host and subsequently develop into nymphs and adults. These later stages are free-living and non-parasitic. Therefore, the ecological condition of being “free-living” cannot be directly equated with chigger larvae, nor can it be used as evidence of vector competence.

(1) Absence of field recognition and morphological identification

The manuscript reports the collection of “red moving objects (<250 μm)” observed on black tiles. This description does not constitute a diagnostic characteristic of chiggers. Numerous soil microarthropods, including other mites and immature insects, may fall within this size range and display similar coloration. The authors must clarify whether voucher specimens were slide-mounted and preserved. It is also necessary to specify whether all samples, or only a subset, were examined microscopically prior to molecular analysis, including examination under oil immersion when appropriate.

Furthermore, the authors must state whether non-chigger arthropods were excluded based on fundamental larval chigger characters, such as body morphology, leg number and segmentation, and the presence and structure of the scutum. The manuscript should clearly indicate which diagnostic characters were used and which taxonomic keys or references were followed. If no morphological identification was conducted, this omission represents a serious methodological limitation. In that case, the authors must explicitly acknowledge this limitation in the Discussion and evaluate its potential impact on the study’s conclusions.

(2) Lack of confirmation of life-history stage

Only the larval stage of chiggers is parasitic and of medical relevance. The manuscript refers to the collected specimens as “free-living, unfed chiggers,” yet provides no explanation of how the authors confirmed that all specimens were larvae rather than unfed nymphs or adults. Larvae possess three pairs of legs, whereas nymphs and adults possess four pairs, a clear and diagnostic distinction. No morphological evidence is presented to confirm life-history stage. If non-larval stages were included, then the fundamental assumption regarding disease transmission potential is invalid.

2. Unclear description of DNA extraction and library preparation from single chiggers

In the section “DNA extraction and chigger identification,” the authors state that “individual, free-living chiggers were surface sterilized,” implying that DNA extraction was performed on single specimens. This raises significant technical concerns. Individual chiggers are extremely small and possess very low biomass. Obtaining sufficient DNA from a single unfed chigger larva for both high-quality 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing and 18S rRNA Sanger sequencing is technically challenging and often associated with a high failure rate.

The authors must clearly state whether each “individual” sample represents a single chigger or a pooled sample consisting of multiple chiggers collected from the same site or batch. This distinction is critical, as it determines the biological unit of downstream analyses and whether the results represent individual-level microbiomes or pooled community profiles. The authors must also report DNA extraction efficiency and PCR amplification success rates, and specify whether any samples were excluded due to insufficient DNA quantity. These details are essential for evaluating potential sample selection bias and ensuring reproducibility.

3. Inadequate description and absence of key parameters in the molecular species identification method

(1) Gene choice and similarity threshold

The use of the 18S rRNA gene for chigger species identification is acceptable. However, the manuscript does not report the sequence similarity threshold applied in BLASTn comparisons. This parameter is central to molecular taxonomic assignment and determines whether identification at the genus or species level is justified.

(2) Specific concern regarding sequence similarity

In the Results section (page 13), the manuscript reports that P. petrolinensis sequences show 95.2–96.3% similarity to reference sequences. The authors must specify the identification threshold used and justify its application. Similarity values in this range are generally insufficient for confident species-level identification and more commonly support genus-level assignment or suggest the presence of cryptic or undescribed taxa. The authors must explain why these sequences were assigned to P. petrolinensis, and clarify whether morphological evidence, similarity overlap among related taxa, or phylogenetic analyses were used to support this conclusion. The criteria for species determination must be explicitly stated.

4. Insufficient description of sampling locations and ecological background

Although several nature reserves in North Carolina are listed as sampling sites, the manuscript does not adequately describe the specific microhabitats in which mites were collected. It is also unclear whether the sampling locations were associated with small mammal activity or suitable host habitats, or whether potential hosts were present in the vicinity.

Under the current description, the collection of free-moving mites from surface environments alone is insufficient to establish that the specimens are chigger larvae with prior parasitic history or vector potential.

Recommendations for Revision

If the identity of the study organisms as chigger larvae has not been reliably confirmed, then all subsequent inferences are based on an unstable biological premise. The manuscript therefore exhibits a high risk of over-interpretation. In a revised version, the authors must address at least the following points:

1. Provide systematic morphological identification evidence and clearly confirm the life-history stage of all specimens.

2. Explicitly state the similarity thresholds and decision criteria used for 18S rRNA-based molecular identification.

3. In the DNA extraction section, clearly define what constitutes a single sample—whether it is an individual chigger mite or a pooled sample of chigger mites. Include detailed extraction procedures, as well as the success rates of extraction and PCR.

4. If larval identity cannot be confirmed, use the term “chiggers” with caution throughout the manuscript and fully discuss this limitation.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript "Geographic and Orientia infection status influence on the bacterial microbiome of freeliving chiggers in North Carolina, USA" describes sampling of 3 different species of chiggers from 3 different ecological region in the state of North Carolina in the US, and a subsequent characterization of their bacterial microbiome using 16S amplicon sequencing. Fleas and chiggers are historically known vectors of various infectious diseases, but are also emerging as potential vectors of new pathogens in new geographical areas. Characterizing their geographical distribution as well as their community of microbes is important for both ecological studies as well as public health reasons. This well-written manuscript is a welcome addition to this area of research. The overall experimental design is appropriate, experiments are well executed, and data analysis and presentation is of good quality. The details of experimental methods and data analysis is described in reasonable detail. The raw data seem to have been deposited in the public NCBI SRA database under bioproject PRJNA1285095 and SUB15424311. which will hopefully be released publicly upon acceptance/publication of the manuscript.

There are only 3 major a few minor points that the authors need to address before this manuscript can be accepted for publication.

Major points:

1. In the methods section, the authors have not specified the Illumina instrument used for sequencing. This is critical information, as it influences the choice of denoising algorithm. Starting with NovaSeq instruments, Illumina started binning per-base quality scores instead of a monotonic continuous scale. However, the DADA2 pipeline assumes a continuous scoring scheme and is therefore not suitable for FASTQs produced by NovaSeq or later instruments. If the authors used an Illumina instrument which compresses FASTQ quality scores into 4 or 5 bins (e.g. NovaSeq), DADA2 cannot be used and Deblur is recommended instead. For more discussions see https://github.com/benjjneb/dada2/issues/791 and https://forum.qiime2.org/t/novaseq-and-dada2-incompatibility/25865 . Please provide instrument details and choose Deblur over DADA2 if needed.

2. The Greengenes database has been superseded by Greengenes2 for quite some time now, with obvious improvements in taxonomical breadth and accuracy. As per their methods, the authors have used "Greengenes 13_8" which was last updated in 2013 (https://ftp.microbio.me/greengenes_release/). Please use the latest GreenGenes2 database in all analysis. For more discussion see https://forum.qiime2.org/t/greengenes2-2024-09/31606. Also, update the citation 40 from GreenGenes to Greengenes2, described in McDonald et al. Nature Biotechnology (2023) : https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-023-01845-1

3. In Results, starting line 248 onwards, the authors have described the taxa observed in the subset ASVs that *could* be classified ("32 bacterial phyla, 87 classes, 158 orders, 282 families, and 521 genera"). However, it is not clear how many of the 3,575 ASVs could be classified into these levels versus what fraction of ASVs remained unclassified. Please provide these proportions at all taxonomic levels. It is not uncommon for more than 70% of the ASVs to remain unclassified, especially for under-studied microbiomes such the one these authors are studying - but discussing only the classifiable fraction creates to a false impression that there is no more bacterial diversity remaining to be discovered in these microbiomes!

Minor points:

1. Median values are a more robust statistical descriptors of distribution of data than means. Hence it is recommended that the authors report median values wherever possible e.g. line 246 "average of 94,989 reads per sample", line 351 onwards multiple instances of "mean relative abundance".

2. Line 247: "After filtering ASVs based on total abundance and prevalence in the

dataset" : What were the criteria/cut-offs used in this filtering step?

3. Line 460 onwards in Discussion: The authors find the absence of difference in alpha diversity measures between different host chigger species. However, alpha diversity is a within sample measurement. Thus it is technically possible for two microbiomes to be composed of different species (represented by different unique ASV sequences) but have the same diversity metrics (same *number* of unique ASVs). Here is a very simplified toy example to show this: chigger-species1 has 3 microbes A, B and C while chigger-species2 has three different microbes D, E, and F - such that the diversity metric is 3 for both chigger-species.

Did the authors check if indeed the same set of ASVs were found in all three chigger species? Please also report the median number of ASVs observed per sample (not all 3,575 ASVs are expected to be seen in each sample).

3. In Figures 2 and 3, "Observed fatures" could be changed to "Observed ASVs"?

4. The reference 30 cites a PhD thesis, which I believe has now been published as a peer-reviewed research article: Alkathiry et al. Microbiome and mitogenomics of the chigger mite Pentidionis agamae: potential role as an Orientia vector and associations with divergent clades of Wolbachia and Borrelia. BMC Genomics (2024) at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-024-10301-6 . Please update accordingly.

*-*-*

**********

-->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?  For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments to the Author.pdf

pone.0353174.s012.pdf (146.4KB, pdf)
PLoS One. 2026 Jul 8;21(7):e0353174. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0353174.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


20 May 2026

Reviewer #1: Comments to the Author

This study investigates the bacterial microbiome of free-living chiggers in North Carolina, USA, and explores its associations with geographic factors and Orientia infection. While the research question is relevant, the manuscript contains fundamental methodological deficiencies. These deficiencies primarily concern the identification of free-living chigger specimens, the description of sampling background, and the confirmation of life-history stages.

Authors’ response: We thank the reviewer for the careful evaluation of our manuscript and for recognizing the relevance of the research question, particularly regarding chigger specimen identification and confirmation of life-history stages. Detailed replies to the comments are given below.

Major Comments (must be revised or clearly explained)

1. Inadequate identification of free-living chiggers and absence of morphological evidence

The internationally accepted research framework for chiggers (Trombiculidae) is based on the examination of parasitic larvae collected directly from the body surface of animal hosts. Chiggers parasitize small mammals exclusively at the larval stage, during which they feed on host blood. After feeding, larvae detach from the host and subsequently develop into nymphs and adults. These later stages are free-living and non-parasitic. Therefore, the ecological condition of being “free-living” cannot be directly equated with chigger larvae, nor can it be used as evidence of vector competence.

Authors’ response: We appreciate the reviewer’s critical distinction between the parasitic larval stage and the free-living post-larval stages (nymphs and adults) of Trombiculidae, and we agree that vector competence is exclusive to the larvae. To clarify, our use of the term “free-living” referred specifically to the collection site (unattached larvae questing in soil and vegetation) rather than their biological stage. To address the reviewer’s concern regarding identification and morphological evidence, all collected specimens were examined under a stereo microscope to confirm they were in the hexapod (six-legged) larval stage, distinguishing them from the octopod (eight-legged) nymphs and adults. Furthermore, to ensure taxonomic accuracy, representative sub-samples from these collections were validated by Dr. Dac Crossley (Curator of Acari at the Georgia Museum of Natural History, Georgia, USA) a specialist in Trombiculid taxonomy, to ensure the stage and species-level identification. We have updated the Methods section to explicitly state these morphological criteria and our external validation process.

(1) Absence of field recognition and morphological identification

The manuscript reports the collection of “red moving objects (<250 μm)” observed on black tiles. This description does not constitute a diagnostic characteristic of chiggers. Numerous soil microarthropods, including other mites and immature insects, may fall within this size range and display similar coloration. The authors must clarify whether voucher specimens were slide-mounted and preserved. It is also necessary to specify whether all samples, or only a subset, were examined microscopically prior to molecular analysis, including examination under oil immersion when appropriate.

