Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38616727›Full record

ReviewConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2025

A Palearctic view of a bat fungal disease.

F Whiting-Fawcett, A S Blomberg, T Troitsky, M B Meierhofer, K A Field, S J Puechmaille, T M Lilley

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
11.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. A Palearctic view of a bat fungal disease.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

F Whiting-FawcettDepartment of Evolution, Ecology and Behaviour, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0187-2452
A S BlombergBatLab Finland, Finnish Museum of Natural History, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-6754-4948
T TroitskyBatLab Finland, Finnish Museum of Natural History, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-8394-6229
M B MeierhoferBatLab Finland, Finnish Museum of Natural History, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0003-2384-1999
K A FieldDepartment of Biology, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7417-4386
S J PuechmailleInstitut des Sciences de l'Évolution Montpellier (ISEM), University of Montpellier, CNRS, EPHE, IRD, Montpellier, France.ORCID 0000-0001-9517-5775
T M LilleyBatLab Finland, Finnish Museum of Natural History, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-5864-4958
Finnish Museum of Natural History · FIBucknell University · USCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

Agence Nationale de la Recherche FunAdaptInstitut Universitaire de FranceNERC PhD studentship grant NE/S00713X/1Research Council of Finland 331515
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The fungal infection causing white-nose disease in hibernating bats in North America has resulted in dramatic population declines of affected species, since the introduction of the causative agent Pseudogymnoascus destructans. The fungus is native to the Palearctic, where it also infects several bat species, yet rarely causes severe pathology or the death of the host. Pseudogymnoascus destructans infects bats during hibernation by invading and digesting the skin tissue, resulting in the disruption of torpor patterns and consequent emaciation. Relations among pathogen, host, and environment are complex, and individuals, populations, and species respond to the fungal pathogen in different ways. For example, the Nearctic Myotis lucifugus responds to infection by mounting a robust immune response, leading to immunopathology often contributing to mortality. In contrast, the Palearctic M. myotis shows no significant immunological response to infection. This lack of a strong response, resulting from the long coevolution between the hosts and the pathogen in the pathogen's native range, likely contributes to survival in tolerant species. After more than 15 years since the initial introduction of the fungus to North America, some of the affected populations are showing signs of recovery, suggesting that the fungus, hosts, or both are undergoing processes that may eventually lead to coexistence. The suggested or implemented management methods of the disease in North America have encompassed, for example, the use of probiotics and fungicides, vaccinations, and modifying the environmental conditions of the hibernation sites to limit the growth of the pathogen, intensity of infection, or the hosts' responses to it. Based on current knowledge from Eurasia, policy makers and conservation managers should refrain from disrupting the ongoing evolutionary processes and adopt a holistic approach to managing the epizootic.

Indexed as

AscomycotaChiropteraMycosesAnimalsConservation of Natural ResourcesHibernationNorth Americabatscoevolucióncoevolutionconservación de vida silvestredisease managementenfermedad de vida silvestrefungal infectioninfección fúngicamanejo de enfermedadesmurciélagossíndrome de nariz blancawhite‐nose syndromewildlife conservationwildlife disease

Identifiers

PMID38616727
PMCPMC11780211
OpenAlexW4394815810

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.