Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21062139›Full record

ArticleJournal of insect science (Online)2010

Evaluation of Bacillus thuringiensis pathogenicity for a strain of the tick, Rhipicephalus microplus, resistant to chemical pesticides.

Manuel Fernández-Ruvalcaba, Guadalupe Peña-Chora, Armando Romo-Martínez, Víctor Hernández-Velázquez, Alejandra Bravo de la Parra, Diego Pérez De La Rosa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of insect science (Online), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. In Situ Localization ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Efficacy of EntomopathogenicMicroorganisms · 2024
    Article
  6. Molecular Identification ofJournal of parasitology research · 2024
    Article
  7. Microbiology spectrum · 2023
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
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

6 authors.

Manuel Fernández-RuvalcabaCentro Nacional de Investigaciones en Parasitología Veterinaria INIFAP Km 11.5 Carretera Federal Cuernavaca-Cuautla, Col Progreso, Jiutepec, Morelos, México, CP 62550. fernadez.manuel@inifap.gob.mx
Guadalupe Peña-Chora
Armando Romo-Martínez
Víctor Hernández-Velázquez
Alejandra Bravo de la Parra
Diego Pérez De La Rosa

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The pathogenicity of four native strains of Bacillus thuringiensis against Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus (Canestrine) (Acari: Ixodidae) was evaluated. A R. microplus strain that is resistant to organophosphates, pyrethroids, and amidines, was used in this study. Adult R. microplus females were bioassayed using the immersion test of Drummond against 60 B. thuringiensis strains. Four strains, GP123, GP138, GP130, and GP140, were found to be toxic. For the immersion test, the total protein concentration for each bacterial strain was 1.25 mg/ml. Mortality, oviposition, and egg hatch were recorded. All of the bacterial strains had significant effects compared to the controls, but no significant differences were seen between the 4 strains. It is evident that these B. thuringiensis strains have a considerable detrimental effect on the R. microplus strain that is resistant to pesticides.

Indexed as

Analysis of VarianceAnimalsBacillus thuringiensisFemaleFertilityInsecticide ResistanceMexicoMortalityOvipositionPest Control, BiologicalRhipicephalusSpecies Specificity

Identifiers

PMID21062139
PMCPMC3016859

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.