ArticleMicrobiologyOpen2022
Analyses of locomotion, wing morphology, and microbiome in Drosophila nigrosparsa after recovery from antibiotics.
Article in MicrobiologyOpen, 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rapid Genomic Adaptation of Drosophila Melanogaster to Wolbachia Elimination.Microbial ecology · 2026Article
- Direct and transgenerational effects of tetracyclines on the microbiome, transcriptome, and male mating behavior of the sheep blowfly Lucilia cuprina.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2025Article
- Digital microscope-assisted photography improves the accuracy of mosquito wing measurement.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Article
- Diversity of endosymbionts in camellia spiny whitefly,Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
- Analyses of locomotion, wing morphology, and microbiome in Drosophila nigrosparsa after recovery from antibiotics.MicrobiologyOpen · 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
Antibiotics, such as tetracycline, have been frequently used to cure arthropods of Wolbachia endosymbionts. After the symbionts have been removed, the hosts must recover for some generations from the side effects of the antibiotics. However, most studies do not assess the direct and indirect longer-term effects of antibiotics used to remove Wolbachia, which may question the exact contribution of this endosymbiont to the effects observed. Here, we used the fly Drosophila nigrosparsa treated or not with tetracycline for three generations followed by two generations of recovery to investigate the effects of this antibiotic on the fly locomotion, wing morphology, and the gut microbiome. We found that antibiotic treatment did not affect fly locomotion two generations after being treated with the antibiotic. In addition, gut-microbiome restoration was tested as a more efficient solution to reduce the potential side effects of tetracycline on the microbiome. There was no significant difference in alpha diversity between gut restoration and other treatments, but the abundance of some bacterial taxa differed significantly between the gut-restoration treatment and the control. We conclude that in D. nigrosparsa the recovery period of two generations after being treated with the antibiotic is sufficient for locomotion, and suggest a general assessment of direct and indirect effects of antibiotics after a particular recovery time.
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.