Biases in parasite biodiversity research: why some helminth species attract more research than others

Poulin, Robert; Presswell, Bronwen; Bennett, Jerusha; Dutra, Daniela de Angeli; Salloum, Priscila M.

doi:10.1016/j.ijppaw.2023.04.010

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As in our review, Poulin et al [54] identified Cestoda as the least studied. Among animal hosts, acanthocephalans and nematodes are the most mentioned helminth parasites due to their pathogenicity and zoonotic potential [54]. In this review, the second most reported phylum within Animalia was Nematoda (n = 201).…”

Section: Disease Agentssupporting

confidence: 58%

“…This number must be an underestimate due to the rate of newly described species, the high number of cryptic species, and the fact that major efforts to describe the platyhelminthes have been concentrated in developed countries where the platyhelminthes diversity is lower [53]. As in our review, Poulin et al [54] identified Cestoda as the least studied. Among animal hosts, acanthocephalans and nematodes are the most mentioned helminth parasites due to their pathogenicity and zoonotic potential [54].…”

Section: Disease Agentsmentioning

confidence: 69%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Comprehensive Review of Disease-Causing Agents in Freshwater Turtles: Implications for Conservation and Public Health

Rato,

Xavier,

Harris

et al. 2024

Diversity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Freshwater turtles comprise 81% of all chelonian species despite freshwater systems only occupying 1% of the earth’s surface, and they are commonly exploited as pets and food resources. This contact between humans and turtles may put both sides at risk of disease transmission. Additionally, human impact on ecosystems can cause disease outbreaks in turtle populations. In this review, we focused on disease agents affecting freshwater turtles, intending to contribute to conservation and public health efforts. We analysed 423 articles and noted a post-SARS-COVID-19 peak, with most research originating from Asia, North America, and Europe. Emydidae was the most frequently studied family, and there was also a bias towards adults, live specimens, and native species. Since most of the studied turtles were wild-caught, we recommend that captive turtles should also be thoroughly studied since they can transmit diseases to other turtles and humans. We registered 2104 potential disease-causing agents, with Platyhelminthes dominating within Animalia, while Proteobacteria dominated bacterial agents. Viruses’ representation was low, highlighting gaps in reptile virology. Fungi, Chromista, and Protozoa were also underrepresented, but this is changing with the development of molecular tools. This synthesis serves as a foundation for targeted health assessments, conservation strategies, and future research, essential to mitigate ecosystem and public health threats.

show abstract

Section: Disease Agentssupporting

confidence: 58%

Section: Disease Agentsmentioning

confidence: 69%

A Comprehensive Review of Disease-Causing Agents in Freshwater Turtles: Implications for Conservation and Public Health

Rato,

Xavier,

Harris

et al. 2024

Diversity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The latter two species produce DSL. Given that all Russian muskoxen are offspring of animals (re-)introduced from North America back in the XX century [15][16][17][18], we expect that the DSL found might belong to one (or both) of these species. Taking into account V. eleguneniensis found in reindeer, we suggest that introduced animals could have been the source of Nearctic protostrongylids.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The aim of this study is to obtain reference data for further monitoring, as this Arctic area is now undergoing active transformation due to climate warming, use of mineral resources, development of transport logistics, etc. Previous helminthological studies were carried out more than 60 years ago [18] for reindeer (mostly domestic) [19] and snow sheep [13,14], and, to the authors' knowledge, never for muskoxen in Russia. Moreover, these studies never included DNA analysis (because it was not available at the time), and their results were mostly published in Russian journals and conference proceedings, including so-called gray literature [20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diversity and Distribution of Helminths in Wild Ruminants of the Russian Arctic: Reindeer (Rangifer tarandus), Muskoxen (Ovibos moschatus), and Snow Sheep (Ovis nivicola)

Loginova,

Rozenfeld,

Sipko

et al. 2023

Diversity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Russian Arctic supports wild sympatric ruminants and their data-deficient helminths. In this study, we: (1) collected fecal samples of wild and semiwild reindeer (Rangifer tarandus), muskoxen (Ovibos moschatus), and snow sheep (Ovis nivicola) across Palearctic North territories: Arkhangelsk Oblast (including Novaya Zemlya archipelago), Karelia and Sakha Republics, Kola, Yamal, Taimyr, and Chukotka Peninsulas, Bering, Svalbard, and Wrangel Islands; (2) conducted a coprological survey (noninvasive life-time method preferable for protected animals) to obtain eggs and larvae of helminths inhabiting digestive, respiratory, nervous, and muscular systems; (3) identified helminths according to their morphology and DNA sequences; (4) estimated parasite load per host; (5) analyzed our findings. Varestrongylus eleguneniensis (in reindeer) was reported for the Palearctic for the first time, while Orthostrongylus sp. was reported both for R. tarandus and for the Palearctic for the first time. Capillarid-type eggs were reported for snow sheep for the first time. The question of the role of wild Arctic ruminants as vectors for rotifers was raised.

show abstract

“…However, even for well-known groups, such as mammals and birds, these gaps are not completely filled (Mora et al, 2011;Parsons et al, 2022). In short, the Linnean shortfall is generally more severe for organisms that are smaller in size, niche width or distributional range and which are less complex or phenotypically conspicuous, with this pattern holding both between and within taxonomic groups (dos Santos et al, 2020;Guedes et al, 2023;Poulin et al, 2023;Riddle et al, 2011;Zapata & Ross Robertson, 2006). Recent research suggests that scientists have still only robustly sampled 6.74% of the Earth, with the tropics, high elevations and deep seas especially poorly covered (Hughes et al, 2021).…”

Section: E X Tr Ap Ol Ating From Une Ven Foundationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How taxonomic change influences forecasts of the Linnean shortfall (and what we can do about it)?

Lessa,

Stropp,

Hortal

et al. 2024

Journal of Biogeography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The gap between the number of described species and the number of species that actually exist is known as the Linnean shortfall and is of fundamental importance for biogeography and conservation. Unsurprisingly, there have been many attempts to quantify its extent for different taxa and regions. In this Perspective, we argue that such forecasts remain highly problematic because the extent of the shortfall does depend not only on the rates of exploration (sampling undescribed taxa) on which estimates have been commonly based but also on the rates of taxonomic change (lumping and splitting). These changes highly depend on the species concepts adopted and the information and methods used to delimit species. Commonly used methods of estimating the number of unknown species (e.g. discovery curves, taxon ratios) can underestimate or overestimate the Linnean shortfall if they do not effectively account for trends and rates of taxonomic change. A further complication is that the history of taxonomic change is not well documented for most taxa and is not typically available in biodiversity databases. Moreover, wide geographic and taxonomic variation in the adoption of species concepts and delimitation methods mean that comparison of estimates of the Linnean shortfall between taxa and even for the same taxon between regions may be unreliable. Given the high likelihood of future taxonomic changes for most major taxa, we propose two main strategies to consider the influence of taxonomic change on estimates of unknown species: (i) a highly conservative approach to estimating the Linnean shortfall, restricting analysis to groups and regions where taxonomies are relatively stable and (ii) explicitly incorporating metrics of taxonomic change into biodiversity models and estimates. In short, relevant estimates of the number of known and unknown species will only be achieved by accounting for the dynamic nature of the taxonomic process itself.

show abstract

Biases in parasite biodiversity research: why some helminth species attract more research than others

Cited by 7 publications

References 35 publications

A Comprehensive Review of Disease-Causing Agents in Freshwater Turtles: Implications for Conservation and Public Health

A Comprehensive Review of Disease-Causing Agents in Freshwater Turtles: Implications for Conservation and Public Health

Diversity and Distribution of Helminths in Wild Ruminants of the Russian Arctic: Reindeer (Rangifer tarandus), Muskoxen (Ovibos moschatus), and Snow Sheep (Ovis nivicola)

How taxonomic change influences forecasts of the Linnean shortfall (and what we can do about it)?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About