ArticlePeerJ2024
The influence of inactivated entomopathogenic bacterium
Article in PeerJ, 2024. 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.
- A Biofilm-StateMicroorganisms · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Invasion of microorganisms into the gut of insects triggers a cascade of immune reactions accompanied by increased synthesis of effectors (such as antimicrobial peptides, cytokines, and amino acids), leading to changes in the physiological state of the host. We hypothesized that even an inactivated bacterium can induce an immune response in an insect. The aim of this study was to compare the roles of reactive oxygen species (ROS) formation and of the response of detoxification and antioxidant systems in a Colorado potato beetle (CPB) larval model in the first hours after invasion by either an inactivated or live bacterium. Methods: The influence of Results: A series of changes occurred within the hemolymph and the midgut of CPBs inoculated with inactivated Bt at 12 h after inoculation. These physiological and biochemical alterations serve to mediate generalized resistance to pathogens. The changes were associated with an increase in the THC and a 1.4-2.2-fold enhancement of detoxification enzymatic activities (such as GST and EST) as well as increased levels of antioxidants (especially peroxidases) in hemolymph in comparison to the control group. Suppressed EST activity and reduced ROS formation were simultaneously detectable in the larval midgut. Inoculation of beetle larvae with active Bt cells yielded similar results (elevated THC and suppressed PO activity). A fundamental difference in the immune activation processes between larvae that ingested the inactivated bacterium and larvae that had consumed the active bacterium was that the inactivated bacterium did not influence ROS formation in the hemolymph but did reduce their formation in the midgut. At 24 h postinfection with active Bt, ROS levels went up in both the hemolymph and the midgut. This was accompanied by a significant 5.7-fold enhancement of SOD activity and a 5.3-fold suppression of peroxidase activity. The observed alterations may be due to within-gut toxicity caused by early-stage bacteriosis. The imbalance in the antioxidant system and the accumulation of products toxic to the "putative" pathogen can activate detoxification mechanisms, including those of an enzymatic nature (EST and GST). The activation of detoxification processes and of innate immune responses is probably due to the recognition of the "putative" pathogen by gut epithelial cells and is similar in many respects to the immune response at early stages of bacteriosis.
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.