Furthermore, the authors must state whether non-chigger arthropods were excluded based on fundamental larval chigger characters, such as body morphology, leg number and segmentation, and the presence and structure of the scutum. The manuscript should clearly indicate which diagnostic characters were used and which taxonomic keys or references were followed. If no morphological identification was conducted, this omission represents a serious methodological limitation. In that case, the authors must explicitly acknowledge this limitation in the Discussion and evaluate its potential impact on the study’s conclusions.

Authors’ Response: We agree with the reviewer that the field observation of "red moving objects (<250 μm)" on black tiles is not diagnostic of chiggers and could apply to various soil microarthropods. This description was intended only to reflect the initial field observation and was not the primary basis for identification.

Following collection, specimens were transported to the laboratory and examined under a stereomicroscope. Identification as larval chiggers (family Trombiculidae) was confirmed based on established diagnostic criteria, including, the presence of six legs (distinguishing larvae from nymphal and adult mites), overall body morphology consistent with trombiculid larvae, and characteristic leg segmentation as described in taxonomic keys (Wharton et al., 1952; Brennan et al., 1959; Bennett et al., 2014). These features were used to exclude non-chigger arthropods collected during environmental sampling.

To ensure accuracy of life stage and species identification, randomly selected subsamples from each collection site were submitted to Dr. Dac Crossley, Curator of Acari at the Georgia Museum of Natural History, for independent life-stage and morphological validation. Representative specimens from each collection batch were slide-mounted, preserved as vouchers, and examined via compound microscopy (including oil-immersion where necessary). Identification was performed using standard taxonomic keys (Wharton et al., 1952; Brennan et al., 1959; Bennett et al., 2014).

Because slide-mounting permanently alters specimens, detailed morphological examination was conducted on representative subsamples rather than the entire collection. All remaining specimens were subsequently validated using molecular methods prior to downstream analyses. The Methods section has been revised to explicitly detail the morphological examination procedures, the subsampling strategy, and the external taxonomic validation.

(2) Lack of confirmation of life-history stage

Only the larval stage of chiggers is parasitic and of medical relevance. The manuscript refers to the collected specimens as “free-living, unfed chiggers,” yet provides no explanation of how the authors confirmed that all specimens were larvae rather than unfed nymphs or adults. Larvae possess three pairs of legs, whereas nymphs and adults possess four pairs, a clear and diagnostic distinction. No morphological evidence is presented to confirm life-history stage. If non-larval stages were included, then the fundamental assumption regarding disease transmission potential is invalid.

Authors’ response: As we stated in our response above, the collected samples were examined after collection to confirm that they were in the larval stage of mites. We acknowledge that these essential identification steps were not described in sufficient detail in the original manuscript, which may have caused confusion regarding how the life-history stage was verified. This level of “due diligence” to identify specimens is standard practice for our group and applied also to our previously published papers on our work with chiggers in the US and their infection with Orientia spp. bacteria.

2. Unclear description of DNA extraction and library preparation from single chiggers

In the section “DNA extraction and chigger identification,” the authors state that “individual, free-living chiggers were surface sterilized,” implying that DNA extraction was performed on single specimens. This raises significant technical concerns. Individual chiggers are extremely small and possess very low biomass. Obtaining sufficient DNA from a single unfed chigger larva for both high-quality 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing and 18S rRNA Sanger sequencing is technically challenging and often associated with a high failure rate. The authors must clearly state whether each “individual” sample represents a single chigger or a pooled sample consisting of multiple chiggers collected from the same site or batch. This distinction is critical, as it determines the biological unit of downstream analyses and whether the results represent individual-level microbiomes or pooled community profiles. The authors must also report DNA extraction efficiency and PCR amplification success rates, and specify whether any samples were excluded due to insufficient DNA quantity. These details are essential for evaluating potential sample selection bias and ensuring reproducibility.

