ArticleJournal of medical entomology2016
Comparison of In Vivo and In Vitro Methods for Blood Feeding of Phlebotomus papatasi (Diptera: Psychodidae) in the Laboratory.
Article in Journal of medical entomology, 2016. 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of image analysis in the evaluation of blood feeding by Lutzomyia longipalpis using an artificial feeding system with synthetic membranes.Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz · 2026Article
- Sand fly blood meal volumes and their relation to female body weight under experimental conditions.Parasites & vectors · 2024Article
- In Vitro Evaluation of Essential Oils and Saturated Fatty Acids for Repellency against the Old-World Sand Fly,Insects · 2024Article
- Optimizing tick artificial membrane feeding for Ixodes scapularis.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Standing genetic variation in laboratory populations of insecticide-susceptibleEvolutionary applications · 2021Article
- Odour of domestic dogs infected with Leishmania infantum is attractive to female but not male sand flies: Evidence for parasite manipulation.PLoS pathogens · 2021Article
- Laboratory colonization and mass rearing of phlebotomine sand flies (Diptera, Psychodidae).Parasite (Paris, France) · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Phlebotomus papatasi Scopoli is a medically important insect that has been successfully colonized in the laboratory, and blood feeding is critical for colony propagation. There has been much interest in developing established protocols for in vitro blood-feeding systems. The objective of this study was to determine if a Parafilm membrane and a hog's gut membrane could be successfully used with in vitro feeding systems. We evaluated percentages of P. papatasi females that blood fed on different blood-feeding systems (a mouse, a Hemotek feeder, or a glass feeder) used with either a Parafilm or a hog's gut membrane, with cohorts of 250 and 500 P. papatasi females, and with or without external exhalations. For all feeding system combinations, female P. papatasi blood fed in higher percentages when in cohorts of 500 individuals and in the presence of exhalations. Higher percentages of P. papatasi fed on a mouse, but this study also demonstrates that P. papatasi will readily feed with in vitro feeding systems using a Parafilm membrane or a hog's gut membrane. This study suggests that female P. papatasi may use an invitation effect to blood feed and are attracted to blood sources via chemical olfaction cues, both of which have been characterized in other blood-feeding arthropods. Our study demonstrates that a Parafilm membrane or a hog's gut membrane, in conjunction with the Hemotek or glass feeder system, is potentially a viable alternative to live rodents to blood feed a colony of P. papatasi.
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.