Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:05:47.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Parthenogenesis” in Schistosoma mattheei

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 November 2009

M. G. Taylor ,
M. B. A. Amin  and
G. S. Nelson
M. G. Taylor
Affiliation:
Parasilology Department, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
M. B. A. Amin
Affiliation:
Stack Medical Research Laboratory, Khartoum, Sudan
G. S. Nelson
Affiliation:
Parasitology Department, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Experimental studies in mice have shown that with single sex female infections of S. mattheei there is a slow maturation of the worms with evidence of incomplete parthenogenesis; at 9 weeks no eggs were produced but at 17 weeks there was an average of 500 eggs per mouse. These were all non viable. Under similar conditions S. mansoni females failed to produce eggs.

When the females of S. mattheei were paired with males of S. mansoni, the females reached full maturity and produced large numbers of eggs typical of their own species-many of the eggs were non viable but some contained active miracidia.It is considered that this is an example of parthenogenesis and not hybridisation. Cross specific pairings of schistosomes must occur frequently in man particularly with S. haematobium, S. mansoni and S. mattheei and this phenomenon could be of considerable clinical, epidemiological and biological significance. Parthenogenesis in mixed infections probably accounts for the large number of non-viable S. haematobium eggs seen in rectal biopsies, and it may also be important in reducing the transmission potential of schistosomes to man since cross pairing must result in the “sterilisation” of a considerable proportion of the female worms in mixed infections. This phenomenon may also explain the observed reproductive isolation of schistosome species which simultaneously infect the same host.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 43 , Issue 1-2 , March 1969 , pp. 197 - 206
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1969

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

Amin, M. A. and Nelson, G. S.—“Studies on heterologous immunity in schistosomiasis. III. Further observations on the development of heterologous immunity in mice.” Bull. Wld Hlth Org. (in press).Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. C., 1965.—“Mating behaviour and development of schistosomes in the mouse.” J. Parasit., 51, 605–616.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brumpt, E., 1936.—Précis de Parasitologie. 5th Edition, 1–1082. Paris.Google Scholar
Gelfand, M., 1967.—A clinical study of intestinal bilharziasis (Schistosoma mansoni) in Africa. Edward Arnold Ltd., London. 1–239.Google Scholar
Le Roux, P. L., 1954.—“Hybridisation of Schistosoma mansoni and S. rodhaini.” Trans. R. Soc. trop. Med. Hyg., 48, 3. (Demonstration).Google Scholar
Moore, D. V., Tamarth, K. Y. and Meleney, H. E., 1954.—“The relationship of male worms to the sexual development of female Schistosoma mansoni.” J. Parasit., 40, 166–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, G. S., Amin, M. A., Saoud, M. F. A. and Teesdale, C., 1968.—“Studies on heterologous immunity in schistosomiasis. I. Heterologous schistosome immunity in mice.” Bull. Wld Hlth Org., 38, 9–17.Google ScholarPubMed
Pjtchford, R. J., 1961.—“Observations on a possible hybrid between the two schistosomes, S. haemalobium and S. mattheei.” Trans. R. Soc. trop. Med. Hyg., 55, 41–51.Google Scholar
Pjtchford, R. J., 1965.—“Differences in the egg morphology and certain biological characteristics of some African and Middle Eastern schistosomes, genus Schistosoma with terminal-spined eggs.” Bull. Wld Hlth Org., 32, 105–120.Google Scholar
Short, R. B., 1948.—“Inter-generic crosses among schistosomes (Trematoda: Schistosomatidae).” J. Parasit., 34, Suppl., 30.Google Scholar
Short, R. B., 1952 a.—“Sex studies on Schisiosomatium douthitti Cort, 1914, Price, 1931. Trematoda, Schistosomatidae.” Am. Midi. Nat., 47, 1–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Short, R. B., 1952 b.—“Uniparental miracidia of Schistosomatium douthitti and their progeny (Trematoda, Schistosomatidae).” Am. Midi. Nat., 48, 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Short, R. B., and Menzel, M. Y., 1959.—“Chromosomes in parthenogenetic miracidia and embryonic cercariae of Schistosomatium douthitti.” Expl Parasit., 8, 249–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Short, R. B., and Menzel, M. Y., 1960.—“Chromosomes of nine species of schistosomes.” J. Parasit., 46, 273–287.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vogel, H., 1941.—“Uber den Einfluss des Geschlechfspartners auf Wachstum und Entwicklung bei Bilharzia mansoni und Kreuzpaarungen zwischen verschieden Bilharzia-Arten.” Zentbl. Bakt. ParasitKde, Abt. I. Orig., 148, 78–96.Google Scholar
Vogel, H., 1942.—“Ueber die Nachkommenschaft aus Kreuzpaarungen zwischen Bilharzia mansoni und B.japonica.” Zentbl. Bakt. ParasitKde, Abt. I. Orig., 149, 319–333.Google Scholar