ArticlePloS one2020
Comparative analysis of biological aspects of Leishmania infantum strains.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Repurposing memantine as an oral therapy for visceral leishmaniasis: identification of direct leishmanicidal activity and immune system modulation in preclinical studies.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Infectivity studies of Leishmania (Leishmania) infantum chagasi isolated from non-ulcerated cutaneous leishmaniasis.Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo · 2025Article
- Improving reproducibility and translational potential of mouse models: lessons from studying leishmaniasis.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Pleiotropic Effect of Hormone Insulin-Like Growth Factor-I in Immune Response and Pathogenesis in Leishmaniases.Journal of immunology research · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Leishmania infantum infantum (LII) is one of the species that causes visceral leishmaniasis (VL) in the Old World, while L. infantum chagasi (LIC) is present in the New World. Few studies address biological differences or the behavior of these strains during infection. These parasites live inside cells of their hosts, continuously evading microbicidal mechanisms and modulating the immune responses of these cells. One of the mechanisms used by these protozoa involves the L-arginine metabolism. Understanding the differences between Leishmania species and establishing an improved murine model for study of leishmaniasis are matters of extreme importance. Thereby, the objectives of this work were to analyze the biological and molecular differences between two Leishmania infantum strains (LII and LIC) and the degree of susceptibility to infection of mice with different genetic backgrounds. The infectivity in vivo and in vitro of LII and LIC strains was evaluated in BALB/c and Swiss Webster mice, as well the NOS and ARG activities. The LII strain was more infective than the LIC strain both in vivo and in vitro. In animals infected by the LII and LIC strains, differences in NOS and ARG activities occurred. In vitro, promastigotes of LII isolated from BALB/c and Swiss Webster mice showed higher ARG activity than LIC promastigotes during the growth curve. However, no difference was observed in intracellular NO production by promastigotes of these strains. The ARG gene sequences were compared, and those of both strains were identical. However, despite the similarity, the strains showed different expression levels of this gene. It can be concluded that although L. chagasi strains are considered identical to L. infantum strains from a molecular point of view, these strains have different biological behavior.
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.