Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16191624›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2005

Behavioural manipulation in a grasshopper harbouring hairworm: a proteomics approach.

D G Biron, L Marché, F Ponton, H D Loxdale, N Galéotti, L Renault, C Joly, F Thomas

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 154 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Evidence thatbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Why does the microbiome affect behaviour?Nature reviews. Microbiology · 2018
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

D G BironGEMI, UMR CNRS/IRD 2724, IRD, 911 av. Agropolis BP 64501, 34394 Montpellier cedex 5, France. biron@mpl.ird.fr
L Marché
F Ponton
H D Loxdale
N Galéotti
L Renault
C Joly
F Thomas
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRInstitut de Recherche pour le Développement · FRRothamsted Research · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The parasitic Nematomorph hairworm, Spinochordodes tellinii (Camerano) develops inside the terrestrial grasshopper, Meconema thalassinum (De Geer) (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae), changing the insect's responses to water. The resulting aberrant behaviour makes infected insects more likely to jump into an aquatic environment where the adult parasite reproduces. We used proteomics tools (i.e. two-dimensional gel electrophoresis (2-DE), computer assisted comparative analysis of host and parasite protein spots and MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry) to identify these proteins and to explore the mechanisms underlying this subtle behavioural modification. We characterized simultaneously the host (brain) and the parasite proteomes at three stages of the manipulative process, i.e. before, during and after manipulation. For the host, there was a differential proteomic expression in relation to different effects such as the circadian cycle, the parasitic status, the manipulative period itself, and worm emergence. For the parasite, a differential proteomics expression allowed characterization of the parasitic and the free-living stages, the manipulative period and the emergence of the worm from the host. The findings suggest that the adult worm alters the normal functions of the grasshopper's central nervous system (CNS) by producing certain 'effective' molecules. In addition, in the brain of manipulated insects, there was found to be a differential expression of proteins specifically linked to neurotransmitter activities. The evidence obtained also suggested that the parasite produces molecules from the family Wnt acting directly on the development of the CNS. These proteins show important similarities with those known in other insects, suggesting a case of molecular mimicry. Finally, we found many proteins in the host's CNS as well as in the parasite for which the function(s) are still unknown in the published literature (www) protein databases. These results support the hypothesis that host behavioural changes are mediated by a mix of direct and indirect chemical manipulation.

Indexed as

Gene Expression RegulationAnimalsBehavior, AnimalBrainCircadian RhythmElectrophoresis, Gel, Two-DimensionalGrasshoppersHelminthsHost-Parasite InteractionsImage Processing, Computer-AssistedInsect ProteinsProteomicsSpectrometry, Mass, Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption-IonizationInsect Proteins

Identifiers

PMID16191624
PMCPMC1559948
OpenAlexW2145006748

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.