ArticleParasites & vectors2025
Evaluation of various membranes for blood-feeding in nine sand fly species and artificial feeding challenges in Sergentomyia minuta.
Article in Parasites & vectors, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A novel 3R-compliant ex vivo approach to assess ectoparasiticide repellency against Phlebotomus perniciosus in dogs.Parasite (Paris, France) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe evaluated various membranes for blood-feeding in nine sand fly species from different genera and subgenera. Most of these species are vectors of human-pathogenic Leishmania, whereas Sergentomyia minuta is a herpetophilic sand fly species and a proven vector of Leishmania (Sauroleishmania) tarentolae.
methodsFemale sand flies were offered blood through a range of membranes (chicken, reptilian, and frog skin; synthetic collagen; pig intestine; and duck foot webbing). Two feeding systems (glass feeder, Hemotek) and different blood sources (human, ovine, avian, and reptilian) were used. Feeding trials were conducted under varying thermal and light conditions to determine the optimal parameters.
resultsAmong the 4950 female S. minuta tested, only a negligible fraction took a blood meal: 2% of the females fed on avian blood, and 0.2% of the females fed on human blood. In eight other species, the chicken membrane was generally more effective than synthetic membranes or pig intestines. For example, Phlebotomus duboscqi refused synthetic membranes, while Lutzomyia longipalpis and P. perniciosus avoided both synthetic membranes and pig intestines. The most effective membrane was duck foot webbing, with four species feeding more readily through it than through the chicken membrane. Additionally, applying coagulated blood plasma to the outer surface of chicken or synthetic membranes significantly increased feeding rates.
conclusionsFemale S. minuta did not reliably feed on blood through the tested membranes, preventing laboratory infection experiments from confirming their vector competence for human-pathogenic Leishmania. However, for future experimental infections of other sand fly species, duck foot webbing has emerged as an effective membrane, and the application of blood plasma to the exterior of membranes may increase the feeding rates.
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.