Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34635188›Full record

ReviewIMA fungus2021

Fungi of entomopathogenic potential in Chytridiomycota and Blastocladiomycota, and in fungal allies of the Oomycota and Microsporidia.

Agata Kaczmarek, Mieczysława I Boguś

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in IMA fungus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Entomopathogenic fungi: insights into recent understanding.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2025
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. The mycoparasiteFrontiers in plant science · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Octanoic Acid-An Insecticidal Metabolite ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

2 authors.

Agata KaczmarekWitold Stefański Institute of Parasitology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Twarda 51/55, 00-818, Warsaw, Poland. aga_kaczm@twarda.pan.pl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7319-7973
Mieczysława I BoguśWitold Stefański Institute of Parasitology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Twarda 51/55, 00-818, Warsaw, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The relationship between entomopathogenic fungi and their insect hosts is a classic example of the co-evolutionary arms race between pathogen and target host. The present review describes the entomopathogenic potential of Chytridiomycota and Blastocladiomycota fungi, and two groups of fungal allies: Oomycota and Microsporidia. The Oomycota (water moulds) are considered as a model biological control agent of mosquito larvae. Due to their shared ecological and morphological similarities, they had long been considered a part of the fungal kingdom; however, phylogenetic studies have since placed this group within the Straminipila. The Microsporidia are parasites of economically-important insects, including grasshoppers, lady beetles, bumblebees, colorado potato beetles and honeybees. They have been found to display some fungal characteristics, and phylogenetic studies suggest that they are related to fungi, either as a basal branch or sister group. The Blastocladiomycota and Chytridiomycota, named the lower fungi, historically were described together; however, molecular phylogenetic and ultrastructural research has classified them in their own phylum. They are considered parasites of ants, and of the larval stages of black flies, mosquitoes and scale insects.

Indexed as

Biological controlHost-specificityInsect pathogens

Identifiers

PMID34635188
PMCPMC8504053

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.