Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:53:48.169Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The distribution and pathobiology of Neoechinorhynchus cylindratus in the intestine of green sunfish, Lepomis cyanellus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

M. Adel-Meguid ,
G. W. Esch  and
H. E. Eure
M. Adel-Meguid
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27109, USA
G. W. Esch
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27109, USA
H. E. Eure
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27109, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The status of bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) as homologous hosts for the acanthocephalan Neoechinorhynchus cylindratus was experimentally determined. It was found that the adult parasite did not establish in bluegills, but that these fish could serve as paratenic host. In contrast, complete growth and development to the adult stage occurred in the green sunfish. When green sunfish were intubated with 10 cystacanths/fish, the parasite exhibited a clear preference for the anterior half of the intestine; when 50 cystacanths/fish were intubated, the parasites showed a preference for the posterior half of the intestine. With repeated exposure of cystacanths, the parasites were distributed throughout the intestine. The extent of histopathology induced by N. cylindratus was related to the numbers of parasites present. In light infections (10 cystacanths), the parasite penetrated deeply into the intestinal wall and connective tissue developed around the proboscis. In infections with 50 cystacanths, the proboscis penetration was shallow and little if any connective tissue accumulated. There was also an indication that in crowded areas, the parasites appeared to change their sites of attachment frequently. In both heavy and repeated infections, the parasites evoked significant goblet cell hyperplasia and substantial quantities of mucus covered the intestinal wall. It is suggested that the sticky covering and the presumed presence of antibodies in the mucus combined to create a protective barrier thereby reducing the numbers of parasites that could attach and become established.

Keywords

Acanthocephalan Neoechinorhynchus cylindratusLepomis cyanelluspathobiologydistributiongoblet cells
Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 111 , Issue 2 , August 1995 , pp. 221 - 231
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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

