Find research datasets worth reusing

Fig. 1 in Ortleppascaris sp. and your host Rhinella marina: A proteomic view into a nematode-amphibian relationship

Fig. 1. Two-dimensional gel of proteins originating from cystic fluid of Ortleppascaris sp. encystment.

Fig. 2 in Co-invaders: The effects of alien parasites on native hosts

Fig. 2. (a) Relative proportions of taxa represented in 98 examples of co-introduced parasites: prokaryotes (viruses and bacteria); protozoans; helminths (platyhelminths, nematodes and acanthocephalans); arthropods (crustaceans, arachnids); and a miscellaneous group including fungi, myxozoans, annelids, molluscs and pentasomids. (b) Relative proportions of alien hosts represented in 98 examples of cointroductions: molluscs; arthropods; fishes; mammals; and other vertebrates (amphibians, reptiles and birds). (c) Number of co-introduced parasite species with direct and indirect life cycles which have switched (black bars) or not switched (white bars) from alien to native host species.

Fig. 4 in Nematode-coccidia parasite co-infections in African buffalo: Epidemiology and associations with host condition and pregnancy

Fig. 4. Predicted mean and standard error body condition scores show associations with infection presence and season, with co-infected buffalo in much lower condition in the early wet season (Table S2). Coccidia infection status is represented with C– and C+; nematode infection status is represented with N– and N+.

Fig. 5 in Nematode-coccidia parasite co-infections in African buffalo: Epidemiology and associations with host condition and pregnancy

Fig. 5. Season and co-infection differences in nematode aggregation. (a) Aggregation patterns in calves (b) and non-calves. (c) In non-calves, the distribution of nematode parasites in the late wet season shows that k is not significantly different in coccidia positive vs. negative buffalo. (d) In the early wet season coccidia positive buffalo have a truncated distribution, resulting in significantly reduced aggregation. Arrows indicate nematode intensity values in the tail of the distribution of coccidia negative buffalo. Coccidia infection status is represented with C– and C+.

Fig. 3 in Nematode-coccidia parasite co-infections in African buffalo: Epidemiology and associations with host condition and pregnancy

Fig. 3. Patterns of parasite egg/oocyst counts with co-infection for (a) nematodes and (b) coccidia. (c), the mean nematode intensity in calves is higher in early wet season than in the late wet season independent of co-infection with coccidia. (d) Co-infection with coccidia alters the seasonal patterns of nematode intensity in non-calf buffalo (>1 year, juvenile through senescent). Calf vs. non-calf division is based on model paramters (Table 1).

Fig. 2 in Nematode-coccidia parasite co-infections in African buffalo: Epidemiology and associations with host condition and pregnancy

Fig. 2. Age specific patterns of parasite prevalence with co-infection. (a) Prevalence of nematodes is higher in buffalo co-infected with coccidia (C+) compared to coccidia negative buffalo (C–) in all age categories (N = 33, 318, 166, 272, 162 for calf, juvenile, subadult, adult and senescent C– buffalo; N = 58, 237, 55, 54, 20 for C+ buffalo). (b) Prevalence of coccidia is higher in buffalo co-infected with nematodes (N+) compared to nematode negative buffalo (N–) in calf, juvenile, subadult, and senescent buffalo but not adult buffalo (N = 13, 107, 92, 144, 56 for calf, juvenile, subadult, adult and senescent N– buffalo; N = 38, 448, 129, 208, 100 for N+ buffalo).

