Find research datasets worth reusing

Fig. 1 in Surrogate hosts: Hunting dogs and recolonizing grey wolves share their endoparasites

Fig. 1. Normalized Sarcocystis spp. prevalence in hunting dogs from the wolf area (dark grey, n = 49) and control area without wolves (light grey, n = 29). Hunting dogs were infected with 11 distinct Sarcocystis species, of which two species only occurred in wolf inhabited areas. They were significantly more likely to be infected with the 'wolf- ‾specialized' parasite S. grueneri when sharing their habitat with wolves (p = 0.035). It was not possible to determine a correlation for an infection with the other 'wolf specialist' S. taeniata and wolf presence (n.s. = not significant, p = 0.476). P values were extracted from GLMs.

Fig. 1 in Why do nematomorphs leave their hosts?

Fig. 1. The Gordian worm, the grasshopper and the dog-bowl. (a) The Gordian worm found in the bowl and its abandoned host, an immature grasshopper. (b) The immature grasshopper, fine and alive a few hours after having been 'rescued' from drowning. See also https://youtu.be/oWnZtlEfBzs.

Fig. 2 in Why do nematomorphs leave their hosts?

Fig. 2. Schematic representation of nematomorphs' life cycle in the wild: (a) infected invertebrates are manipulated by adult nematomorphs living in their hemocoel, which induce the hosts to jump into a watershed; (b) adult worms escape from drowning hosts, find a partner, and mate producing eggs; (c) over 7‾14 days eggs develop into semi-sessile larvae; (d) larvae encyst into aquatic immature stages of insects such as mayflies; (e) cysts survive insect metamorphosis, and remain viable even when the insect dies; when the insect is eaten by a predator, or when its dead body is consumed by a scavenger, cysts are transmitted; in the right host, they eventually mature into adults, closing the cycle (a). Figure redrawn from Hanelt et al. (2005).

Fig. 4 in Variations in infection levels and parasite-induced mortality among sympatric cryptic lineages of native amphipods and a congeneric invasive species: Are native hosts always losing?

Fig. 4. Parasite abundance as a function of amphipod body size (used as a proxy for age) in each of the 8 amphipod MOTUs. The polynomial effect of body size on parasite abundance is modeled with a general mixed effect linear model with a Poisson distribution and a log link function. The y axis is in log scale for representation purposes. Body size is rescaled to initial values in the graph for representation purposes. Predicted curves are represented in plain black lines with their standard errors in dotted lines.

Fig. 2 in Variations in infection levels and parasite-induced mortality among sympatric cryptic lineages of native amphipods and a congeneric invasive species: Are native hosts always losing?

Fig. 2. Mean parasite prevalences (proportion of infected individuals in %) among amphipod populations/sampling sites and their bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals in the different MOTUs sampled and for the three acanthocephalan species, separately and overall (all three parasites grouped). Overall prevalences in MOTUs assigned different letters are significantly different at the 0.05 level.

Fig. 5 in Population structure of the soft tick Ornithodoros maritimus and its associated infectious agents within a colony of its seabird host Larus michahellis

Fig. 5. Spatial autocorrelation in the total tick number of counted nests, measured as Moran's I, across three distance classes: a, 1st visit; b, 2nd visit; c, 3rd visit; d, 4th visit; e, 5th visit; f, 6th visit. Circles indicate the autocorrelation coefficients. The same results were obtained with female count numbers.

Fig. 2 in Population structure of the soft tick Ornithodoros maritimus and its associated infectious agents within a colony of its seabird host Larus michahellis

Fig. 2. Histogram presenting the mean number of ticks observed in all nests over time. Bars represent mean standard errors of the total number of ticks.

Fig. 1 in Variations in infection levels and parasite-induced mortality among sympatric cryptic lineages of native amphipods and a congeneric invasive species: Are native hosts always losing?

Fig. 1. Genetic divergence levels (%) among MOTUs of the G. fossarum/G. pulex species complex found in our sampling sites/rivers. Gammarus roeseli was identified morphologically rather than genetically.

Fig. 3 in Population structure of the soft tick Ornithodoros maritimus and its associated infectious agents within a colony of its seabird host Larus michahellis

Fig. 3. Boxplot representations of tick numbers in counted and collected nests over time: a, females only; b, males only; c, nymphs. The box shows the median as a line across the middle and the quartiles (25th and 75th percentiles) at either end. Extremities represent the minimal and maximal values and circles represent outliers.

Fig. 1 in Population structure of the soft tick Ornithodoros maritimus and its associated infectious agents within a colony of its seabird host Larus michahellis

Fig. 1. Map showing the position of the 30 tracked nests on Carteau Island, in the Camargue region of France (represented by the red point on the bottom right map). Orange points represent the 15 nests in which ticks were counted and released. The green points are those nests where all ticks were counted and collected. Stars within the points represent the nests in which ticks were used for the screening of infectious agents. Boxes indicate the number of ticks screened and the detected infectious agents: Ana: Anaplasma spp.; Bab: Babesia spp.; Bar: Bartonella spp.; Bor: Borrelia spp.; Cox: Coxiella-like symbiont; Fra: Francisella-like symbiont; Ri: Rickettsia helvetica; Ri-like: Rickettsia-like symbiont. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 4 in Population structure of the soft tick Ornithodoros maritimus and its associated infectious agents within a colony of its seabird host Larus michahellis

Fig. 4. Spatial autocorrelation in total tick number estimated by Moran's I (Sokal and Oden, 1978). Data are from the first visit in the colony and include nests of both treatments. Ten distance classes representing 10 m between marked nests have been defined. No index value was significantly different from zero. The same results were obtained using female count data only (results not shown).

Fig. 3 in Variations in infection levels and parasite-induced mortality among sympatric cryptic lineages of native amphipods and a congeneric invasive species: Are native hosts always losing?

Fig. 3. Mean parasite abundances (mean number of acanthocephalan larvae per individual host) among amphipod populations/sampling sites and their bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals in the different MOTUs sampled and for the three acanthocephalan species, separately and overall (all three parasites grouped). Overall abundances in MOTUs assigned different letters are significantly different at the 0.05 level.

Fig. 5 in Helminth parasites of howler and spider monkeys in Mexico: Insights into molecular diagnostic methods and their importance for zoonotic diseases and host conservation

Fig. 5. Phylogenetic trees based on 28S (left) and cox1 (right) sequences of Strongyloides eggs. Sequences obtained from the eggs are bold type and indicated with an *. Numbers at the nodes represent posterior probabilities from Bayesian inference.

Fig. 2 in Helminth parasites of howler and spider monkeys in Mexico: Insights into molecular diagnostic methods and their importance for zoonotic diseases and host conservation

Fig. 2. Egg morphotypes found in the faeces of Mexican primates. A) Trypanoxyuris sp., B) Controrchis biliophilus, arrow pointing to the two eyespot remnants; C) trematode, diagnosed as C. biliophilus by molecular data; D) unidentified ancylostomatid; E) Strongyloides sp.; F) unidentified ascarid. Scale bar is equal to 15 Mm.

Fig. 4 in Helminth parasites of howler and spider monkeys in Mexico: Insights into molecular diagnostic methods and their importance for zoonotic diseases and host conservation

Fig. 4. Phylogenetic tree based on 28S sequences of Controrchis biliophilus. Sequences obtained from the eggs are bold type and indicated with an *. Numbers at the nodes represent posterior probabilities from Bayesian inference. Host species are indicated within parenthesis.

Fig. 1 in Helminth parasites of howler and spider monkeys in Mexico: Insights into molecular diagnostic methods and their importance for zoonotic diseases and host conservation

Fig. 1. Surveyed sites for parasites in Mexican primates. Dots indicate sampling sites, black: Alouatta palliata; white: A. pigra; and grey: Atetes geoffroyi. Polygons indicate the primate distribution range in Mexico, diagonal lines: A. palliata; dashes: A. pigra; and grey: A. geoffroyi.

Fig. 4 in Molecular characterization of Babesia peircei and Babesia ugwidiensis provides insight into the evolution and host specificity of avian piroplasmids

Fig. 4. Geographic distribution of the phylogenetic groups of avian piroplasmids (based on the 18S rRNA gene). Map prepared based on information provided in Criado et al. (2006), Yabsley et al. (2006, 2009), Jefferies et al. (2008), Paparini et al. (2014), Quillfeldt et al. (2014), Martínez et al. (2015), Montero et al. (2016) and Chavatte et al. (2017).

Fig. 3 in Helminth parasites of howler and spider monkeys in Mexico: Insights into molecular diagnostic methods and their importance for zoonotic diseases and host conservation

Fig. 3. Phylogenetic trees based on 28S (left) and cox1 (right) sequences of Trypanoxyuris sp. Sequences obtained from the eggs are bold type and indicated with an *. Numbers at the nodes represent posterior probabilities from Bayesian inference.

Fig. 4 in Meerkats (Suricata suricatta), a new definitive host of the canid nematode Angiostrongylus vasorum

Fig. 4. Agarose gel (1.5%) stained with GelRed™ showing PCR products of part of the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) 2-region of Angiostrongylus vasorum of 37 gastropod samples: samples no. 8, 23, 29 and 35 were positive. M: DNA ladder, N: negative control, P: positive control.

Fig. 3 in Meerkats (Suricata suricatta), a new definitive host of the canid nematode Angiostrongylus vasorum

Fig. 3. Histological image of the lung of an Angiostrongylus vasorum infected meerkat. An adult nematode within a thickened artery (A), larvae and eggs surrounded by plasma cells, macrophages, neutrophilic granulocytes and lymphocytes (B) are visible, indicating granulomatous pneumonia as well as intima and media hyperplasia of larger lung vessels. (Hematoxylin and eosin staining, original magnification x 100 (A), x 400 (B)).