ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2022
Investigation of Parasitic Infection in Crocodile Lizards (
Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intestinal Parasite Community Dynamics in the Critically Endangered Chinese Alligator (Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The highly endangered crocodile lizard (Shinisaurus crocodilurus) continues to be impacted by disease, especially in captive breeding populations. In this paper, based on high-throughput sequencing, we investigated parasitic infections in captive and wild crocodile lizard populations in the Daguishan National Nature Reserve and Guangdong Luokeng Shinisaurus crocodilurus National Nature Reserve. The results show that the overall parasitic infection rate in crocodile lizards was 33.33% (23/69). Four parasite genera were detected, including Eimeria, Cryptosporidium, Nematopsis, and Acanthamoeba, with infection rates of 15.94% (11/69), 17.39% (12/69), 7.25% (5/69), and 4.35% (3/69), respectively. Significant differences in the infection rate were found between the different parasite species (χ2 = 8.54, p < 0.05, chi-squared test). The parasitic infection rates in the captive and wild populations were 39.29% (22/56) and 7.69% (1/13), respectively, which were significantly different (p < 0.05, Fisher’s exact test). However, no significant differences in the infection rates of the four parasite genera were found between the captive and wild populations (p > 0.05, Fisher’s exact test). The parasitic infection rates in Daguishan and Luokeng were 34.09% (15/44) and 32.00% (8/25), respectively, which were not significantly different (p > 0.05, Fisher’s exact test). However, significant differences in terms of species were found in the two reserves (p < 0.01, Fisher’s exact test). Only Cryptosporidium infection showed a significant difference between the two regions (p < 0.01, Fisher’s exact test). Our results suggest that captive crocodile lizards are more susceptible to parasitic diseases than wild crocodile lizards and that Cryptosporidium infection varies by geographical region. This study provides basic information about the parasites of endangered crocodile lizards, as well as a reference for disease control and conservation.
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.