Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T11:28:09.595Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Membrane (contact) digestion in the three species of tapeworm Hymenolepis diminuta, Hymenolepis microstoma and Moniezia expansa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

E. W. Taylor  and
J. N. Thomas
E. W. Taylor
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology and Comparative Physiology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham
J. N. Thomas
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology and Comparative Physiology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The presence of living tapeworm increases the rate of hydrolysis of starch by α-amylase in vitro. This effect indicates that ‘membrane digestion’ may be one function of the tegument of tapeworms. The effect varies with the surface area and region of the tapeworm. Fixed tapeworm pieces do not enhance starch hydrolysis. The results may provide evidence both for and against the current explanations of membrane digestion. Some possible mechanisms involved in membrane digestion in tapeworms are considered. The importance of membrane digestion in the physiology of gut parasites and the possibility of its wide occurrence are discussed.

We wish to thank Dr J. Llewellyn for his criticism and advice during the preparation of this manuscript and for providing rats and mice infected with Hymenolepis. We also thank Dr R. A. Thornhill for examining some tapeworm tissue under the electron microscope; also Mr A. Wilson of the Meat Inspection Department of the Birmingham Meat Market for his unfailing co-operation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 58 , Issue 3 , August 1968 , pp. 535 - 546
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1968

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

REFERENCES

Crane, C. W. & Neuberger, A. (1960). The digestion and absorption of protein by normal man. Biochem. J. 74, 313.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crompton, D. W. T. & Lee, D. L. (1965). The fine structure of the body wall of Polymorphus minutus (Goeze, 1782) (Acanthocephala). Parasitology 55, 357–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawes, B. (1954). Maintenance in vitro of Fasciola hepatica. Nature, Lond. 174, 654–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erasmus, D. A. (1957). Studies on phosphatase systems of cestodes. I. Studies on Taenia pisiformis (cysticercus and adult). Parasitology 47, 70–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erasmus, D. A. & Öhman, C. (1965). Electron microscope studies of the gland cells and host-parasite interface of the adhesive organ of Cyathocotyle bushiensis Khan, 1962. J. Parasit. 51, 761–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, D. L. (1966). Structure and composition of helminth cuticle. Adv. Parasit. 4, 187–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Read, C. P. (1961). The carbohydrate metabolism of worms. In Comparative Physiology of Carbohydrate Metabolism in Heterothermic Animals. Seattle: University of Washington.Google Scholar
Read, C. P. & Rothman, A. H. (1957). The role of carbohydrates in the biology of cestodes. I. The effect of dietary carbohydrate quality on the size of Hymenolepis diminuta. Expl Parasit. 6, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Read, C. P. & Rothman, A. H. (1958). The role of carbohydrates in the biology of cestodes. VI. The carbohydrates metabolised in vitro by some cyclophyllidean species. Expl Parasit. 7, 217–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, C. P., Rothman, A. H. & Simmonds, J. E. (1963). Studies on membrane transport, with special reference to parasite-host integration. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 113, 154–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rhodin, J. A. G. (1963). An Atlas of Ultrastructure. Philadelphia and London: Saunders.Google Scholar
Rothman, A. H. (1959). The physiology of tapeworms, correlated to structures seen with the electron microscope. J. Parasit. 45, Suppl., 28. (Abstr.)Google Scholar
Rothman, A. H. (1960). Ultramicroscope evidence of adsorptive function in cestodes. J. Parasit. 46, Suppl., 10. (Abstr.)Google Scholar
Rothman, A. H. (1963). Electron microscopy study of tapeworms. Trans Am. microsc. Soc. 82, 22–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ugolev, A. M. (1960 a). Parietal (contact) digestion. Bull. exp. Biol. Med. 49, 12–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ugolev, A. M. (1960 b). Influence of the small intestine on enzymatic hydrolysis of starch by enzymes. Nature, Lond. 188, 588.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ugolev, A. M. (1965). Membrane (contact) digestion. Physiol. Rev. 45, 555–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ugolev, A. M. (1967). Fiziologiya i patologiya pristenochnogo (kontaktnogo) pishchevareniya. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar