Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26462425›Full record

ReviewInsects2013

The Non-Photosynthetic Algae Helicosporidium spp.: Emergence of a Novel Group of Insect Pathogens.

Aurélien Tartar

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Insects, 2013. 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
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Veterinary pathology · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. High Prevalence ofVeterinary sciences · 2022
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Aurélien TartarDivision of Math, Science, and Technology, Nova Southeastern University, 3301 College Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314, USA. aurelien@nova.edu.
Nova Southeastern University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since the original description of Helicosporidium parasiticum in 1921, members of the genus Helicosporidium have been reported to infect a wide variety of invertebrates, but their characterization has remained dependent on occasional reports of infection. Recently, several new Helicosporidium isolates have been successfully maintained in axenic cultures. The ability to produce large quantity of biological material has led to very significant advances in the understanding of Helicosporidium biology and its interactions with insect hosts. In particular, the unique infectious process has been well documented; the highly characteristic cyst and its included filamentous cell have been shown to play a central role during host infection and have been the focus of detailed morphological and developmental studies. In addition, phylogenetic analyses inferred from a multitude of molecular sequences have demonstrated that Helicosporidium are highly specialized non-photosynthetic algae (Chlorophyta: Trebouxiophyceae), and represent the first described entomopathogenic algae. This review provides an overview of (i) the morphology of Helicosporidium cell types, (ii) the Helicosporidium life cycle, including the entire infectious sequence and its impact on insect hosts, (iii) the phylogenetic analyses that have prompted the taxonomic classification of Helicosporidium as green algae, and (iv) the documented host range for this novel group of entomopathogens.

Indexed as

biological controlentomopathogensHelicosporidiumpathogenic algaeProtothecaTrebouxiophyte

Identifiers

PMID26462425
PMCPMC4553470
OpenAlexW2046393003

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.