ArticleParasitology research2018
Evaluation of a semi-automated in vitro feeding system for Dermacentor reticulatus and Ixodes ricinus adults.
Article in Parasitology research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Successful completion of the life cycle of Amblyomma variegatum using tick artificial membrane feeding system.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- In vitro feeding of all life stages of two-host Hyalomma excavatum and Hyalomma scupense and three-host Hyalomma dromedarii ticks.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- In vitro feeding of Hyalomma excavatum and Hyalomma marginatum tick species.Parasitology research · 2023Article
- Preliminary Study on Artificial versus Animal-Based Feeding Systems forMicroorganisms · 2023Article
- Evaluating Transmission Paths for Three DifferentMicroorganisms · 2021Article
- Artificial Feeding of All Consecutive Life Stages ofVaccines · 2021Article
- Counterattacking the tick bite: towards a rational design of anti-tick vaccines targeting pathogen transmission.Parasites & vectors · 2019Review
- Metazoan Parasite Vaccines: Present Status and Future Prospects.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The long feeding duration of ixodid ticks and need for regular blood changes turns the artificial feeding of ticks into a tedious process. To reduce the number of blood changes, a semi-automated system (SAS) for the artificial feeding of hard ticks was developed and evaluated. It consisted of a glass feeding reservoir that can accommodate six tick feeding chambers. A peristaltic pump was used to pump blood through the feeding reservoir, which was changed once daily. Groups of Dermacentor reticulatus and Ixodes ricinus adults were fed simultaneously in both the SAS and a conventional in vitro feeding system. In the conventional system, feeding chambers were hung inside a glass beaker filled with blood that was replaced twice daily. Dermacentor reticulatus adults fed in the SAS obtained significantly higher engorgement weights. Although engorgement rates between both systems were comparable, significantly more SAS-fed females laid fertile egg batches. The egg batch weight of SAS-fed females was also significantly higher. In contrast, the engorgement rate and fecundity of SAS-fed I. ricinus were significantly reduced in comparison to ticks fed in the conventional system. This reduction was likely to be caused by fungal infestation, which could spread between feeding chambers in the SAS. Although the SAS reduced the workload compared to the conventional feeding system and showed promising results for the in vitro feeding of D. reticulatus adults, measures to prevent fungal infestations in the SAS should be considered in future studies.
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.