Authors’ response: We confirm that DNA extraction was performed on individual chigger larvae; each “individual” sample reported in the manuscript represents a single chigger rather than a pooled specimen. Initially, 120 chiggers were processed separately for DNA extraction. To maximize DNA recovery and concentration from these single specimens, we optimized the extraction protocol by reducing the final elution volume to 50 μL (instead of the manufacturer’s recommended 200 μL). This modification ensured sufficient DNA concentration for downstream PCR applications. Furthermore, advances in molecular technology now allow for the detection of DNA from extremely small biological samples, even from a single hair, supporting the feasibility and reliability of single-specimen DNA analysis.

Following extraction, NanoDrop spectrophotometry was used as an initial quality control step. Twenty-five samples did not yield detectable DNA and were therefore excluded from further analysis. The remaining 95 individual samples were subjected to 16S rRNA microbiome analysis, as described in Chen et al. (2023). As noted in Chen et al. (2023), chigger species identification was performed using both morphological and molecular approaches on subsampled material. For the present study, we conducted 18S rRNA gene amplification and Sanger sequencing on all 95 samples to enable species-level identification and to assess microbiome variation among species. Although 18S amplification was successful for all samples, 26 produced ambiguous sequencing results. Consequently, 69 samples yielded high-quality sequences suitable for identification, while the 26 ambiguous samples were excluded from the final analysis. These methodological details and the technical limitations inherent to single-chigger DNA extraction have now been clarified and incorporated into the revised manuscript.

3. Inadequate description and absence of key parameters in the molecular species identification method

(1) Gene choice and similarity threshold

The use of the 18S rRNA gene for chigger species identification is acceptable. However, the manuscript does not report the sequence similarity threshold applied in BLASTn comparisons. This parameter is central to molecular taxonomic assignment and determines whether identification at the genus or species level is justified.

Authors’ response: We agree that this was not explained in the earlier version of the manuscript. In the revised manuscript, we have now explicitly described the criteria applied for BLASTn-based identification using the 18S rRNA gene.

(2) Specific concern regarding sequence similarity

In the Results section (page 13), the manuscript reports that P. petrolinensis sequences show 95.2–96.3% similarity to reference sequences. The authors must specify the identification threshold used and justify its application. Similarity values in this range are generally insufficient for confident species-level identification and more commonly support genus-level assignment or suggest the presence of cryptic or undescribed taxa. The authors must explain why these sequences were assigned to P. petrolinensis, and clarify whether morphological evidence, similarity overlap among related taxa, or phylogenetic analyses were used to support this conclusion. The criteria for species determination must be explicitly stated.

Authors’ response: We acknowledge that the observed sequence similarity of 95.2–96.3% falls below the commonly accepted 97–99% threshold for confident species-level identification in many taxa. Therefore, we have revised the classification to the genus Pseudoschoengastia, consistent with the supporting morphological evidence. The manuscript has been updated accordingly, and the rationale for this change is now clearly explained in the revised version.

4. Insufficient description of sampling locations and ecological background

Although several nature reserves in North Carolina are listed as sampling sites, the manuscript does not adequately describe the specific microhabitats in which mites were collected. It is also unclear whether the sampling locations were associated with small mammal activity or suitable host habitats, or whether potential hosts were present in the vicinity. Under the current description, the collection of free-moving mites from surface environments alone is insufficient to establish that the specimens are chigger larvae with prior parasitic history or vector potential.

Authors’ response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. Unfortunately, detailed ecological data were not collected at the time of sampling. Specifically, we did not record microhabitat characteristics, small mammal activity, host presence, or vegetation type at the collection sites. In addition, chiggers were collected exclusively from surface environments and were not obtained directly from vertebrate hosts.

