Topic Editors

Prof. Dr. Maurizio Francesco Brivio
Lab of Comparative Immunology and Parasitology, University of Insubria, 21100 Varese, Italy
Dr. David Carmena
Parasitology Reference and Research Laboratory, National Centre for Microbiology, Health Institute Carlos III, 28220 Majadahonda, Spain

Host–Parasite Interactions

Abstract submission deadline
28 February 2023
Manuscript submission deadline
30 April 2023
Viewed by
1761

Topic Information

Dear Colleagues,

Parasitism is one of the most successful modes of life, given the extent of current and past diversity of parasitic species. Such success is the result of a variety of mechanisms evolved by parasitic species to confront and evade the responses of their hosts, together with their capacity to adapt the metabolic processes of their hosts for their own benefit. Interactions between hosts and their parasites play a central role in their evolution and greatly influence their biology and transmission. Despite the unquestionable progress achieved in recent years, we still do not fully understand many of the biological, biochemical, and immunological components affecting and regulating the host–parasite interface. This lack of knowledge hampers research areas, including vaccine development, among many others. Advances in these areas will make, therefore, important contributions to the control and/or limitation of these infections. This topic will include reviews and research articles on the topic "interactions between hosts and parasites". While the reviews will focus on the future of parasitology, the research articles will address pertinent questions about the co-evolution between these organisms and discuss findings through the lens of evolutionary biology. Please send me an abstract prior to submission to make sure that your work falls within the scope of this Topic. For this topic, we welcome research articles, reviews, and communications that cover include, but are not limited to, the following topics:

  1. Host recognition and parasite evasive strategies
  2. Immune responses and host defense mechanisms
  3. Mechanisms of host infection and host cell invasion
  4. Parasite replication, differentiation and survival in the host
  5. Host metabolic pathway
  6. Emerging treatment strategies to combat parasitic infections
  7. Cell biology of organelles involved in host/parasite interaction
  8. Vaccine development

Prof. Dr. Maurizio Francesco Brivio
Dr. David Carmena
Topic Editors

Keywords

  • protozoan parasite
  • host
  • infection
  • host/parasite interactions
  • parasite surfaces
  • surface proteins
  • invasion
  • signalling
  • multicellular parasite
  • unicellular parasites
  • invertebrate and vertebrate hosts
  • host immunity
  • evasive strategies
  • parasite secretions
  • vaccine development

Participating Journals

Journal Name Impact Factor CiteScore Launched Year First Decision (median) APC
Animals
animals
3.231 2.7 2011 17.7 Days 1800 CHF Submit
Insects
insects
3.139 3.1 2010 16.3 Days 1800 CHF Submit
Microbiology Research
microbiolres
- - 2010 21.8 Days 1400 CHF Submit
Parasitologia
parasitologia
- - 2021 15.0 days * 1000 CHF Submit
Pathogens
pathogens
4.531 3.5 2012 17.3 Days 2200 CHF Submit
Zoonotic Diseases
zoonoticdis
- - 2021 15.0 days * 1000 CHF Submit

* Median value for all MDPI journals in the second half of 2021.

Published Papers (2 papers)

Order results
Result details
Journals
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
Article
Responses of Six Wheat Cultivars (Triticum aestivum) to Wheat Aphid (Sitobion avenae) Infestation
Insects 2022, 13(6), 508; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13060508 - 27 May 2022
Abstract
Resistant variety screening is widely recommended for the management of Sitobion avenae. The purpose of this study was to assess responses of six wheat varieties (lines) to S. avenae. The aphid quantity ratio (AQR) was used to assess S. avenae resistance. [...] Read more.
Resistant variety screening is widely recommended for the management of Sitobion avenae. The purpose of this study was to assess responses of six wheat varieties (lines) to S. avenae. The aphid quantity ratio (AQR) was used to assess S. avenae resistance. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to perform a correlation analysis between AQR, biological parameters, and the accumulation of total phenolic and flavonoid content. When compared to the other cultivars, the results showed that two cultivars, Yongliang No.15 and Ganchun No.18, had high resistance against S. avenae. The correlation analysis revealed a positive relationship between total phenol and flavonoid content accumulation and developmental duration (DD), and a negative relationship between accumulation and weight gain (WG) and mean relative growth rate (MRGR). The correlation between flavonoid and biological parameters was statistically stronger than the correlation between total phenol and biological parameters. This research provides critical cues for screening and improving aphid-resistant wheat varieties in the field and will aid in our understanding of the resistance mechanism of wheat varieties against S. avenae. Full article
(This article belongs to the Topic Host–Parasite Interactions)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Communication
Comparison Study of Four Extraction Methods Combined with PCR and LAMP for Feline Tritrichomonas foetus Detection in Fecal Samples
Pathogens 2022, 11(5), 604; https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11050604 - 22 May 2022
Abstract
Feline trichomonosis occurs worldwide, with gastrointestinal symptoms such as chronic large-bowel diarrhea and abdominal pain. The inclusion of molecular methods in diagnostic and epidemiological studies has necessitated an effective method for extracting DNA from feces. We tested four extraction commercial kits: ZR Fecal [...] Read more.
Feline trichomonosis occurs worldwide, with gastrointestinal symptoms such as chronic large-bowel diarrhea and abdominal pain. The inclusion of molecular methods in diagnostic and epidemiological studies has necessitated an effective method for extracting DNA from feces. We tested four extraction commercial kits: ZR Fecal DNA MiniPrep (50 preps) (Zymo Research, Irvine, CA, USA), QIAamp® DNA Stool Mini Kit (Qiagen Inc., Valencia, CA, USA), UltraClean Fecal DNA Kit (50 preps) (MO BIO, San Diego, CA, USA), and Sherlock AX/100 isolations (A&A Biotechnology, Gdynia, Poland). We assessed the sensitivity of detection of Tritrichomonas foetus in spiked fecal samples for the four kits combined with two molecular assays: PCR and LAMP. The extraction efficacy was quantified using defined aliquots of fecal samples spiked with 5 μL of suspensions containing serial dilutions of trophozoites (0.1; 1; 10; 100; 1000; 10,000), with six replicates for each concentration. In our study, we proved that the ZR Fecal DNA MiniPrep (50 preps) kit combined with LAMP and PCR had the highest efficiency among all the compared methods for the detection of feline T. foetus from fecal samples. Full article
(This article belongs to the Topic Host–Parasite Interactions)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop