Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T19:05:02.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The feeding processes of the cattle-tick Boophilus microplus (Canestrini): A study in host-parasite relations

Part I. Attachment to the host

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

D. E. Moorhouse  and
R. J. Tatchell
D. E. Moorhouse
Affiliation:
Department of Parasitology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
R. J. Tatchell
Affiliation:
C.S.I.R.O., Division of Entomology, Veterinary Parasitology Laboratory, Yeerongpilly, Queensland, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The method of attachment of the cattle tick Boophilus microplus (Canestrini) has been investigated on cattle of different breeds and susceptibility to infestation.

Despite their differing sizes, the larval, nymphal and adult mouthparts penetrate to a similar depth towards the base of the Malpighian layer. Penetration may occur within 5 min of the arrival of the tick on the host.

Attachment is accomplished by the secretion of a cement substance in which the mouthparts are embedded and which adheres firmly to the hosts skin.

The cement consists of two main components: a cortex of carbohydrate-containing protein, stabilized by quinone tanning and disulphide linkages, and an internum which is lipoprotein in nature.

The start of the secretion of cement and the initial cutting of the host tissues by the chelicerae occur simultaneously. Final rapid engorgement of each stage is preceded by a secondary secretion of cement into a fluid-filled cavity which forms directly beneath the mouthparts and provides additional support.

It is concluded that attachment is an entirely mechanical process by an inert cement which does not provoke the development of host-parasite factors inimical to the tick.

It is with much pleasure that we acknowledge generous financial support by the Australian Cattle and Beef Research Committee which has made possible this project.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 56 , Issue 4 , November 1966 , pp. 623 - 631
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

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

Arthur, D. R. (1951). The capitulum and feeding mechanism of Ixodes hexagonus Leach. Parasitology 41, 66–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arthur, D. R. (1953). The capitulum and feeding mechanism of Ixodus hexagonus Leach II. Parasitology 42, 187–91.Google Scholar
Arthur, D. R. (1957). The capitulum and feeding mechanism of Dermacentor parumapertus Neumann 1901. Parasitology 47, 169–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Atrhur, D. R. (1960). Ticks: A Monograph of the Ixodoidea, Pt. V.: Dermacentor, Anocentor, Cosmiomma, Boophilus and Margaropus, pp. 1–251. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Arthur, D. R. (1962). Ticks and Disease, pp. 1–445. London: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Arthur, D. R. (1965). Feeding in ectoparasitic Acari with special reference to ticks. Adv. Parasitol. 3, 249–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertram, D. S. (1939). The structure of the capitulum in Ornithodoros: a contribution to the study of the feeding mechanism in ticks. Ann. trop. Med. Parasit. 33, 229–58.Google Scholar
Cowdry, E. V., & Danks, W. B. C. (1933). Studies on East Coast Fever. II. Behaviour of the parasite and the development of distinctive lesions in susceptible animals. Parasitology 25, 1–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foggie, A. (1959). Studies on the relationship of tick-bite to tick pyaemia of lambs. Ann. trop. Med. Parasit. 53, 27–34.Google Scholar
Francis, J. (1965). Definition and use of Zebu, Brahman or Bos indicus cattle. Nature, Lond. 207, 13–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Francis, J. & Little, D. A. (1964). Resistance of Droughtmaster cattle to tick infestation and ba'besiosis. Aust. Vet. J. 40, 247–53.Google Scholar
Gregson, J. D. (1960). Morphology and functioning of the mouthparts of Dermacentor andersoni Stiles. Acta trop. 17, 48–79.Google ScholarPubMed
Hitchcock, L.F. (1955). Studies on the parasitic stages of the cattle tick, Boophilus microplus (Canestrini) (Acarina: Ixodidae). Aust. J. Zool. 3, 145–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoeppli, R. & Feng, L. C. (1931). Histological reactions in the skin due to ecto-parasites. Nat. med. J. China 17, 541–56.Google Scholar
Hughes, T. E. (1959). The cuticle of Acarus siro L (=Tyroglyphus farinae). J. exp. Biol. 36, 363–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitaoka, S. & Yajima, A. (1958). Physiological and ecological studies on some ticks. I. Process of growth by blood sucking. Bull. not. Inst. Anim. Hlth 34, 135–47.Google Scholar
Lees, A. D. (1952). The role of cuticle growth in the feeding process of ticks. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 121, 759–72.Google Scholar
Lendrum, A. C. (1947). In Recent Advances in Clinical Pathology, 1st ed., edited by Dyke, S. C.. London: Churchill.Google Scholar
Pavlowsky, E. N. & Alfeeva, S. P. (1941). Histopathological modifications in the skin of cattle from the bite of the tick Ixodes ridnus. Trudy¯ voenno-med. Akad. R.K.K.A. 25, 153–60.Google Scholar
Pearse, A. G. E. (1961). Histochemistry: Theoretical and Applied, 2nd ed., pp. 1–998. London: Churchill.Google Scholar
Riek, R. F. (1962). Studies on the reactions of animals to infestations with ticks. VI. Resistance of cattle to infestation with the tick Boophilus microplus (Canestrini). Aust. J. agric. Res. 13, 532–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trager, W. (1939). Further observations on acquired immunity to the tick Dermacentor variabilis Say. J. Parasit. 25, 137–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, P. R. (1955). Observations on infestations of undipped cattle of British breeds with the cattle-tick Boophilus microplus (Canestrini). Aust. J. agric. Res. 6, 655–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar