ArticleParasitology research2015
Phylogenetic relationships and new genetic tools for the detection and discrimination of the three feline Demodex mites.
Article in Parasitology research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- First Detection of Human- and Dog-AssociatedPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Demodicosis in a Kunekune pig and molecular characterisation of porcine demodectic mites involved: a case report.Parasites & vectors · 2024Article
- Skin mites in mice (Mus musculus): high prevalence of Myobia sp. (Acari, Arachnida) in Robertsonian mice.Parasitology research · 2018Article
- Comparison of Diagnostic Methods and Sampling Sites for the Detection of Demodex musculi.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2018Article
- DNA barcoding for molecular identification of Demodex based on mitochondrial genes.Parasitology research · 2017Article
- Article
- Effectiveness of a fluralaner spot-on formulation in a case of feline demodicosis due toJFMS open reportsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Two feline Demodex mite species have been described as causative agents of feline demodicosis, until recently a third species was detected. We provide an updated analysis on the phylogenetic relationship of Demodex mites. In addition, we present the first qPCR assay for the detection and differentiation of all three feline mite species in a single reaction. Specimen of Demodex cati, Demodex gatoi, and the recently discovered third species were collected from skin scrapings and fecal flotation for DNA extraction, conventional PCR, sequencing, and alignment. A total of 24 sequences of the partial 16S rRNA gene were used to estimate the evolutionary divergence in a p-distance model and a maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree. For the qPCR assay, new primers and fluorescent probes for the simultaneous detection of all three feline Demodex mites were designed. A consensus fragment of 351 bp was phylogenetically analyzed. The third species sequence of our study shares 98.6 % similarity to the available sequence in GenBank®. It is most similar to D. gatoi (82.41 %) and most distant to the canine Demodex injai (78.28 %). In contrast, D. gatoi is most similar to human Demodex brevis (87.01 %). The multiplex qPCR detected and discriminated the three different mite species in one reaction. The detection limit is ≤1.4 ng of mite DNA. The three feline Demodex species have distinct genotypes and did not cluster in one genetic clade. The species differentiation and assessment of evolutionary relationships will ultimately support correct diagnostics and treatment approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25468382What 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.