↓ Skip to main content

Aptitude of Lymnaea palustris and L. stagnalis to Fasciola hepatica larval development through the infection of several successive generations of 4-mm-high snails

Overview of attention for article published in Parasitology Research, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 Mendeley
Title
Aptitude of Lymnaea palustris and L. stagnalis to Fasciola hepatica larval development through the infection of several successive generations of 4-mm-high snails
Published in
Parasitology Research, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00436-016-4969-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

P. Vignoles, D. Rondelaud, G. Dreyfuss

Abstract

Bimiracidial infections of Lymnaea palustris and Lymnaea stagnalis (shell height at exposure, 4 mm) with Fasciola hepatica were carried out during six successive snail generations to determine if prevalence and intensity of snail infection increased over time through descendants issuing from eggs laid by parents already exposed to this digenean. Controls were constituted by a French population of Galba truncatula (a single generation) infected according to the same protocol. In a first experiment performed with the F1 to F5 generations of L. palustris, the prevalence and intensity of F. hepatica infection in snails progressively increased. Immature rediae and a few cercariae-containing rediae of the digenean were observed in L. stagnalis from the F3 generation, but no free cercaria was noted in the bodies of this lymnaeid from the F4 to F6 generations. In another experiment carried out with the F6 generation of L. palustris, the prevalence of F. hepatica infection and the number of shed cercariae were significantly lower in L. palustris than in G. truncatula. This mode of snail infection suggests an explanation for cases of human fasciolosis occurring in central France after the collection of wild watercress from beds where L. palustris was the sole lymnaeid.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 38%
Professor 1 13%
Student > Bachelor 1 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 13%
Unknown 2 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 13%
Unknown 2 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 June 2017.
All research outputs
#20,429,992
of 22,982,639 outputs
Outputs from Parasitology Research
#2,895
of 3,799 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,815
of 299,272 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasitology Research
#83
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,982,639 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,799 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 299,272 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.