ArticlePloS one2013
New host range for Hematodinium in southern Australia and novel tools for sensitive detection of parasitic dinoflagellates.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The pathogenesis ofParasitology · 2025Review
- Parasitic dinoflagellate Hematodinium in marine decapod crustaceans: a review on current knowledge and future perspectives.Parasitology research · 2023Review
- Extracellular vesicle signatures and protein citrullination are modified in shore crabs (Virulence · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hematodinium is a parasitic dinoflagellate and emerging pathogen of crustaceans. It preferably manifests in haemolymph of marine decapod crustaceans, killing a large variety of genera with significant impacts on fisheries worldwide. There is, however, evidence that some crustacean stocks harbor high prevalence, low intensity infections that may not result in widespread host mortality and are therefore hard to detect. The most widely used methods for detection of Hematodinium are conventional blood smears and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) against ribosomal RNAs. Blood smears demand a trained investigator, are labor intensive and not readily scalable for high-throughput sampling. PCRs only detect parasite DNA and can also suffer from false negatives and positives. In order to develop alternative detection tools for Hematodinium cells in decapod crustaceans we employed an immunological approach against a newly identified, abundant dinoflagellate-specific nuclear protein--Dinoflagellate/Viral NucleoProtein (DVNP). Both immunofluorescence assay (IFA) and Western blot methods against DVNP showed high sensitivity of detection. The Western blot detects Hematodinium parasites to levels of 25 parasites per milliliter of crustacean haemolymph, with the potential for sample pooling and screening of large samples. Using both PCR and these new tools, we have identified Hematodinium cells present in three new host crab taxa, at high prevalence but with no sign of pathogenesis. This extends the known range of Hematodinium to southern Australia.
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.