Alizadeh, H. & Wakelin, D. (1982). Comparison of rapid expulsion of Trichinella spiralis in mice and rats. International Journal for Parasitology 12, 65–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, R. & Kennedy, C. R. (1991). Site availability and density-dependent constraints on the acanthocephalan Pomphorhynchus laevis in rainbow trout, Onchorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum). Parasitology 102, 405–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chappell, H. (1969). Competitive exclusion between two intestinal parasites of the three-spined stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus L. Journal of Parasitology 55, 775–8.Google Scholar
Cheema, K. J. & Scofield, A. M. (1982). Scanning electron microscopy of the intestines of rats infected with Nippostrongylus brasiliensis. International Journal for Parasitology 12, 199–205.Google Scholar
Douch, P. G., Harrison, G. B. L., Buchanan, L. L. & Greek, K. S. (1983). In vitro bioassay of sheep gastrointestinal mucus for nematode paralysing activity mediated by substances with some properties characteristic of SRS.A. International Journal for Parasitology 13, 207–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Esch, G. W. & Fernandez, J. C. (1993). A Functional Biology of Parasitism: Ecological and Evolutionary Implications. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Esch, G. W. & Huffines, W. J. (1973). Histopathology associated with endoparasitic helminths in bass. Journal of Parasitology 59, 306–13.Google Scholar
Ewald, J. A. & Nickol, B. B. (1989). Availability of caecal habitat as a density-dependent limit on survivorship of Leptorhynchoides thecatus in green sunfish, Lepomis cyanellus. Parasitology 98, 447–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forstner, A., Taichman, N., Kalnins, V. & Forstner, G. (1973). Intestinal goblet mucus: isolation and identification by immunofluorescence of a goblet cell glycoprotein. Immunology 12, 585–602.Google Scholar
Harris, J. E. (1972). The immune response of a cyprinid fish to infections of the acanthocephalan Pomphoryhnchus laevis. International Journal for Parasitology 2, 459–69.Google Scholar
Hine, P. M. & Kennedy, C. R. (1974). Observations on the distribution, specificity and pathogenicity of the acanthocephalan Pomphorhynchus laevis (Muller). Journal of Fish Biology 6, 521–35.Google Scholar
Hoffman, G. L. (1967). Parasites of Freshwater Fishes of North America. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holloway, H. L. (1964). The acanthocephala in Virginia. Virginia Journal of Science 15, 120.Google Scholar
Holloway, H. L. & Bogitsh, B. J. (1964). Helminths of Westhampton Lake. Virginia Journal of Science 15, 41–4.Google Scholar
Jilek, R. (1979). Histopathology due to the presence of Gracilisentis gracilisentis in Dorosoma cepedianum (Lesueur). Journal of Fish Biology 14, 593–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, C. R. (1985 a). Regulation and dynamics of acanthocephalan populations. In Biology of the Acanthocephala (ed. Crompton, D. W. T. & Nickol, B. B.), pp. 385–416. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. R. (1985 b). Site segregation by species of Acanthocephala in fish, with special emphasis to eels, Anguilla anguilla. Parasitology 90, 375–90.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. R. (1990). Helminth communities in freshwater fish: structured communities or stochastic assemblages? In Parasite Communities: Patterns and Processes (ed. Esch, G. W., Bush, A. O. & Aho, J. M.), pp. 131–156. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. R., Broughton, P. F. & Hine, P. M. (1976). The sites occupied by the acanthocephalan Pomphorhynchus laevis in the alimentary canal of fish. Parasitology 72, 195–206.Google Scholar
Magnusson, K. E. & Stjernstrom, I. (1982). Mucosal barrier mechanisms – interplay between IgA (SIgA), IgG and mucins on the surface properties and association of Salmonellae with intestine and granulocytes. Immunology 45, 239–48.Google ScholarPubMed
McDonough, J. M. & Gleason, L. N. (1981). Histopathology in the rainbow darter Etheostoma caeruleum, resulting from infections with the acanthocephalans, Pomphorhynchus bulbocolli and Acanthocephalus dirus. Journal of Parasitology 67, 403–9.Google Scholar
Nelson, M. J. & Nickol, B. B. (1986). Survival of Macracanthorhynchus ingens in swine and histopathology of infection in swine and raccons. Journal of Parasitology 72, 306–14.Google Scholar
Prakash, A. & Adams, J. R. (1960). A histopathological study of the intestinal lesions induced by Echinorhynchus lageniformis (Acanthocephala: Echinorhynchidae) in the starry flounder. Canadian Journal of Zoology 38, 895–7.Google Scholar
Samuel, N., Nickol, B. B. & Mayes, M. A. (1976). Acanthocephala of Nebraska fishes. American Midland Naturalist 96, 391–406.Google Scholar
Szalai, J. A. & Dick, T. A. (1987). Intestinal pathology of the acanthocephalan Neoechinorhynchus carpiodi Dechtiar, 1968, in Quillback, Carpiodes cyprinus (Lesueur). Journal of Parasitology 73, 467–75.Google Scholar
Taraschewski, H. (1989 a). Host–parasite interface of Neoechinorhynchus rutili (Eoacanthocephala) in naturally infected salmonids. Journal of Fish Diseases 12, 38–48.Google Scholar
Taraschewski, H. (1989 b). Acanthocephalus anguillae in intra- and extraintestinal positions in experimentally infected juveniles of goldfish, carp and sticklebacks. Journal of Parasitology 75, 108–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taraschewski, H. (1989 c). Host–parasite interface of Paratenuisentis ambiguus (Eoacanthocephala) in naturally infected and laboratory-infected sticklebacks and in juvenile carp and rainbow trout. Journal of Parasitology 75, 911–19.Google Scholar
Taraschewski, H., Sagani, C. & Mehlhorn, H. (1989). Ultrastructural study of the host–parasite interface of Moniliformis moniliformis (Acanthocephala) in laboratory-infected rats. Journal of Parasitology 75, 288–96.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. D. (1964). Studies on populations of helminth parasites in brown trout (Salmo trutta L.). Journal of Animal Ecology 33, 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uznanski, R. L. & Nickol, B. B. (1982). Site selection, growth, and survival of Leptorhynchoides thecatus (Acanthocephala) during the prepatent period in Lepomis cyanellus. Journal of Parasitology 68, 686–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venard, C. E. & Warfel, J. H. (1952). Some effects of two species of acanthocephalans on the alimentary canal of largemouth bass. Journal of Parasitology 39, 187–190.Google Scholar
Wanstall, S. T., Thomas, J. S. & Robotham, P. W. J. (1988). The pathology caused by Pomphorhynchus laevis Muller in the alimentary tract of the stone loach, Noemacheilus barbatulus (L.). Journal of Fish Diseases 11, 511–23.Google Scholar