Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23845310›Full record

ReviewTrends in parasitology2013

Wolbachia: Can we save lives with a great pandemic?

Daniel LePage, Seth R Bordenstein

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in parasitology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.9field-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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 110 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Microorganisms inInternational journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 2026
    Article
  3. mBio · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Biology · 2024
    Review
  13. bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in theWellcome open research · 2022
    Article
  20. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Daniel LePageDepartment of Biological Sciences, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA. daniel.lepage@vanderbilt.edu
Seth R Bordenstein
Vanderbilt University · US

Funding

TRAINING PROGRAM IN CELLULAR, BIOCHEMICAL, &MOLECULAR ST32GM008554 · NIGMS · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI PATTON, JAMES G. · 1995 to 2020
$7.4M
Molecular Evolution and Life Cycle of Wolbachia BacteriophageR01GM085163 · NIGMS · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI BORDENSTEIN, SETH R · 2008 to 2012
$1.2M
NIGMS NIH HHS 5T32GM008554-1NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM085163NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM008554
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wolbachia pipientis is the most common bacterial infection in the animal world and wields a vast influence on invertebrate reproduction, sex determination, speciation, and behavior worldwide. These avenues of research have made seminal gains, including the latest use of Wolbachia to alter mosquito populations and a strengthened focus on using anti-Wolbachia therapies against filarial nematode infections. This work is further bolstered by a more refined knowledge of Wolbachia biology spanning mechanisms to relevance. Here we tally the most up-to-date knowledge in the field and review the immense implications that this global infection has for the basic and applied life sciences.

Indexed as

AnimalsCulicidaeFemaleFilariasisGlobal HealthHumansInsect VectorsMaleNematodaPandemicsPest Control, BiologicalReproductionWolbachiafilarial diseasevector controlWolbachia pipientis

Identifiers

PMID23845310
PMCPMC3775348
OpenAlexW2044137955

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.