Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T23:30:18.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Loss of meal antigenicity during digestion in Sepia officinalis (Cephalopoda: Sepioidea)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

Amanda J. Kear  and
Peter R. Boyle
Amanda J. Kear
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Aberdeen, Tillydrone Avenue, Aberdeen, AB9 2TN. Marine Biological Association, The Laboratory, Citadel Hill, Plymouth, PL1 2PB. British Antarctic Survey, High Cross, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 OET.
Peter R. Boyle
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Aberdeen, Tillydrone Avenue, Aberdeen, AB9 2TN. Marine Biological Association, The Laboratory, Citadel Hill, Plymouth, PL1 2PB. British Antarctic Survey, High Cross, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 OET.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Some of the limits to the use of serology to identify prey species in the digestive tracts of cephalopods have been evaluated. Cuttlefish, Sepia officinalis, were given meals of krill slurry (Euphausia superba). Protein extracts of contents from four regions of the digestive tract, stomach, caecum, digestive gland and intestine, were tested for prey antigenicity. Digestion times (loss of antigenicity) ranged from 1 to 8 h depending on sampling site. Stomach and caecum emptied rapidly, but meal antigenicity persisted longer in the digestive gland. The Sepia experiments provide a basis for interpretation of results from natural predation by cephalopods).

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 72 , Issue 3 , August 1992 , pp. 543 - 551
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1992

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

Altman, J.S. & Nixon, M., 1970. Use of beaks and radula by Octopus vulgaris in feeding. Journal of Zoology, 161, 25–38.Google Scholar
Axelsen, N.H., 1973. Intermediate gel in crossed and fused rocket immunoelectrophoresis. In A manual of quantitative immunoelectrophoresis - methods and applications (ed. N.H., Axelsen, et al.), pp. 71–77. Oxford: Blackwells. [Scandinavian journal of Immunology, 2 (suppl. 1).]Google Scholar
Bidder, A.M., 1950. The digestive mechanism of the European squids Loligo vulgaris, Loligo forbesi, AUoteuthis media and Alloteuthis subulata. Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science, 91, 1–43.Google Scholar
Bidder, A.M., 1966. Feeding and digestion in cephalopods. In Physiology ofmollusca, vol. II (ed. K.M., Wilbur and C.M., Yonge), pp. 97–124. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Boucher-Rodoni, R., Boucaud-Camou, E. & Mangold, K., 1987. Feeding and digestion. In Cephalopod life cycles, vol. II (ed. P.R., Boyle), pp. 85–108. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Boyle, P.R., Grisley, M.S. & Robertson, G., 1986. Crustacea in the diet of Eledone cirrhosa (Mollusca: Cephalopoda) determined by serological methods. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 66, 867–879.Google Scholar
Calver, M.E., 1984. A review of the ecological applications of immunological techniques for diet analysis. Australian Journal of Ecology, 9, 19–25.Google Scholar
Grisley, M.S. & Boyle, P.R., 1985. A new application of serological techniques to gut content analysis. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 90, 1–9.Google Scholar
Grisley, M.S. & Boyle, P.R., 1988. Recognition of food in Octopus digestive tract. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 118, 7–32.Google Scholar
Guerra, A., 1985. Food of the cuttlefish Sepia officinalis and S. elegans in the Ria de Vigo (NW Spain) (Mollusca: Cephalopoda). Journal of Zoology, 207, 511–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guerra, A., Nixon, M. & Castro, B.G., 1988. Initial stages of food ingestion by Sepia officinalis (Mollusca: Cephalopoda). Journal of Zoology, 214, 189–197.Google Scholar
Karpov, K.A. & Cailliet, G.M., 1978. Feeding dynamics of Loligo opalescens. Fish Bulletin. California Fish and Game Commission, 169, 45–65.Google Scholar
Kroll, J., 1973. Rocket-line immunoelectrophoresis. In Amanual of quantitative immunoelectrophoresis - methods and applications (ed. N.H., Axelsen, et al.), pp. 83–87. Oxford: Blackwells. [Scandinavian Journal of Immunology, 2 (suppl. 1).]Google Scholar
Lipinski, M.R., 1987. Food and feeding of Loligo vulgaris reynaudii from St Francis Bay, South Africa. South African Journal of Marine Science, 5, 557–564.Google Scholar
Maff, , 1981. Atlas of the seas around the British Isles. HMSO Publications.Google Scholar
Messenger, J.B., Nixon, M. & Ryan, K.P., 1985. Magnesium chloride as an anaesthetic for cephalopods. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, 82C, 203–205.Google Scholar
Millar, A., 1959. Protein determination for large numbers of samples. Analytical Chemistry, 31, 964.Google Scholar
Najai, S. & Ktari, M.H., 1979. Etude du régime alimentaire de la seiche commune Sepia officinalis Linné, 1758 (Mollusque, Cephalopode) du Golfe de Tunis. Bulletin de I'lnstitut National Scientifique et Technique d'Oceanographie et de Peche de Salammbo, 6, 53–61.Google Scholar
Nixon, M., 1987. Cephalopod diets. In Cephalopod life cycles, vol. II (ed. P.R., Boyle), pp. 201–219. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pickavance, J.R., 1970. A new approach to the immmunological analysis of invertebrate diets. Journal of Animal Ecology, 39, 715–724.Google Scholar
Walter, C.B., O'neill, E. & Kirby, R., 1986. ‘ELISA’ as an aid in the identification of fish and molluscan prey of birds in marine ecosystems. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 96, 97–102.Google Scholar