Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T04:10:14.795Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PREPARATION OF INSECT CONTACT CHEMOSENSILLA FOR SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

L. J. Dyer ,
W. D. Seabrook  and
V. A. Jaeger
L. J. Dyer
Affiliation:
Biology Department, University of New Brunswick, Frederiction E3B 6E1
W. D. Seabrook
Affiliation:
Biology Department, University of New Brunswick, Frederiction E3B 6E1
V. A. Jaeger
Affiliation:
Biology Department, University of New Brunswick, Frederiction E3B 6E1
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A protease digestion technique for preparing insect chemosensilla for observation at high magnifications under the Scanning Electron Microscope is described. Treatment with protease for 30 min or more followed by sonication removes material normally obscuring pores and surface grooves. This allows surface details and terminal valves to be seen under the SEM. The chemoreceptive hairs of insects can now be rapidly classified as having primarily a contact or olfactory function based on the presence or absence of visible terminal openings on some of the sensilla. Trypsin treatment was less useful, and neuraminidase had little effect. These results indicate that the material extruded onto the surface of the sensillum is proteinaceous.

Résumé

Une technique de digestion à la protease destinée à la préparation de chimiosensilles d'insectes pour observation à fort grossissement au microscope électronique à balayage est décrite. Un traitement à la protease pendant trente minutes plus suivi d'une sonification enlève les matériaux qui cachent en général les pores et les sillons superficiels. Ceci permet de voir au MEB les détails de surface et les valves terminales. Les poils chimio-récepteurs des insectes peuvent maintenant être rapidement classifies comme ayant principalement une fonction de contact ou d'olfaction sur la base de la présence ou de l'absence d'ouvertures terminales sur quelques sensilles. Un traitement à la trypsine s'est avéré moins efficace, et la neuraminidase a montré peu d'effet. Ces résultats indiquent que le matériel excrété à la surface du sensille est de nature protéique.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 114 , Issue 10 , October 1982 , pp. 891 - 896
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atwood, D. G., Crawford, B. J., and Braybrook, G. D.. 1975. A technique for processing mucous coated marine invertebrate spermatozoa for scanning electron microscopy. J. Microsc. 103: 259–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blaney, W. M., Chapman, R. F., and Cook, A. G.. 1971. The structure of the terminal sensilla on the maxillary palps of Locusta migratoria (L.) and changes associated with molting. Z. Zellforsch. 121: 48–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyde, A. 1972. Biological specimen preparation for the scanning electron microscope. An overview. p. 257in Johari, O. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth Annual SEM Symposium. 11TR1, Chicago.Google Scholar
Craig, D. A. and Borkent, A.. 1980. Intra- and inter-familial homologies of maxillary palpal sensilla of larval Simuliidae (Diptera: Culicomorpha). Can. J. Zool. 58: 2264–2279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dethier, V. G. 1955. The physiology and histology of the contact chemoreceptors of the blowfly. Quart. Rev. Biol. 30: 348–371.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dyer, L. J. and Seabrook, W. D.. 1975. Sensilla on the antennal flagellum of the Sawyer beetles Monochamus notatus (Drury) and M. scutellatus (Say) (Col.: Cerambycidae). J. Morph. 146: 513–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayat, M. A. 1978. Introduciton to Biological Scanning Electron Microscopy. University Press, Baltimore. 323 pp.Google Scholar
Mitchell, B. K. and Seabrook, W. D.. 1974. Electrophysiological investigations on tarsal chemoreceptors of the spruce budworm Choristoneura fumiferana. J. Insect. Physiol. 20: 1209–1218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Riddiford, L. M. 1970. Antennal properties of saturniid moths: their possible role in olfaction. J. Insect Physiol. 16: 653–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seabrook, W. D. 1977. Insect chemosensory response to other insects. pp. 15–43in Shorey, H. H., McKelvey, J. J. Jr. (Eds.), Chemical Control of Insect Behaviour: Theory and Application. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Slifer, E. H., Prestage, J. J., and Beam, H. W.. 1955. The fine structure of the long basiconic pegs of the grasshopper with special reference to those of the antennae. J. Morph. 101: 359–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturckow, B., Holbert, P. E., Adams, J. R., and Anstead, R. J.. 1973. Fine structure of the tip of the labellar taste hair of the blowflies, Phormia regina (Mg.) and Calliphora vicina R-D. (Diptera: Calliphoridae). Z. Morph. Tiere 75: 87–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zacharuk, R. Y., Albert, P. J., and Bellamy, F. W.. 1977. Ultrastructure and function of digitiform sensilla on the labial palp of a larval elaterid (Coleoptera). Can. J. Zool. 55: 569–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar