ArticleParasitology research2022
28S rRNA sequences for Linguatula spp.
Article in Parasitology research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reconsidering the risks of Linguatula in Australia: A review of an overlooked introduced parasite.Parasitology research · 2026Review
- First complete mitochondrial genome of Armillifer moniliformis (Pentastomida: Porocephalida) isolated from a human case in Northern Thailand: comparative and phylogenetic analyses.Parasitology research · 2025Article
- Exploring the anatomy ofInternational journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 2024Article
- Review
- Article
- Characterization of tongue worms, Linguatula spp. (Pentastomida) in Romania, with the first record of an unknown adult Linguatula from roe deer (Capreolus capreolus Linnaeus).Parasitology research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Identification of specimens belonging to the genus Linguatula (Pentastomida) is relatively easy due to their unique morphology. However, differentiation between species of Linguatula can be challenging for several reasons, including considerable differences between different developmental stages of the parasite within and between species. Currently, 18S rRNA and Cox1 sequences are the only available comparable sequences in GenBank, but recent research has discussed the utility of 28S rRNA for pentastomid phylogenetics. This study presents 28S rRNA gene sequences for two members of the genus Linguatula. Sequences of 28S rRNA were successfully obtained from well-identified samples of L. serrata (collected in Australia) and L. nuttalli (collected in South Africa), with voucher specimens. Phylogenetic analysis of the 28S rRNA region showed 6% difference between L. serrata and L. nuttalli, with low levels of intraspecific variation. In comparison, 18S rRNA and Cox1 sequences from the same specimens showed 0.23% and 13% interspecific differences, respectively. The results of this study show that 28S rRNA has greater genetic diversity to allow for improved differentiation between species of Linguatula than 18S rRNA but is on par with Cox1. Records that do not provide adequate morphological or molecular data to justify independent specific diagnoses must be regarded cautiously, and the need for continued research on species of Linguatula, using a combined morphological and molecular analysis, across a number of different hosts, development stages, geographical regions and molecular markers is highlighted.
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.