Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31870316›Full record

ReviewBMC microbiology2019

Tephritid-microbial interactions to enhance fruit fly performance in sterile insect technique programs.

Ania T Deutscher, Toni A Chapman, Lucas A Shuttleworth, Markus Riegler, Olivia L Reynolds

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC microbiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
7.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Knockout ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Ania T DeutscherBiosecurity and Food Safety, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute, Private Bag 4008, Narellan, 2567, New South Wales, Australia. ania.deutscher@dpi.nsw.gov.au.
Toni A ChapmanBiosecurity and Food Safety, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute, Private Bag 4008, Narellan, 2567, New South Wales, Australia.
Lucas A ShuttleworthBiosecurity and Food Safety, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute, Private Bag 4008, Narellan, 2567, New South Wales, Australia.
Markus RieglerHawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith, 2751, New South Wales, Australia.
Olivia L ReynoldsBiosecurity and Food Safety, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute, Private Bag 4008, Narellan, 2567, New South Wales, Australia. oreynolds@cesaraustralia.com.
New South Wales Department of Primary Industries · AUWestern Sydney University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Sterile Insect Technique (SIT) is being applied for the management of economically important pest fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in a number of countries worldwide. The success and cost effectiveness of SIT depends upon the ability of mass-reared sterilized male insects to successfully copulate with conspecific wild fertile females when released in the field.

methodsWe conducted a critical analysis of the literature about the tephritid gut microbiome including the advancement of methods for the identification and characterization of microbiota, particularly next generation sequencing, the impacts of irradiation (to induce sterility of flies) and fruit fly rearing, and the use of probiotics to manipulate the fruit fly gut microbiota.

resultsDomestication, mass-rearing, irradiation and handling, as required in SIT, may change the structure of the fruit flies' gut microbial community compared to that of wild flies under field conditions. Gut microbiota of tephritids are important in their hosts' development, performance and physiology. Knowledge of how mass-rearing and associated changes of the microbial community impact the functional role of the bacteria and host biology is limited. Probiotics offer potential to encourage a gut microbial community that limits pathogens, and improves the quality of fruit flies.

conclusionsAdvances in technologies used to identify and characterize the gut microbiota will continue to expand our understanding of tephritid gut microbial diversity and community composition. Knowledge about the functions of gut microbes will increase through the use of gnotobiotic models, genome sequencing, metagenomics, metatranscriptomics, metabolomics and metaproteomics. The use of probiotics, or manipulation of the gut microbiota, offers significant opportunities to enhance the production of high quality, performing fruit flies in operational SIT programs.

Indexed as

Bacterial Physiological PhenomenaAnimalsDomesticationFemaleGastrointestinal MicrobiomeInsect ControlMalePest Control, BiologicalSexual Behavior, AnimalTephritidaeGut microbiomeGut microbiotaHost-microbe interactionInsect microbial symbiosisMass-rearingMicrobial symbiontProbioticsSITTephritidae

Identifiers

PMID31870316
PMCPMC6929517
OpenAlexW2997778650

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.