Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36321430›Full record

SynthesisBiology letters2022

Parasitism shapes selection by drastically reducing host fitness and increasing host fitness variation.

Adam Z Hasik, Adam M Siepielski

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Biology letters, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Chigger mite (Ecology and evolution · 2023
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Adam Z HasikBiological Sciences, University of Arkansas, SCEN 601, 850 W. Dickson St., Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4069-7186
Adam M SiepielskiBiological Sciences, University of Arkansas, SCEN 601, 850 W. Dickson St., Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9864-743X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Determining the effects of parasites on host reproduction is key to understanding how parasites affect the underpinnings of selection on hosts. Although infection is expected to be costly, reducing mean fitness, infection could also increase variation in fitness costs among hosts, both of which determine the potential for selection on hosts. To test these ideas, we used a phylogenetically informed meta-analysis of 118 studies to examine how changes in the mean and variance in the outcome of reproduction differed between parasitized and non-parasitized hosts. We found that parasites had severe negative effects on mean fitness, with parasitized hosts suffering reductions in fecundity, viability and mating success. Parasite infection also increased variance in reproduction, particularly fecundity and offspring viability. Surprisingly, parasites had similar effects on viability when either the male or female was parasitized. These results not only provide the first synthetic, comparative, and quantitative summary of the strong deleterious effects of parasites on host reproductive fitness, but also reveal a consistent role for parasites in shaping the opportunity for selection.

Indexed as

Host-Parasite InteractionsParasitesAnimalsFemaleGenetic FitnessMaleReproductionSymbiosisfitness componentshost–parasitemeta-analysisreproductionsexual selectionvariance

Identifiers

PMID36321430
PMCPMC9627441

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.