Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:26:47.501Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differences in biological characteristics of two strains of the cestode Hymenolepis diminuta

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

H. Kino  and
C. R. Kennedy
H. Kino
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4PS
C. R. Kennedy
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4PS
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Biological characteristics of infectivity, growth rate and fecundity of Hymenolepis diminuta isolated from wild Rattus rattus in Japan were compared with parasites of Texas origin maintained for several generations in this and many other laboratories in laboratory bred Rattus norvegicus. The timing of development and maturation was similar in parasites from both sources, but the mean parasite dry weight was less and the mean egg production lower in Japanese parasites in both single and multiple infections. The differences persisted over 10 weeks in single infections, and were unaffected by rat strain. In all experiments there was much greater variation and heterogeneity in the biological characteristics of the Japanese parasites. It was concluded that the Texas parasites were better adapted to R. norvegicus and in the course of adaptation had become more homogeneous, and that the difference between the parasite strains had a complex genetic basis. Some Japanese parasites of the early isolated generations failed to produce normal eggs, but the proportion of these decreased in later generations. However, selected individual Japanese parasites whose egg production was equal to that of parasites of Texas origin did not produce offspring of larger mean size or higher mean fecundity, and heterogeneity of these characteristics was maintained. In the intermediate host, the mean number of cysticercoids of the Japanese isolate per beetle was higher than that of the Texas strain in Tribolium confusum but lower in Tenebrio molitor. The greater heterogeneity exhibited by Japanese parasites and the genetic basis of the strain difference are discussed with particular reference to geographical isolation, differences in definitive hosts and co-evolution of wild and laboratory host and parasite populations.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 95 , Issue 1 , August 1987 , pp. 97 - 110
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

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

Anderson, R. M. & May, R. M. (1982). Coevolution of host and parasites. Parasitology 85, 411–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andreassen, J. & Hopkins, C. A. (1980). Immunologically mediated rejection of Hymenolepis diminuta by its normal host, the rat. Journal of Parasitology 66, 898–903.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bailey, G. N. A. (1972). Energetics of a host-parasite system. Ph.D. thesis, University of Exeter.Google Scholar
Beck, J. W. (1952). Effect of diet upon singly established Hymenolepis diminuta in rats. Experimental Parasitology 1, 46–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Befus, A. D. (1975). Secondary infections of Hymenolepis diminuta in mice: effect of varying worm burdens in primary and secondary infections. Parasitology 71, 61–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burt, M. D. B. (1980). Aspects of the life history and systematics of Hymenolepis diminuta. In Biology of the Tapeworm Hymenolepis diminuta (ed. Arai, H. P.), pp. 1–57. London and New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hesselberg, C. A. & Andreassen, J. (1975). Some influences of population density on Hymenolepis diminuta in rats. Parasitology 71, 517–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holmes, J. C. (1983). Evolutionary relationships between parasitic helminths and their hosts. In Coevolution (ed. Futuyama, D. J. and Slatkin, M.). Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Hopkins, C. A., Subramanian, G. & Stallard, H. (1972). The development of Hymenolepis diminuta in primary and secondary infections in mice. Parasitology 64, 401–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, A. W., Fitzgerald, M. D., Proffitt, M. R., Tan, B. D. & Ward, H. L. (1971). Prolonged selfing in Hymenolepis microstoma (Cestoda). Experimental Parasitology 29, 223–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, C. R. (1983). General ecology. In Biology of the Eucestoda (ed. Arme, C. and Pappas, P. W.), pp. 27–80. London and New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Keymer, A. E. (1980). The influence of Hymenolepis diminuta on the survival of the intermediate host, Tribolium confusum. Parasitology 81, 405–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kohlhagen, S., Behm, C. A. & Bryant, C. (1985). Strain variation in Hymenolepis diminuta: enzyme profiles. International Journal for Parasitology 15, 479–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McManus, D. P. & Smyth, J. D. (1978). Differences in the chemical composition and carbohydrate metabolism of Echinococcus granulosus (horse and sheep strains) and E. multilocularis. Parasitology 77, 103–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mettrick, D. F. & Rahman, M. S. (1984). Effects of parasite strain and intermediate host species on carbohydrate intermediary metabolism in the rat tapeworm, Hymenolepis diminuta. Canadian Journal of Zoology 62, 355–61.Google Scholar
Morisita, M. (1959). Measuring of the dispersion of individuals and analysis of the distributional patterns. Memoir of Faculty of Science of Kyushu University, Series E 2, 215–35.Google Scholar
Price, P. W. (1977). General concepts on the evolutionary biology of parasites. Evolution 31, 405–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Price, P. W. (1980). Evolutionary Biology of Parasites. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Roberts, L. S. (1980). Development of Hymenolepis diminuta in its definitive host. In Biology of the Tapeworm Hymenolepis diminuta (ed. Arai, H. P.), pp. 357–423. London and New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, W. A. & Ulmer, M. J. (1962). Effects on continued selfing on Hymenolepis nana (Cestoda). Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science 69, 557–71.Google Scholar
Schom, C., Novak, M. & Evans, W. S. (1981). Evolutionary implications of Tribolium confusum-Hymenolepis citelli interactions. Parasitology 83, 77–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smyth, J. D. (1976). Strain differences in Echinococcus granulosus, with special reference to the status of equine hydatidosis in the United Kingdom. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 71, 93–100.Google Scholar
Wassom, D. L., Dewitt, C. W. & Grundman, A. W. (1974). Immunity to Hymenolepis citelli by Peromyscus maniculatus: Genetic control and ecological implications. Journal of Parasitology 60, 47–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed