Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:28:45.357Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Mating behaviour of Echinostoma caproni and E. paraensei in concurrent infections in mice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2009

P.M. Nollen
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL 61455, USA

Abstract

Ten-day-old adults of Echinostoma caproni and E. paraensei, some of which had been exposed to 3-H-tyrosine to label sperm, were transplanted to mice in various combinations. Mating behaviour was followed on autoradiograms of worms recovered after 5 days by detecting the transfer of labelled sperm from labelled worms to themselves or to unlabelled worms. When single, labelled E. caproni adults were transplanted with unlabelled E. paraensei, they self-inseminated but did not show evidence of interspecies mating. No interspecies mating but self-insemination was observed when single, labelled E. paraensei and unlabelled E. caproni were transplanted together. When the labelled species had a choice of unlabelled adults of its own species or the opposite species, it mated in similar fashion to that seen in single species infections. The labelled species acted as if the opposite species was not present and showed an unrestricted mating pattern where it would both self- and cross-inseminate. Even though after transplant the E. paraensei adults were found in the duodenum and the E. caproni adults were found in the ileum, approximately 25% of the transplanted worms of both species were found within 1 cm of each other. Thus habitat separation was not a major cause of the lack of interspecies mating. Lack of reproductive recognition is another reason to separate E. caproni and E. paraensei into distinct species.

Type
Research Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

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

Jeyarasasingam, U., Heyneman, D., Liz, H-K & Mansour, N. (1972) Life cycle of a new echinostome from Egypt, Echinostoma liei sp. nov. (Trematoda: Echinostomatidae). Parasitology 65, 203222.Google Scholar
Lie, K.J. & Basch, P.P. (1967) The life history of Echinostoma paraensei sp.n. (Trematoda: Echinostomatidae). Journal of Parasitology 23, 11921199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meece, J.K. & Nollen, P.M. (1996) A comparison of the adult and miracidial stages of Echinostoma paraensei and Echinostoma caproni. International Journal for Parasitology 26, 3743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, J.A.T. & Blair, D. (1995) Nuclear rDNAITS sequence variation in the trematode genus Echinostoma: an aid to establishing relationships within the 37-collar spine group. Parasitology 111, 609615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nollen, P.M. (1984) Mating behavior of Philophthalmus megalurus and P. gralli in concurrent infections of chicks. International Journal for Parasitology 14, 7174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nollen, P.M. (1990) Echinostoma caproni: Mating behavior and the timing of development and movement of reproductive cells. Journal of Parasitology 76, 784789.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nollen, P.M. (1993) Echinostoma trivolvis: Mating behavior of adults grown in hamsters. Parasitology Research 79, 130132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nollen, P.M. (1996) The mating behaviour of Echinostoma paraensei (Trematoda) grown in mice. Journal of Helminthology 70, 4346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nollen, P.M., Pyne, J.L., Moseley, C.A. & Bunker, D. (1975) Inseminatory behavior of Philophthalmus megalurus and Philophthalmus hegeneri in concurrent infections in chicks. International Journal for Parasitology 5, 99101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sloss, B., Meece, J., Romano, M. & Nollen, P. (1995) The genetic relationship between Echinostoma caproni, E. paraensei, and E. trivolvis as determined by electrophoresis. Journal of Helminthology 69, 243246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar