ArticleParasites & vectors2025
A cost-effective strategy for identifying Angiostrongylus spp. larvae in Achatina fulica: combined morphological and molecular biology.
Article in Parasites & vectors, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Population genetic diversity of invasive Pomacea snails and surveillance of Angiostrongylus cantonensis in Shanghai, East China.Parasites & vectors · 2026Article
- Proteomic profiles of Lissachatina (Heterobranchia) and Pomacea (Caenogastropoda) snails infected with Angiostrongylus cantonensis using 4D label-free quantitative analysis.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe detection of Angiostrongylus spp. larvae in intermediate host snails is a critical epidemiological investigation, essential for the effective control of disease outbreaks. Compared to molecular biological detection methods, lung microscopy, a traditional pathogen morphological detection approach, is susceptible to oversights and exhibits relatively lower sensitivity. However, we posit that lung microscopy offers irreplaceable advantages in the context of large-scale field surveys and can serve as a vital foundation for use in conjunction with other diagnostic technologies.
methodsIn this study, 348 Achatina fulica samples were examined using lung microscopy, PCR, and AcanITS1 qPCR. Statistical analysis was conducted to compare detection rates and sensitivities among these methods. DNA from a snail confirmed positive by lung microscopy was diluted and tested using PCR and AcanITS1 qPCR to assess the diagnostic efficacy of the molecular assays. Finally, we combined the highly sensitive AcanITS1 qPCR with lung microscopy for identifying Angiostrongylus spp. larvae in Achatina fulica for the first time to our knowledge and compared its diagnostic efficacy with that of individual testing methods.
resultsThe lung microscopy, PCR, AcanITS1 qPCR, and combined test yielded detection rates of 29.31%, 32.18%, 38.22%, and 38.51%, respectively. These differences were statistically significant (X
conclusionsThis novel straregy, the combined test for the detection of Angiostrongylus spp. larvae in Achatina fulica exhibited superior positive detection rates and sensitivity compared to each of the three individual methods. We believe that this novel strategy is not only applicable to large-scale field investigations of Achatina fulica and Pomacea canaliculata but also has potential application value for monitoring the infection of these snails sold at the local farmers' markets with Angiostrongylus spp. larvae. Of course, while qPCR is exceptionally sensitive, the potential for false negatives remains a consideration. Repeated experimentation is also essential to maximize the reliability and accuracy of the outcomes.
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.