ArticleScientific reports2024
Consistent detection of Trypanosoma brucei but not T. congolense DNA in faeces of experimentally infected cattle.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and pilot application of a point-of-need molecular xenomonitoring protocol for tsetse (Glossina sp.) in a low-resource setting.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Article
- Species Typing of Trypanosomatids Using Amplicon-Based Sequencing.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Trypanosoma brucei cattle infections contain cryptic transmission-adapted bloodstream forms at low parasitaemia.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Cas10 based 7SL-sRNA diagnostic for the detection of active trypanosomosis.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2025Article
- Caught in a trap: DNA contamination in tsetse xenomonitoring can lead to over-estimates of Trypanosoma brucei infection.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Animal African trypanosomiasis (AAT) is a significant food security and economic burden in sub-Saharan Africa. Current AAT empirical and immunodiagnostic surveillance tools suffer from poor sensitivity and specificity, with blood sampling requiring animal restraint and trained personnel. Faecal sampling could increase sampling accessibility, scale, and species range. Therefore, this study assessed feasibility of detecting Trypanosoma DNA in the faeces of experimentally-infected cattle. Holstein-Friesian calves were inoculated with Trypanosoma brucei brucei AnTat 1.1 (n = 5) or T. congolense Savannah IL3000 (n = 6) in separate studies. Faecal and blood samples were collected concurrently over 10 weeks and screened using species-specific PCR and qPCR assays. T. brucei DNA was detected in 85% of post-inoculation (PI) faecal samples (n = 114/134) by qPCR and 50% by PCR between 4 and 66 days PI. However, T. congolense DNA was detected in just 3.4% (n = 5/145) of PI faecal samples by qPCR, and none by PCR. These results confirm the ability to consistently detect T. brucei DNA, but not T. congolense DNA, in infected cattle faeces. This disparity may derive from the differences in Trypanosoma species tissue distribution and/or extravasation. Therefore, whilst faeces are a promising substrate to screen for T. brucei infection, blood sampling is required to detect T. congolense in cattle.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.