ArticleParasites & vectors2022
Artificial blood-feeding of phlebotomines (Diptera: Psychodidae: Phlebotominae): is it time to repurpose biological membranes in light of ethical concerns?
Article in Parasites & vectors, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A novel 3R-compliant ex vivo approach to assess ectoparasiticide repellency against Phlebotomus perniciosus in dogs.Parasite (Paris, France) · 2026Article
- In vitro interaction profiles and midgut glycoconjugates of Trichophoromyia spp./Leishmania (Viannia) lainsoni.Parasites & vectors · 2025Article
- Evaluation of various membranes for blood-feeding in nine sand fly species and artificial feeding challenges in Sergentomyia minuta.Parasites & vectors · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Multiple RNA Extraction Protocols for Chikungunya Virus Screening inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Experimental Susceptibility ofMicroorganisms · 2024Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe aims of the present study were to evaluate and compare the efficacy of blood-feeding in phlebotomines through industrially processed membranes from the small intestine of pigs (used for the production of commercial sausages) and the skin of euthanized chicks.
methodsLaboratory-bred Lutzomyia longipalpis and different field-caught phlebotomine species were subjected to the artificial feeding systems under similar conditions. Paired tests were performed using the control (skin from euthanized chicks) and test membranes (pig small intestine). The feeding rates were compared by paired t-test, and Pearson correlation was used to examine the relationship between the thickness of the membranes and feeding rate.
resultsThe feeding rate was greater with the test membrane than with the control membrane for L. longipalpis (t-test, t = -3.3860, P = 0.0054) but not for the most frequent field-caught species, Nyssomyia antunesi (t-test, t = 0.7746, P = 0.4535). The average thicknesses of the control and test membranes were 184 ± 83 µm and 34 ± 12 µm, respectively (Mann-Whitney U-test, U = 0.00, Z = 2.8823, P = 0.0039); however, there was no correlation between feeding rate and membrane thickness. A moderate positive correlation was observed between the number of phlebotomines that fed and the total number of phlebotomines in the cage for each type of membrane and for each species.
conclusionsThe test membrane is a viable alternative for the artificial blood-feeding of phlebotomines, and is thus a potential substitute for the skin of animals that are euthanized for this purpose. Feeding rate was independent of membrane thickness.
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.