ArticleParasites & vectors2018
Influence of confluent marine currents in an ecotonal region of the South-West Atlantic on the distribution of larval anisakids (Nematoda: Anisakidae).
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- New Insights on the Diversity, Ecology and Genetic Population Structure ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Re-evaluation of certain aspects of the EFSA Scientific Opinion of April 2010 on risk assessment of parasites in fishery products, based on new scientific data. Part 2.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2024Article
- Triglyceride glucose-body mass index and the risk of progression to diabetes from prediabetes: A 5-year cohort study in Chinese adults.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Anisakid nematodes inFood and waterborne parasitology · 2022Article
- Genetic identification of Anisakis spp. (Nematoda: Anisakidae) from cetaceans of the Southwestern Atlantic Ocean: ecological and zoogeographical implications.Parasitology research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn the marine environment, transitional zones between major water masses harbour high biodiversity, mostly due to their productivity and by containing representatives of species characteristic of adjacent communities. With the aim of assessing the value of larval Anisakis as zoogeographical indicators in a transitional zone between subtropical and sub-Antarctic marine currents, larvae obtained from Zenopsis conchifer were genetically identified. Larvae from Pagrus pagrus and Merluccius hubbsi from two adjacent zoogeographical provinces were also sequenced.
resultsFour species were genetically identified in the whole sample, including Anisakis typica, A. pegreffii, A. berlandi and a probably new species related to A. paggiae. Anisakis typica and A. pegreffii were identified as indicators of tropical/subtropical and sub-Antarctic waters, respectively, and their presence evidenced the transitional conditions of the region. Multivariate analyses on prevalence and mean abundance of Anisakis spp. of 18 samples represented by 9 fish species caught south of 35°S determined that host trophic level and locality of capture were the main drivers of the distribution of parasites across zoogeographical units in the South-West Atlantic.
conclusionsMost samples followed a clear zoogeographical pattern, but the sample of Z. conchifer, composed mostly of A. typica, was an exception. This finding suggests that population parameters of A. typica and A. pegreffii could differ enough to be considered as a surrogates of the identity of larvae parasitizing a given host population and, therefore, a step forward the validation of the use of larval Anisakis as biological indicators for studies on host zoogeography.
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.