Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33031451›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Ophidiomycosis, an emerging fungal disease of snakes: Targeted surveillance on military lands and detection in the western US and Puerto Rico.

Matthew C Allender, Michael J Ravesi, Ellen Haynes, Emilie Ospina, Christopher Petersen, Christopher A Phillips, Robert Lovich

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Snake Fungal Disease (Ophidiomycosis) in Northern Pine Snakes (Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Gene functions of theMicrobial genomics · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Leveraging preserved specimens ofEcology and evolution · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors.

Matthew C AllenderWildlife Epidemiology Laboratory, Veterinary Diagnostic Lab, Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-9067-1964
Michael J RavesiWildlife Division, Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, Sessions Woods WMA, Burlington, CT, United States of America.
Ellen HaynesWildlife Epidemiology Laboratory, Veterinary Diagnostic Lab, Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-0033-0304
Emilie OspinaWildlife Epidemiology Laboratory, Veterinary Diagnostic Lab, Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, United States of America.
Christopher PetersenNaval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic, Norfolk, VA, United States of America.
Christopher A PhillipsIllinois Natural History Survey, Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, United States of America.
Robert LovichNaval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, San Diego, CA, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wildlife disease surveillance and pathogen detection are fundamental for conservation, population sustainability, and public health. Detection of pathogens in snakes is often overlooked despite their essential roles as both predators and prey within their communities. Ophidiomycosis (formerly referred to as Snake Fungal Disease, SFD), an emergent disease on the North American landscape caused by the fungus Ophidiomyces ophiodiicola, poses a threat to snake population health and stability. We tested 657 individual snakes representing 58 species in 31 states from 56 military bases in the continental US and Puerto Rico for O. ophiodiicola. Ophidiomyces ophiodiicola DNA was detected in samples from 113 snakes for a prevalence of 17.2% (95% CI: 14.4-20.3%), representing 25 species from 19 states/territories, including the first reports of the pathogen in snakes in Idaho, Oklahoma, and Puerto Rico. Most animals were ophidiomycosis negative (n = 462), with Ophidiomyces detected by qPCR (n = 64), possible ophidiomycosis (n = 82), and apparent ophidiomycosis (n = 49) occurring less frequently. Adults had 2.38 times greater odds than juveniles of being diagnosed with ophidiomycosis. Snakes from Georgia, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia all had greater odds of ophidiomycosis diagnosis, while snakes from Idaho were less likely to be diagnosed with ophidiomycosis. The results of this survey indicate that this pathogen is endemic in the eastern US and identified new sites that could represent emergence or improved detection of endemic sites. The direct mortality of snakes with ophidiomycosis is unknown from this study, but the presence of numerous individuals with clinical disease warrants further investigation and possible conservation action.

Indexed as

AnimalsDermatomycosesDNA, FungalLogistic ModelsMilitary FacilitiesOnygenalesPhylogenyPrevalencePuerto RicoReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionSnakesUnited StatesDNA, Fungal

Identifiers

PMID33031451
PMCPMC7544097

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.