Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T23:08:34.013Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rostellar hook morphology of Echinococcus granulosus (Batsch, 1786) from natural and experimental Australian hosts, and its implications for strain recognition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

R. P. Hobbs ,
A. J. Lymbery  and
R. C. A. Thompson
R. P. Hobbs
Affiliation:
Institute for Molecular Genetics and Animal Disease, and School of Veterinary Studies, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia, 6150, Australia
A. J. Lymbery
Affiliation:
Institute for Molecular Genetics and Animal Disease, and School of Veterinary Studies, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia, 6150, Australia
R. C. A. Thompson
Affiliation:
Institute for Molecular Genetics and Animal Disease, and School of Veterinary Studies, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia, 6150, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

An analysis of the rostellar hooks of Australian isolates of Echinococcus granulosus revealed that there was less variation in larval (metacestode) than adult characters and that metacestode characters could be measured directly from adult worms. A factor analysis indicated that two factors, one representing a contrast between number of hooks and their length, and the other representing blade lengths, were sufficient to account for 87.5% of the variance in metacestode hook measurements. These results indicate that rostellar hook morphology is not useful for discriminating strains of E. granulosus in Australia. The Tasmanian and mainland domestic strains were found to be indistinguishable using rostellar morphology. Although many of the isolates from sylvatic hosts differed from those from domestic hosts, there was not a clear separation as would be expected if two distinct strains existed. Evidence was presented to show that the morphological differences seen in sylvatic hosts could be attributed to host-induced effects, and that the previously accepted existence of two mainland strains should be investigated further.

Keywords

Echinococcus granulosusrostellar hook morphologyfactor analysis
Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 101 , Issue 2 , October 1990 , pp. 273 - 281
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

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

Baldock, F. C., Thompson, R. C. A. & Kumaratilake, L. M. (1985). Strain identification of Echinococcus granulosus in determining origin of infection in a case of human hydatid disease in Australia. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 79, 238–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, C. & Flockhart, H. A. (1986). Biochemical strain variation in helminths. Advances in Parasitology 25, 275–319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cameron, T. W. M. (1926). Observations on the genus Echinococcus. Journal of Helminthology 4, 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research 1, 245–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eckert, J., Thompson, R. C. A., Michael, S. A., Kumaratilake, L. M. & El-Sawah, H. M. (1989). Echinococcus granulosus of camel origin: development in dogs and parasite morphology. Parasitology Research 75, 536–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, S. L., Rausch, R. L. & Camacho, O. C. J. (1988). Echinococcus vogeli Rausch and Bernstein, 1972, from the paca, Cuniculus paca L. (Rodentia: Dasyproctidae), in the Departmento de Santa Cruz, Bolivia. Journal of Parasitology 74, 399–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumaratilake, L. M. & Thompson, R. C. A. (1982). Hydatidosis/echinococcosis in Australia. Helminthological Abstracts 51, 233–52.Google Scholar
Kumaratilake, L. M. & Thompson, R. C. A. (1983). A comparison of Echinococcus granulosus from different geographical areas of Australia using secondary cyst development in mice. International Journal for Parasitology 13, 509–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kumaratilake, L. M. & Thompson, R. C. A. (1984 a). Morphological characterisation of Australian strains of Echinococcus granulosus. International Journal for Parasitology 14, 467–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kumaratilake, L. M. & Thompson, R. C. A. (1984 b). Biochemical characterisation of Australian strains of Echinococcus granulosus by isoelectric focusing of soluble proteins. International Journal for Parasitology 14, 581–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kumaratilake, L. M., Thompson, R. C. A. & Dunsmore, J. D. (1983). Comparative strobilar development of Echinococcus granulosus of sheep origin from different geographical areas of Australia in vivo and in vitro. International Journal for Parasitology 13, 151–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kumaratilake, L. M., Thompson, R. C. A. & Eckert, J. (1986). Echinococcus granulosus of equine origin from different countries possess uniform morphological characteristics. International Journal for Parasitology 16, 529–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lubinsky, G. (1960). The variability of the number of rostellar hooks in two species of Echinococcus from North America. Canadian Journal of Zoology 38, 605–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lymbery, A. J. & Thompson, R. C. A. (1990). Genetic differences between cysts of Echinococcus granulosus from the same host. International Journal for Parasitology 19, 961–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lymbery, A. J., Thompson, R. C. A. & Hobbs, R. P. (1990). Genetic diversity and genetic differentiation in Echinococcus granulosus (Batsch, 1786) from domestic and sylvatic hosts on the mainland of Australia. Parasitology 101, 283–289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rausch, R. L. (1953). The taxonomic value and variability of certain structures in the cestode genus Echinococcus (Rud., 1801) and a review of recognized species. Thapar Commemoration Volume 233–46.Google Scholar
Rausch, R. L., Rausch, V. R. & D'Alessandro, A. (1978). Discrimination of the larval stages of Echinococcus oligarthrus (Diesing, 1863) and E. vogeli Rausch and Bernstein, 1972 (Cestoda: Taeniidae). American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 27, 1195–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweatman, G. K. & Williams, R. J. (1963). Comparative studies on the biology and morphology of Echinococcus granulosus from domestic livestock, moose and reindeer. Parasitology 53, 339–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, R. C. A. & Kumaratilake, L. M. (1985). Comparative development of Australian strains of Echinococcus granulosus in dingoes (Canis familiaris dingo) and domestic dogs (C. f. familiaris), with further evidence for the origin of the Australian sylvatic strain. International Journal for Parasitology 15, 535–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, R. C. A. & Lymbery, A. J. (1988). The nature, extent and significance of variation within the genus Echinococcus. Advances in Parasitology 27, 209–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, R. C. A., Nott, D. B., Squire, J. & Rennell, D. (1987). Evidence that the Australian sylvatic strain of Echinococcus granulosus is infective to humans. The Medical Journal of Australia 146, 396–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vogel, H. (1957). Studies on the Echinococcus multilocularis of South Germany. Zeitschrift für Tropenmedizin und Parasitologie 8, 404–56. (National Research Council of Canada. Technical Translation 858. Ottawa 1960).Google Scholar
Yamashita, J., Ohbayashi, M. & Konno, S. (1956). Studies on Echinococcus. III. On experimental infection in dogs, especially on the development of Echinococcus granulosus (Batsch, 1786). Japanese Journal of Veterinary Research 4, 113–22.Google Scholar
Zar, J. H. (1984). Biostatistical Analysis, 2nd Edn. Engelwood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar