ArticleParasitology research2017
DNA barcoding for molecular identification of Demodex based on mitochondrial genes.
Article in Parasitology research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identification and genetic characterisatin of cathepsin L in Demodex.Experimental & applied acarology · 2023Article
- State-of-the-Art Techniques for Diagnosis of Medical Parasites and Arthropods.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Divergent domains of 28S ribosomal RNA gene: DNA barcodes for molecular classification and identification of mites.Parasites & vectors · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
There has been no widely accepted DNA barcode for species identification of Demodex. In this study, we attempted to solve this issue. First, mitochondrial cox1-5' and 12S gene fragments of Demodex folloculorum, D. brevis, D. canis, and D. caprae were amplified, cloned, and sequenced for the first time; intra/interspecific divergences were computed and phylogenetic trees were reconstructed. Then, divergence frequency distribution plots of those two gene fragments were drawn together with mtDNA cox1-middle region and 16S obtained in previous studies. Finally, their identification efficiency was evaluated by comparing barcoding gap. Results indicated that 12S had the higher identification efficiency. Specifically, for cox1-5' region of the four Demodex species, intraspecific divergences were less than 2.0%, and interspecific divergences were 21.1-31.0%; for 12S, intraspecific divergences were less than 1.4%, and interspecific divergences were 20.8-26.9%. The phylogenetic trees demonstrated that the four Demodex species clustered separately, and divergence frequency distribution plot showed that the largest intraspecific divergence of 12S (1.4%) was less than cox1-5' region (2.0%), cox1-middle region (3.1%), and 16S (2.8%). The barcoding gap of 12S was 19.4%, larger than cox1-5' region (19.1%), cox1-middle region (11.3%), and 16S (13.0%); the interspecific divergence span of 12S was 6.2%, smaller than cox1-5' region (10.0%), cox1-middle region (14.1%), and 16S (11.4%). Moreover, 12S has a moderate length (517 bp) for sequencing at once. Therefore, we proposed mtDNA 12S was more suitable than cox1 and 16S to be a DNA barcode for classification and identification of Demodex at lower category level.
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.