Recommendations for Revision

If the identity of the study organisms as chigger larvae has not been reliably confirmed, then all subsequent inferences are based on an unstable biological premise. The manuscript therefore exhibits a high risk of over-interpretation. In a revised version, the authors must address at least the following points:

1. Provide systematic morphological identification evidence and clearly confirm the life-history stage of all specimens.

Authors’ response: We confirm that all specimens were subjected to systematic morphological examination using standard taxonomic keys and diagnostic characters specific to this group. The distinguishing morphological features used for identification are now clearly described in the revised manuscript to ensure transparency in taxonomic assignment. All specimens analyzed in this study were confirmed to be in the larval stage based on characteristic morphological traits (e.g., number of legs, body segmentation). This clarification has been added to the Methods section to eliminate any ambiguity regarding the life-history stage of the analyzed specimens.

2. Explicitly state the similarity thresholds and decision criteria used for 18S rRNA-based molecular identification.

Authors’ response: We agree that the decision criteria for 18S rRNA–based identification should be explicitly stated. This concern has been addressed in the revised manuscript, where we now detail the thresholds and the decision framework used for taxonomic assignments.

3. In the DNA extraction section, clearly define what constitutes a single sample—whether it is an individual chigger mite or a pooled sample of chigger mites. Include detailed extraction procedures, as well as the success rates of extraction and PCR.

Authors’ response: We can confirm that each sample consisted of a single, individual chigger mite rather than a pooled sample. As the reviewer’s suggested, we have also added a detailed step-by-step extraction procedure and included the specific success rates for both the DNA extraction and the subsequent PCR amplification.

4. If larval identity cannot be confirmed, use the term “chiggers” with caution throughout the manuscript and fully discuss this limitation.

Authors’ response: In the revised manuscript, we have clarified in the methodology that the larval identity was confirmed as chiggers based on the presence of six legs. Because our morphological identification was definitive, we believe the term 'chiggers' is used correctly. However, as requested, we have added a brief statement in the Methodology and Discussion sections to provide the specific morphological criteria used for this confirmation.

Reviewer #2:

The manuscript "Geographic and Orientia infection status influence on the bacterial microbiome of freeliving chiggers in North Carolina, USA" describes sampling of 3 different species of chiggers from 3 different ecological region in the state of North Carolina in the US, and a subsequent characterization of their bacterial microbiome using

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments and response to Reviewer #1and2_Final.docx

pone.0353174.s014.docx (28.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Yong Qi

21 Jun 2026

Geographic and Orientia infection status influence on the bacterial microbiome of free-living chiggers in North Carolina, USA

PONE-D-25-67871R1

Dear Dr. Ponnusamy,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Yong Qi

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

-->2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: I appreciate the authors’ comprehensive and thoughtful responses to the peer review feedback. The revised manuscript reflects a diligent effort to incorporate the suggested changes, which has markedly elevated the overall quality, rigor, and clarity of the paper. The authors' constructive and meticulous attitude throughout this revision process is highly commendable.

It is worth noting that the initial submission exhibited certain fundamental limitations—challenges that are often difficult to entirely circumvent given the constraints of the study design and the nature of the data. However, the authors have addressed these underlying issues as thoroughly and transparently as practically possible. While some of these inherent methodological constraints remain largely unavoidable, the revisions, alongside the carefully expanded discussion of these limitations, have satisfactorily mitigated their impact on the study's core conclusions.

In light of these substantial improvements, I am largely satisfied with the current iteration of the manuscript and believe the authors have adequately resolved the primary concerns raised during the initial review. The manuscript now aligns well with the scientific standards expected for publication in PLOS One.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?  For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Yong Qi

PONE-D-25-67871R1

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Ponnusamy,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Yong Qi

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Summary of chigger sampling and identification results.

    The nine collection sites are arranged from west to east of North Carolina, USA. Chigger identification was conducted using 18S ribosomal RNA gene amplicon sequences. The number of chiggers and the percent identity are included in parentheses after each species.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0353174.s001.docx (32KB, docx)
    S2 Table. Pairwise PERMANOVA analysis results for free-living chiggers, Eutrombicula splendens, collected from nine different locations based on the weighted UniFrac.

    LJSP, Lake James State Park; MMSP, Morrow Mountain State Park; PDNWR, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge; LRSP, Lumber River State Park; JLSRA, Jordan Lake State Recreational Area; WBUSP, William B. Umstead State Park; FLSRA, Falls Lake State Recreational Area; KLSRA, Kerr Lake State Recreational Area; CNF, Croatan National Forest.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0353174.s002.docx (33.6KB, docx)
    S1 Fig. Rarefaction curves of the mean number of observed ASVs in Eutrombicula splendens and Pseudoschoengastia sp. chiggers.

    Error bars represent the standard error of the mean.

    (TIF)

    pone.0353174.s003.tif (133.3KB, tif)
    S2 Fig. Alpha diversity measures the microbiome in Eutrombicula splendens and Pseudoschoengastia sp. chiggers.

    (A) Observed ASVs, Shannon diversity, (B) Shannon diversity, and (C) Faiths phylogenetic diversity.

    (TIF)

    pone.0353174.s004.tif (40.4KB, tif)
    S3 Fig. Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) of the bacterial composition of Eutrombicula splendens and Pseudoschoengastia sp. chiggers.

    Analysis was based on the weighted Unifrac metric.

    (TIF)

    pone.0353174.s005.tif (237.8KB, tif)
    S4 Fig. Plot of log fold change in taxon abundance for taxa which significantly differed (p < 0.001) between free-living chiggers Eutrombicula splendens with or without Orientia.

    (TIF)

    pone.0353174.s006.tif (99.2KB, tif)
    S5 Fig. Molecular phylogenetic analysis of Rickettsia amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) identified in this study (in red text) and closest related species.

    Phylogenetic tree constructed by the Maximum-likelihood (ML) method based on the 16S rRNA gene. The Orientia tsutsugamushi strain (NR 025860) was included as an outgroup.

    (TIF)

    pone.0353174.s007.tif (2.6MB, tif)
    S6 Fig. Molecular phylogenetic analysis of Listeria amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) identified in this study (in red text) and closest related species.

    Phylogenetic tree constructed by the Maximum-likelihood (ML) method based on 16S rRNA gene. The Brochothrix campestris strain (NR044824) was included as an outgroup.

    (TIF)

    pone.0353174.s008.tif (5.1MB, tif)
    S7 Fig. Molecular phylogenetic analysis of Legionella amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) identified in this study (in red text) and closest related species.

    Phylogenetic tree constructed by the Maximum-likelihood (ML) method based on 16S rRNA gene.

    (TIF)

    pone.0353174.s009.tif (1.4MB, tif)
    S8 Fig. Molecular phylogenetic analysis of Staphylococcus amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) identified in this study (in red text) and closest related species.

    This tree is collapsed with nodes organized by sequence differences of 0.002. Phylogenetic tree constructed by the Maximum-likelihood (ML) method based on 16S rRNA gene.

    (TIF)

    pone.0353174.s010.tif (3.7MB, tif)
    S9 Fig. Molecular phylogenetic analysis of Streptococcus amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) identified in this study (in red text) and closest related species.

    This tree is collapsed with nodes organized by sequence differences of 0.002. Phylogenetic tree constructed by the Maximum-likelihood (ML) method based on 16S rRNA gene.

    (TIF)

    pone.0353174.s011.tif (2.9MB, tif)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Comments to the Author.pdf

    pone.0353174.s012.pdf (146.4KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Comments and response to Reviewer #1and2_Final.docx

    pone.0353174.s014.docx (28.6KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The bacterial microbiome raw datasets have been submitted to the NCBI Sequence Read Archive (SRA) under the BioProject SUB15424311. Additionally, sequences data are available at accession number PRJNA1285095.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES