Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35103595›Full record

ArticleeLife2022

Comment on 'Unexpected plasticity in the life cycle of

Keith R Matthews, Stephen Larcombe

Open access · goldAbstract readLetterComment
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Cell-cell communication in African trypanosomes.Microbiology (Reading, England) · 2023
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Keith R MatthewsInstitute for Immunology and Infection Research, School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0309-9184
Stephen LarcombeInstitute for Immunology and Infection Research, School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
University of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust 103740/Z/14/ZWellcome Trust 206815/Z/17/ZWellcome Trust 221717Wellcome Trust 221717/Z/20/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Schuster et al. make the important observation that small numbers of trypanosomes can infect tsetse flies, and further argue that this can occur whether the infecting parasites are developmentally 'slender' or 'stumpy'(Schuster et al., 2021). We welcome their careful experiments but disagree that they require a rethink of the trypanosome life-cycle. Instead, the study reveals that stumpy forms are more likely to successfully infect flies, the key limit on parasite transmission, and we predict this advantage would be greatly amplified in tsetse infections in the field. Further, we argue that stumpy forms are defined by a suite of molecular adaptations for life-cycle progression, with morphology being a secondary feature. Finally, their dominance in chronic infections means most natural tsetse infections would involve stumpy forms, even in small numbers. Our interpretation does not require re-evaluation of the obligatory life cycle of the parasite, where stumpy forms are selected to sustain transmission.

Indexed as

TrypanosomaTrypanosoma brucei bruceiTsetse FliesAdaptation, PhysiologicalAnimalsLife Cycle Stagesinfectious diseasemicrobiologyparasitestumpy formtransmissionTrypanosoma bruceiTrypanosoma congolensetsetse fly

Identifiers

PMID35103595
PMCPMC8806180
OpenAlexW4210284202

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.