Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34356491›Full record

ReviewBiology2021

Assessment of Associations between Malaria Parasites and Avian Hosts-A Combination of Classic System and Modern Molecular Approach.

Xi Huang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Assemblages ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    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

1 author.

Xi HuangMOE Key Laboratory for Biodiversity Science and Ecological Engineering, College of Life Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China.ORCID 0000-0001-6515-261X

Funding

Fundamental Research Funds for Central Universities of the Central South University 2019NTST13National Science Foundation of China 32000292
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Avian malaria and related haemosporidian parasites are responsible for fitness loss and mortality in susceptible bird species. This group of globally distributed parasites has long been used as a classical system for investigating host-parasite associations. The association between a parasite and its hosts can be assessed by the prevalence in the host population and infection intensity in a host individual, which, respectively, reflect the ability of the parasite to infect the host and reproduce within the host. However, the latter has long been poorly investigated due to numerous challenges, such as lack of general molecular markers and limited sensitivity of traditional methods, especially when analysing naturally infected birds. The recent development of genetic databases, together with novel molecular methodologies, has shed light on this long-standing problem. Real-time quantitative PCR has enabled more accurate quantification of avian haemosporidian parasites, and digital droplet PCR further improved experimental sensitivity and repeatability of quantification. In recent decades, parallel studies have been carried out all over the world, providing great opportunities for exploring the adaptation of haemosporidian parasites to different hosts and the variations across time and space, and further investigating the coevolutionary history between parasites and their hosts. I hereby review the most important milestones in diagnosis techniques of avian haemosporidian parasites and illustrate how they provide new insights for understanding host-parasite associations.

Indexed as

avian haemosporidianshost-parasite associationinfection intensitymolecularquantitative PCR

Identifiers

PMID34356491
PMCPMC8301060

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.