Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-18T19:57:12.942Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Behaviour and Development of Brugia patei (Buckley, Nelson and Heisch, 1958) in a Mosquito Host, Mansonia uniformis (Theobald)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2009

B. R. Laurence  and
F. R. N. Pester
B. R. Laurence
Affiliation:
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
F. R. N. Pester
Affiliation:
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The behaviour and development of Brugia patei has been followed in the mosquito host, Mansonia uniformis, from ingestion of the microfilariae to the development of the infective stages.

2. The microfilariae penetrated very rapidly out of the stomach into the abdomen of the mosquito; 80% of them escape from the stomach during the first 50 minutes after a blood meal.

3. The microfilariae migrate from the abdomen to the thorax through fat body cells and the heart during the first 140 minutes followed engorgement and begin to penetrate the indirect flight muscles within 15 minutes from engorgement. During this migration microfilariae were found in close association, suggesting that they follow similar pathways of migration through the body of the mosquito.

4. Most microfilariae (98%) have settled in the indirect flight muscles within 2 hours of engorgement. In these muscles the larvae digest away the muscle surrounding them but do not begin to elongate until the third or fourth day after the blood meal. The rate of development varies from one mosquito host to another, but about 80% of the larvae have developed to the infective stage by the ninth to tenth days after the infective feed. The infective stages concentrate in the head and proboscis of the mosquito vector. The development of B. patei is faster than that of B. pahangi in mosquitoes from the same colony.

5. The efficiency of M. uniformis as a vector of B. patei is compared with the similar efficiency of M. longipalpis as a vector of B. malayi. In both mosquitoes the majority of the microfilariae ingested develop to the infective stage. M. uniforms is also an efficient vector of B. pahangi.

6. The development of the parasite is discussed briefly with reference to knowledge of the physiological events within the mosquito host subsequent to the blood meal.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 35 , Issue 3-4 , September 1961 , pp. 285 - 300
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1961

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

Buckley, J. J. C., 1960.—“On Brugia gen. nov. for Wuchereria spp. of the ‘malayi’ group, i.e., W. malayi (Brug, 1927), W. pahangi Buckley and Edeson, 1956, and W. patei Buckley, Nelson and Heisch, 1958”. Ann. trop. Med. Parasit., 54, 75–77. (W.L. 1063)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edeson, J. F. B., Wilson, T., Wharton, R. H. and Laing, A. B. G., 1960.—“Experimental transmission of Brugia malayi and B. pahangi to man”. Trans. R. Soc. trop. Med. Hyg., 54, 229–234. (W.L. 21671)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feng, L. C., 1936.—“The development of Microfilaria malayi in A. hyrcanus var. sinensis Wied.” Chin. med. J., Supp. 1, 345–367. (W.L. 617788)Google Scholar
Florkin, L. C., 1949.—Biochemical Evolution. Translated by Morgulis, S.. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Giglioli, G., 1948.—“The transmission of Wuchereria bancrofti by Anopheles darlingi in the American tropics”. Amer. J. trop. Med., 28, 71–85. (W.L. 626)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillett, J. D., 1956.—“Initiation and promotion of ovarian development in the mosquito Aëds (Stegomyia) aegypti (Linnaeus)”. Ann. trop. Med. Parasit., 50, 375–380. (W.L. 1063)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, E. P., 1932.—“The transmission of Wuchereria bancrofti in Sierra Leone”. Ann. trop. Med. Parasit., 26, 407–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, S. M. K. and Chang, T. L., 1933.—“Observations on natural infection of Culex pipiens Linnaeus var. pallens Coquillett with Wuchereria bancrofti Cobbold in Woosung District, Shanghai, China”. Chin. med. J., 47, 1367–1372. (W.L. 617788)Google Scholar
Hu, S. M. K. and Yen, C. H., 1933.—“Studies on the susceptibility of Culex pipiens Linnaeus var. pallens Coquillett to experimental infection with Wuchereria bancrofli Cobold in Shanghai area”. Chin. med. J., 47, 1359–1366.Google Scholar
Iyengar, M. O. T., 1936.—“Entry of Filaria larvae into the body cavity of the mosquito”. Parasitology, 28, 190–194. (W.L. 16035)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, P., 1959.—“A note on the effect of a blood meal on infective larvae of Wuchereria bancrofti in Culez fatigans”. Trans. R. Soc. trop. Med. Hyg., 53, 148–150. (W.L. 21671)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kartman, L., 1953.—“Factors influencing infection of the mosquito with Dirofilaria immitis (Leidy, 1856)”. Exp. Parasit., 2, 27–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurence, B. R. and Smith, S. A., 1958.—“The breeding of Taeniorhynchus (subgenus Mansonioides) mosquitoes in the laboratory”. Trans. R. Soc. trop. Med. Hyg., 52, 518–526. (W.L. 21671).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lavoipierre, M. M. J., 1958.—“Studies on the host-parasite relationships of filarial nematodes and their Arthropod hosts. II. The Arthropod as a host to the Nematode: A brief appraisal of our present knowledge, based on a study of the more important literature from 1878 to 1957”. Ann. trop. Med. Parasit., 52, 326–345. (W.L. 1063)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lebied, B., 1950.—Une nouvelle théorie epidémiologique. Dijon: 54 pp.Google Scholar
Lebied, B., 1960.—“Mise au point à propos d'une nouveile méthode de dissection des vecteurs des filarioses. La but de cette méthode”. Riv. Parassig., 21, 71–79. (W.L. 19442a)Google Scholar
Lewis, D. J., 1953.—“Simulium damnosum and its relation to onchocerciasis in the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan”. Bull. ent. Res., 43, 597–644. (W.L. 4184)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, G. S., 1959.—“The identification of infective filarial larvae in mosquitoes: with a note on the species found in ‘wild’ mosquitoes on the Kenya coast”. J. Helminth., 33, 233–256. (W.L. 11224a)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Omori, N., 1958.—“Experimental studies on the role of the house mosquito, Gulex pipiens pallens in the transmission of Bancroftian filariasis, 5. On the distribution of infective larvae in mosquito and the effect of parasitism of filariae upon the host insect”. Nagasaki med. J., 33, 143–155.Google Scholar
Pratt, I. and Newton, W. L., 1946.—“The migration of infective larvae of Wuchereria bancrofti within the mosquito host and their rate of escape under laboratory conditions”. J. Parasit., 32, 272–280. (W.L. 11428)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pringle, J. W. S., 1957.—Insect Flight. University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Taylor, A. E. R., 1960.—“Maintenance of filarial larvae in vitro”. Exp. Parasit., 9, 113–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wharton, R. H., 1957a.—“Studies on filariasis in Malaya: Observations on the development of Wuchereria malayi in Mansonia (Mansonioides) longipalpis”. Ann. trop. Med. Parasit., 51, 278–296. (W.L. 1063)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wharton, R. H., 1957b.—“Studies on filariasis in Malaya: The efficiency of Mansonia longipalpis as an experimental vector of Wuchereria malayi”. Ann. trop. Med. Parasit., 51, 422–439.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed