Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T02:13:06.579Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A genetic analysis of reproduction in Strongyloides ratti

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

M. E. Viney
M. E. Viney
Affiliation:
Division of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, King's Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JT, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Strongyloides ratti has a complex life-cycle with two adult generations, one free-living and dioecious and one parasitic and female only. The parasitic females reproduce by parthenogenesis, but it is unclear whether this is mitotic or meiotic in nature. This question has been addressed genetically by analysing the progeny of parasitic females that were heterozygous at an actin locus for evidence of allelic segregation. Such progeny were similarly heterozygous showing that segregation had not occurred. It was therefore concluded that reproduction in the parasitic female of S. ratti is functionally mitotic.

Keywords

Strongyloides rattigeneticsparthenogenesis
Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 109 , Issue 4 , November 1994 , pp. 511 - 515
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

Albertson, D. A., Nwaorgu, O. C. & Sulston, J. E. (1979). Chromatin diminution and a chromosomal mechanism of sexual differentiation in Strongyloides papillosus. Chromosoma 75, 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolla, R. I. & Roberts, L. S. (1968). Gametogenesis and chromosomal complement in Strongyloides ratti (Nematoda: Rhabdiasoidea). Journal of Parasitology 54, 849–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, R. N. (1989). A Functional Biology of Clonal Animals. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Krause, M., Wild, M., Rosenzweig, B. & Hirsh, D. (1989). Wild-type and mutant actin genes in Caenorhabditis elegans. Journal of Molecular Biology 208, 381–92.Google Scholar
Nigon, V. & Roman, E. (1952). Le déterminisme du sexe et le développement cyclique de Strongyloides ratti. Bulletin Biologique de la France et de la Belgique 86, 404–48.Google Scholar
Poinar, G. O. & Hansen, E. (1983). Sex and reproductive modifications in nematodes. Helminthological Abstracts – Series B 52, 145–63.Google Scholar
Tindall, N. R. & Wilson, P. A. G. (1988). Criteria for a proof of migration routes of immature parasites inside hosts exemplified by studies of Strongyloides ratti in the rat. Parasitology 96, 551–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Triantaphyllou, A. C. & Moncol, D. J. (1977). Cytology, reproduction and sex determination of Strongyloides ransomi and S. papillosus. Journal of Parasitology 63, 961–73.Google Scholar
Viney, M. E., Matthews, B. E. & Walliker, D. (1992). On the biological and biochemical nature of cloned lines of Strongyloides ratti. Journal of Helminthology 66, 45–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viney, M. E., Matthews, B. E. & Walliker, D. (1993). Mating in the nematode parasite Strongyloides ratti: proof of genetic exchange. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B 254, 213–19.Google Scholar
Zaffagnini, F. (1973). Parthenogenesis in the parasitic and free-living forms of Strongyloides papillosus (Nematoda, Rhabdiasoidea). Chromosoma 40, 443–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed