2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.mimet.2016.05.030
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A review of methods for nematode identification

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
39
0
4

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 65 publications
(45 citation statements)
references
References 116 publications
2
39
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Additionally, we present evidence that LAMP is faster than traditional morphology-based microscopic methods. The entire morphological diagnosis process took about 2 days which is very consistent with other reported observational methods of RKN diagnosis that mostly rely on the distinct morphological and anatomical characteristics of second-stage juveniles, adult males, as well as perineal patterns of adult females [10, 28–30]. Our results based on the morphological characteristics of J2s in this study were in agreement with those reported for M. partityla [26, 27] and confirms the reliability of the LAMP technique for rapid identification of M. partityla .…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 82%
“…Additionally, we present evidence that LAMP is faster than traditional morphology-based microscopic methods. The entire morphological diagnosis process took about 2 days which is very consistent with other reported observational methods of RKN diagnosis that mostly rely on the distinct morphological and anatomical characteristics of second-stage juveniles, adult males, as well as perineal patterns of adult females [10, 28–30]. Our results based on the morphological characteristics of J2s in this study were in agreement with those reported for M. partityla [26, 27] and confirms the reliability of the LAMP technique for rapid identification of M. partityla .…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 82%
“…Due to their huge economic and trade impacts, it is crucial to distinguish these species accurately using diagnostic tools. Morphological identification, based on a few characters of the second-stage juvenile (J2) and of the perineal area of the cyst, has been quite successful but always carries some uncertainty (Bačić et al, 2013;Seesao et al, 2016;Tirchi et al, 2016). Therefore, due to the variability of the main morphological features and the overlapping of standard diagnostic parameters in these two species, a confirmation through molecular methods is recommended.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As nucleotide sequences vary among species, restriction sites differ in their locations along the genome, resulting in fragments of different sizes. Finally, restriction products are separated by gel electrophoresis (SEESSAO et al, 2017). This technique allows the identification of M. hapla, M. incognita and M. arenaria (HAN et al, 2004).…”
Section: Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (Rflp)mentioning
confidence: 99%