ReviewParasitology research2026
Three decades of analyzing Wolbachia bacterial endosymbionts in arthropods: Trends and gaps.
Review in Parasitology research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wolbachia are the most pervasive bacterial endosymbionts yet described, infecting half of all arthropod species. These bacteria trigger outstanding phenotypes in their hosts including cytoplasmic incompatibility (CI), which has also been used as a mechanism to control pest species. Here, we analyzed peer-reviewed articles published in the 30 years from 1995 to 2024. Our results show that most studies continue to use traditional methods such as PCR and Sanger sequencing, approaches that remain sufficient and appropriate in many cases, particularly when working with well-characterized strains or applied systems. Only a smaller proportion of studies have employed newer genome-based techniques, which are increasingly important for exploring Wolbachia diversity and uncovering novel mechanisms. Research has focused mainly on a small number of insect groups and a limited set of Wolbachia strains. In addition, most work focuses on CI, especially since the discovery of cif genes related to this trait. Although the use of Wolbachia in pest and disease control is expanding, other possible effects and interactions with different microbes remain less explored. Our analysis shows how the field has advanced through some key discoveries, while many studies continue to use established approaches and concentrate on a limited set of hosts and strains. To make further progress, we suggest using a wider range of methods and sampling a broader set of hosts, alongside integrating genetic tools with studies of natural populations. This work outlines clear areas where more research is needed and points to ways the field can develop a fuller understanding of Wolbachia and its roles in nature.
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.