ArticleThe Journal of parasitology2012
In vitro cercariae transformation: comparison of mechanical and nonmechanical methods and observation of morphological changes of detached cercariae tails.
Article in The Journal of parasitology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chromosome-level genome of Schistosoma haematobium underpins genome-wide explorations of molecular variation.PLoS pathogens · 2022Article
- Multiomic analysis of Schistosoma mansoni reveals unique expression profiles in cercarial heads and tails.Communications biology · 2021Article
- Anthelmintic Effect of Bacillus thuringiensis Strains against the Gill Fish Trematode Centrocestus formosanus.BioMed research international · 2016Article
- Mechanically produced schistosomula as a higher-throughput tools for phenotypic pre-screening in drug sensitivity assays: current research and future trends.Biomarker research · 2016Review
- Identification of plumbagin and sanguinarine as effective chemotherapeutic agents for treatment of schistosomiasis.International journal for parasitology. Drugs and drug resistance · 2013Article
- Comparative study of transcriptome profiles of mechanical- and skin-transformed Schistosoma mansoni schistosomula.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Schistosomula, the larval stage of schistosomes in vertebrate hosts, are highly vulnerable and considered an ideal target for vaccine and drug development. Although the schistosomule stage is essential for biological studies, collecting sufficient numbers of schistosomula from their definitive hosts in vivo is difficult to accomplish. However, in vitro collection via cercariae transformation can effectively yield high numbers of schistosomula. We compared a current and widely used double-ended-needle mechanical transformation method to a culture medium based on a nonmechanical method. We found the rates of transformed cercariae, i.e., separated cercariae heads from tails, differed by only 2-7% at 0.5, 1, and 2 days in culture and that there was no significant difference in the number of transformed cercariae between the transformation methods at 3 and 4 days in culture. Notably, the mechanical and nonmechanical cercariae transformation methods both yielded significantly large and similar quantities of viable schistosomula. Given that the nonmechanical method is simpler and less damaging to the parasites, we recommend the use of it as an alternative way for in vitro cercariae transformation. In addition, we also observed morphological changes of the detached cercariae tails in culture medium. Interestingly, the tails are able to regenerate head-like organs/tissues and survive for at least 4 days. This intriguing change suggests unique biological features of the cells in the tails.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.