4.2 Article

Host specificity of Hepatocystis infection in short-nosed fruit bats (Cynopterus brachyotis) in Singapore

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijppaw.2021.04.001

关键词

Hepatocystis; Haemosporidia; Bat; Singapore; Host specificity; Evolution; Ecology

资金

  1. Duke-NUS Signature Research Program - Ministry of Health Singapore
  2. National Medical Research Council [NMRC/BNIG/2005/2013]
  3. NUS-Global Asia Institute grant [NIHA20111005]
  4. National Parks Board Postgraduate Scholarship
  5. Wildlife Reserves Singapore Conservation Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Haemosporidians, including Hepatocystis, infect a variety of bat genera and species with limited knowledge of their transmission cycles and epidemiology. The study detected a 31% prevalence of Hepatocystis in shortnosed fruit bats in Singapore, suggesting potential host restriction. Phylogenetic analysis revealed a monophyletic group of Hepatocystis from C. brachyotis in Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand.
Haemosporidians infect a wide diversity of bat genera and species, yet little is known about their transmission cycles or epidemiology. Though several recent studies have focused on the genus Hepatocystis, an Old World parasite primarily infecting bats, monkeys, and squirrels, this group is still understudied with little known about its transmission and molecular ecology. These parasites lack an asexual erythrocytic stage, making them unique from the Plasmodium vertebrate life cycle. In this study, we detected a prevalence of 31% of Hepatocystis in shortnosed fruit bats (Cynopterus brachyotis) in Singapore. Phylogenetic reconstruction with a partial cytochrome b sequence revealed a monophyletic group of Hepatocystis from C. brachyotis in Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand. There was no relationship with infection and bat age, sex, location, body condition or monsoon season. The absence of this parasite in the five other bat species sampled in Singapore indicates this Hepatocystis species may be host restricted.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据