Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T20:34:03.322Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cytological and cytochemical studies on Cytamoeba bacterifera Labbé, 1894*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

D. L. Lehmann
D. L. Lehmann
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Whitman College, Walla Walla, Washington, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Cytamoeba bacterifera from urodeles (Batrachoseps attenuatus, Aneides lugubris, A. flavipunctatus and Dicamptodon ensatus) show a thin peripheral ring of DNA and a less definite, heterogeneous central portion after Feulgen treatment; toluidine blue reveals a similar configuration. Exposure to DNA-ase and RNA-ase, followed by toluidine blue and Feulgen treatment, substantiates the localization of DNA; RNA is present in small quantity and restricted to the periphery of the parasite.

Mitochondria (2–5μ long rod-shaped, central bodies) can be detected with Janus Green B, and osmium tetroxide yields a dark central mass of rods and granules as well as peripheral granules; Sudan Black IV is without action. Zymohexase and acid phosphatase can be detected by cytochemical means, but peroxidase, lipase, urease and alkaline phosphatase were not noted.

From the evidence presented, C. bacterifera is considered a living entity and is tentatively relegated to the Piroplasmida.

The writer would like to express his appreciation to Dr R. S. Bray of the American Foundation for Tropical Medicine, Harbel, Liberia, for his counsel and suggestions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 54 , Issue 1 , February 1964 , pp. 121 - 124
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1964

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

Allen, R. J. L. & Bourne, G. H. (1943). Some experiments on the microscopical demonstration of zymohexase in animal tissues. J. exp. Biol. 20, 61–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armitage, F. L. (1939). A modified peroxidase stain for blood and bone marrow films. J. Path. Bact. 49, 579–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burstone, M. S. (1958). Histochemical comparison of naphthol AS-phosphates for the demonstration of phosphatases. J. Nat. Cancer Inst. 20, 601–16.Google ScholarPubMed
Gomori, G. (1939). Microtechnical demonstration of phosphatase in tissue sections. Proc. Soc. exp. Biol., N.Y., 42, 23–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomori, G. (1941). Distribution of acid phosphatase in the tissues under normal and pathologic conditions. Arch. Path. 32, 189–99.Google Scholar
Gomori, G. (1945). Microtechnical demonstration of the sites of lipase activity. Proc. Soc. exp. Biol., N.Y., 58, 362–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, D. L. (1961). Cytamoeba bacterifera Labbe, 1894. I. Morphology and host incidence of the parasite in California. J. Protozool. 8, 29–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, N. D. (1961). Problems in the systematics of the ‘Sporozoa’. J. Protozool. 8, 442–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, P. B. (1930). A method of locating urease within tissues by a microchemical method. Indian J. med. Res. 18, 79–82.Google Scholar
Wenyon, C. M. (1926). Protozoology. New York: Wm. Wood.Google Scholar