Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16553311›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2006

Niche metabolism in parasitic protozoa.

Michael L Ginger

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Genetic analysis of pyrimidine biosynthetic enzymes inbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  3. Ribosome Specialization in Protozoa Parasites.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Genomics of apicomplexan parasites.Critical reviews in biochemistry and molecular biology · 2017
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

1 author.

Michael L GingerSir William Dunn School of Pathology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3RE, UK. michael.ginger@path.ox.ac.uk

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Complete or partial genome sequences have recently become available for several medically and evolutionarily important parasitic protozoa. Through the application of bioinformatics complete metabolic repertoires for these parasites can be predicted. For experimentally intractable parasites insight provided by metabolic maps generated in silico has been startling. At its more extreme end, such bioinformatics reckoning facilitated the discovery in some parasites of mitochondria remodelled beyond previous recognition, and the identification of a non-photosynthetic chloroplast relic in malarial parasites. However, for experimentally tractable parasites, mapping of the general metabolic terrain is only a first step in understanding how the parasite modulates its streamlined, yet still often puzzlingly complex, metabolism in order to complete life cycles within host, vector, or environment. This review provides a comparative overview and discussion of metabolic strategies used by several different parasitic protozoa in order to subvert and survive host defences, and illustrates how genomic data contribute to the elucidation of parasite metabolism.

Indexed as

Energy MetabolismAnimalsBiological EvolutionEukaryotaGenome, ProtozoanHost-Parasite InteractionsParasitic Diseases

Identifiers

PMID16553311
PMCPMC1626543

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.