Leishmaniases remain a major public health problem today (350 million people at risk, 12 million infected, and 2 million new infections per year). Despite the considerable progress in cellular and molecular biology and in evolutionary genetics since 1990, the debate on the population structure and reproductive mode of Leishmania is far from being settled and therefore deserves further investigation. Two major hypotheses coexist: clonality versus sexuality. However, because of the lack of clear evidence (experimental or biological confirmation) of sexuality in Leishmania parasites, until today it has been suggested and even accepted that Leishmania species were mainly clonal with infrequent genetic recombination (see [1] for review). Two recent publications, one on Leishmania major (an in vitro experimental study) and one on Leishmania braziliensis (a population genetics analysis), once again have challenged the hypothesis of clonal reproduction. Indeed, the first study experimentally evidenced genetic recombination and proposed that Leishmania parasites are capable of having a sexual cycle consistent with meiotic processes inside the insect vector. The second investigation, based on population genetics studies, showed strong homozygosities, an observation that is incompatible with a predominantly clonal mode of reproduction at an ecological time scale (approximately 20-500 generations). These studies highlight the need to advance the knowledge of Leishmania biology. In this paper, we first review the reasons stimulating the continued debate and then detail the next essential steps to be taken to clarify the Leishmania reproduction model. Finally, we widen the discussion to other Trypanosomatidae and show that the progress in Leishmania biology can improve our knowledge of the evolutionary genetics of American and African trypanosomes.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
3
2%
Other
10
7%
Unknown
27
19%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 01 February 2020.
All research outputs
#2,437,208
of 28,840,878 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Pathogens
#2,061
of 10,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,552
of 116,497 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Pathogens
#12
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,840,878 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,144 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
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 116,497 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
