Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26140167›Full record

ArticleComparative cytogenetics2015

Phylogenetic relationships of some species of the family Echinostomatidae Odner, 1910 (Trematoda), inferred from nuclear rDNA sequences and karyological analysis.

Gražina Stanevičiūtė, Virmantas Stunžėnas, Romualda Petkevičiūtė

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Comparative cytogenetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. A Description ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Parasitology · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Parasitology · 2020
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Gražina StanevičiūtėInstitute of Ecology of Nature Research Centre, Akademijos str. 2, LT-08412 Vilnius, Lithuania.
Virmantas StunžėnasInstitute of Ecology of Nature Research Centre, Akademijos str. 2, LT-08412 Vilnius, Lithuania.
Romualda PetkevičiūtėInstitute of Ecology of Nature Research Centre, Akademijos str. 2, LT-08412 Vilnius, Lithuania.
Nature Research Centre · LT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The family Echinostomatidae Looss, 1899 exhibits a substantial taxonomic diversity, morphological criteria adopted by different authors have resulted in its subdivision into an impressive number of subfamilies. The status of the subfamily Echinochasminae Odhner, 1910 was changed in various classifications. Genetic characteristics and phylogenetic analysis of four Echinostomatidae species - Echinochasmus sp., Echinochasmuscoaxatus Dietz, 1909, Stephanoprorapseudoechinata (Olsson, 1876) and Echinoparyphiummordwilkoi Skrjabin, 1915 were obtained to understand well enough the homogeneity of the Echinochasminae and phylogenetic relationships within the Echinostomatidae. Chromosome set and nuclear rDNA (ITS2 and 28S) sequences of parthenites of Echinochasmus sp. were studied. The karyotype of this species (2n=20, one pair of large bi-armed chromosomes and others are smaller-sized, mainly one-armed, chromosomes) differed from that previously described for two other representatives of the Echinochasminae, Echinochasmusbeleocephalus (von Linstow, 1893), 2n=14, and Episthmiumbursicola (Creplin, 1937), 2n=18. In phylogenetic trees based on ITS2 and 28S datasets, a well-supported subclade with Echinochasmus sp. and Stephanoprorapseudoechinata clustered with one well-supported clade together with Echinochasmusjaponicus Tanabe, 1926 (data only for 28S) and Echinochasmuscoaxatus. These results supported close phylogenetic relationships between Echinochasmus Dietz, 1909 and Stephanoprora Odhner, 1902. Phylogenetic analysis revealed a clear separation of related species of Echinostomatoidea restricted to prosobranch snails as first intermediate hosts, from other species of Echinostomatidae and Psilostomidae, developing in Lymnaeoidea snails as first intermediate hosts. According to the data based on rDNA phylogeny, it was supposed that evolution of parasitic flukes linked with first intermediate hosts. Digeneans parasitizing prosobranch snails showed higher dynamic of karyotype evolution provided by different chromosomal rearrangements including Robertsonian translocations and pericentric inversions than more stable karyotype of digenean worms parasitizing lymnaeoid pulmonate snails.

Indexed as

28SEchinochasmusEchinostomatidaeintermediate hostITS2karyotype evolutionrDNAStephanoprora

Identifiers

PMID26140167
PMCPMC4488972
OpenAlexW2179310178

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.