Fig. 1 in Nematode-coccidia parasite co-infections in African buffalo: Epidemiology and associations with host condition and pregnancy

Fig. 1. Age, sex and seasonal patterns of infection. Both parasites had the highest (a) prevalence (sample size for calf, juvenile, subadult, adult, and senescent respectively: N = 91, 555, 221, 326, 182) and (b) mean intensity in calves and juveniles (nematode N = 78, 448, 129, 208, 100; coccidia N = 58, 237, 55, 60, 14). (c) Males had lower estimated nematode prevalence and (d) higher estimated coccidia intensity compared to female buffalo. (e) The estimated nematode prevalence, coccidia prevalence, and (f) mean coccidia intensity were all increased in the early wet season compared to the late wet season. ‡Indicates significant differences at p <0.05.

opencc-by-4.0Apr 2016View details →

Fig. 2 in First identification of Echinococcus multilocularis in rodent intermediate hosts in Sweden

Fig. 2. Macroscopic photos of rodent livers containing Echinococcus multilocularis metacestode lesions. The ruler in each picture is in millimeters. (A) Liver from Microtus agrestis with one lesion that contained protoscoleces. (B) Liver from Arvicola amphibius with multiple lesions that did not contain protoscoleces. (C) Liver from Arvicola amphibius with multiple lesions that did contain protoscoleces. (D) Liver from Arvicola amphibius. Arrow points to the only lesion examined for protoscoleces, which were absent.

opencc-by-4.0Apr 2016View details →

Fig. 1 in First identification of Echinococcus multilocularis in rodent intermediate hosts in Sweden

Fig. 1. Study areas and positive findings of E. multilocularis in southern Sweden at the beginning of the study, 2013. Boxes show study areas and stars indicate where positive foxes/ fox fecal samples had been found. Circles encompass the study areas where rodents positive for E. multilocularis were captured. The lines are county boundaries. (CRS: WGS 84, QGIS 2.12.3).

opencc-by-4.0Nov 2022View details →

Fig. 3. Selected photographs showing Phestilla subodiosa. and its coral host. A in Fig. 1 in Parascorpaena poseidon Chou and Liao 2022

Fig. 3. Selected photographs showing Phestilla subodiosa. and its coral host. A, several individuals of Phestilla subodiosa. feeding on a fragment of Montipora peltiformis, with a clear feeding scar along the lower edge. B, Dorsal view of SCSMBC030984. C–D, Dorsal view and ventral view of SCSMBC030985, respectively; E, Dorsal view of SCSMBC030986. Scale bars: A = 5 mm; B–E = 1 mm.

Fig. 2 in Host manipulation in the face of environmental changes: Ecological consequences

Fig. 2. Examples of the impacts of temperature on a system of gammarid species infected by acanthocephalan parasites. Final host varies depending on parasite species (either a fish or a bird). Solid lines represent assumption supported by studies, while dotted lines are expectations that remain to be investigated. In this system, (1) the temperature widely influences the time of development or parasites within the intermediate hosts, which is likely to be driven by the metabolic rate of parasites (Tokeson and Holmes, 1982). Several studies suggested that (2) the time of development of parasites is linked to the intensity of their manipulation (Franceschi et al., 2010b, 2008), which in turn might (3) influence the increase of predation rate between the final host and the intermediate host. (4) Temperature is also likely to influence the final host metabolism (Bystr¨om et al., 2006), (5) influencing its predation rate (Bystr¨om et al., 2006). Altogether, (6) modifications in manipulation and predation rates are likely to induce changes in parasites' population. Meanwhile, (7) temperature also affects the metabolism of gammarid hosts (Issartel et al., 2005), inducing changes in their food consumption (Pellan et al., 2015). (8) Given that infection depends on food consumption, the risk of infection might vary accordingly, affecting parasites' population. Although its direct effect has not been investigated yet, (9) temperature is also likely to alter the intensity of manipulation, for instance through its effect on hosts' metabolism and activity, and therefore (10) secondarily impact parasite population dynamic.

Fig. 1 in Host manipulation in the face of environmental changes: Ecological consequences

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of all the interacting factors in a system involving parasite manipulation. The intensity of host manipulation induced by parasites is likely to be influenced by a variety of parameters concerning the parasites, their hosts and environmental properties. In return, manipulation can also have an impact on those parameters. Moreover, all components in the systems also interact with each other.

Fig. 2 in Past, present and future of host‾parasite co-extinctions

Fig. 2. Comparison between helminth parasite diversity (for Acantocephala, Cestoda, Monogenea, Nematoda and Trematoda) in vertebrates (amphibians, birds, fish, mammals and reptiles) estimated using, respectively, the approach by Poulin and Morand (2004) (dark grey) and the more recent approach proposed by Strona and Fattorini (2014a) (light grey). Data were obtained from Table 1 in Strona and Fattorini (2014a).

Fig. 7 in Past, present and future of host‾parasite co-extinctions

Fig. 7. Schematic representation of the possible different parasitological consequences of a biological invasion. A: The invader loses its parasite and does not get local parasites; B: The invader loses its parasites and gets new ones from native hosts; C: The invader retains its parasites and these establish new symbioses with local species; D: The invader retains its parasites and acquire new parasites from local hosts; its parasites establish new symbioses with local host species; E: The invader does not lose its parasites, does not get new ones from native hosts, and its parasites do not expand their host range.

Fig. 6 in Past, present and future of host‾parasite co-extinctions

Fig. 6. Example of asymmetry of interactions as observed in all host parasite records available from FishPest dataset (Strona and Lafferty, 2012). The graph shows the relationship between the maximum specificity of the parasites using a certain host species, and the parasite richness on that host species. Boxplots correspond to different classes of hosts identified on the basis of the maximum specificity of their parasites. Thus, the first boxplot provides information on parasite species richness of all fish species whose most specific parasite uses just one host. It is apparent that specific parasites tend to use hosts harboring many parasites, while species-poor parasitofaunas are often composed by generalist parasites. Boxes indicate first and third quartiles, whiskers indicate range values, and horizontal lines indicate median values.

Fig. 5 in Past, present and future of host‾parasite co-extinctions

Fig. 5. Graph showing the relationship between fish parasite specificity and the corresponding average vulnerability of the hosts used by those parasites. Data were obtained using the same data and procedure as in Strona et al. (2013), computing mean host vulnerability values for different parasite host range classes. Differently from Strona et al. (2013), however, classes were defined using a logarithmic progression instead of a geometric one, resulting in an even tighter relationship between log(host range) and mean host vulnerability (rs = 0.93; p <0.05).

Fig. 3 in Past, present and future of host‾parasite co-extinctions

Fig. 3. Distribution of parasite specificity expressed as the logarithm of host range size in fish (A) and terrestrial vertebrates (B). Data for fish parasites (Acantocephala, Cestoda, Monogenea, Nematoda and Trematoda) were collected from FishPest (Strona and Lafferty, 2012). Data for parasites of terrestrial vertebrates (Acantocephala, Cestoda, Nematoda and Trematoda for amphibians, birds, mammals and reptiles) were collected from the Natural Museum History database (http://www.nhm.ac.uk). Since (as to June 11th 2015) all amphibians in the database are erroneously classified as reptiles, information was corrected using Catalogue of Life (http://www.catalogueoflife.org/). Y-axes indicate parasite species numbers.

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2016View details →

Fig. 6. Ectoparasite-host interactions for A in Ectoparasitism on deep-sea fishes in the western North Atlantic: In situ observations from ROV surveys

Fig. 6. Ectoparasite-host interactions for A) Antimora rostrata, B) Nezumia bairdii, and C) Synaphobranchus spp. across the region for which the presence or absence of ectoparasites could be confirmed. Circle Size = Number of confirmed ectoparasite-host interactions 10 m —2. Square = No ectoparasites observed. Colors denote habitats.

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2017View details →

Fig. 2 in Surrogate hosts: Hunting dogs and recolonizing grey wolves share their endoparasites

Fig. 2. Normalized helminth prevalence in hunting dogs from the wolf area (dark grey, n = 49) and control area without wolves (light grey, n = 29). Lack of statistical significance was determined using a GLM.