Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29301571›Full record

ArticleParasites & vectors2018

Antibody response to sand fly saliva is a marker of transmission intensity but not disease progression in dogs naturally infected with Leishmania infantum.

Rupert J Quinnell, Seyi Soremekun, Paul A Bates, Matthew E Rogers, Lourdes M Garcez, Orin Courtenay

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Parasites & vectors, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Humoral and T-Cell-Mediated Immunity AgainstPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  4. Assessment of the exposure toThe veterinary quarterly · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Human immune response toPathogens and global health · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Biomarkers for Zoonotic Visceral Leishmaniasis in Latin America.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2018
    Review
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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Rupert J QuinnellSchool of Biology, Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. R.J.Quinnell@leeds.ac.uk.
Seyi SoremekunZeeman Institute and School of Life Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Paul A BatesDivision of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Matthew E RogersFaculty of Infectious Tropical Diseases, Department of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Lourdes M GarcezInstituto Evandro Chagas, Belém, Pará, Brazil.
Orin CourtenayZeeman Institute and School of Life Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK. Orin.Courtenay@warwick.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-0188-6929
University of Warwick · GBLancaster University · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversidade do Estado do Pará · BRUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/H022406/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAntibody responses to sand fly saliva have been suggested to be a useful marker of exposure to sand fly bites and Leishmania infection and a potential tool to monitor the effectiveness of entomological interventions. Exposure to sand fly bites before infection has also been suggested to modulate the severity of the infection. Here, we test these hypotheses by quantifying the anti-saliva IgG response in a cohort study of dogs exposed to natural infection with Leishmania infantum in Brazil.

methodsIgG responses to crude salivary antigens of the sand fly Lutzomyia longipalpis were measured by ELISA in longitudinal serum samples from 47 previously unexposed sentinel dogs and 11 initially uninfected resident dogs for up to 2 years. Antibody responses were compared to the intensity of transmission, assessed by variation in the incidence of infection between seasons and between dogs. Antibody responses before patent infection were then compared with the severity of infection, assessed using tissue parasite loads and clinical symptoms.

resultsPreviously unexposed dogs acquired anti-saliva antibody responses within 2 months, and the rate of acquisition increased with the intensity of seasonal transmission. Over the following 2 years, antibody responses varied with seasonal transmission and sand fly numbers, declining rapidly in periods of low transmission. Antibody responses varied greatly between dogs and correlated with the intensity of transmission experienced by individual dogs, measured by the number of days in the field before patent infection. After infection, anti-saliva antibody responses were positively correlated with anti-parasite antibody responses. However, there was no evidence that the degree of exposure to sand fly bites before infection affected the severity of the infection.

conclusionsAnti-saliva antibody responses are a marker of current transmission intensity in dogs exposed to natural infection with Leishmania infantum, but are not associated with the outcome of infection.

Indexed as

Antibody FormationAnimalsBiomarkersBrazilDisease ProgressionDog DiseasesDogsEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayImmunoglobulin GIncidenceLeishmaniasisLongitudinal StudiesPsychodidaeSalivaSeverity of Illness IndexBiomarkersImmunoglobulin GAntibodyBrazilDogsExposureLeishmania infantumLeishmaniasisSalivaSand flyTransmission

Identifiers

PMID29301571
PMCPMC5755305
OpenAlexW2781878625

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.