Display options
Share it on

J Chem Ecol. 1986 Aug;12(8):1713-23. doi: 10.1007/BF01022376.

Mating preference inSchistosoma mansoni.

Journal of chemical ecology

D Shirazian, J E Childs, J T Hawkins, E L Schiller

Affiliations

  1. Department of Immunology and Infectious Diseases, The Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, 21205, Baltimore, Maryland.

PMID: 24305888 DOI: 10.1007/BF01022376

Abstract

We investigated the suitability of an in vitro culture system for measurement of mating behavior ofSchistosoma mansoni. The criteria used to evaluate this system were the level of phosphorylated nucleotides, egg production, and mating status of parasites. The level of ATP, ADP, AMP, and G6-P was measured at different time intervals during cultivation of worm pairs and remained essentially the same as that of control worms for up to 6 days. Egg production was observed in this system during 19 days of cultivation. Peak egg production occurred on day 4 with 72% of the total eggs being laid during the first week of cultivation. The variability in the number of eggs produced by different pairs ofS. mansoni necessitated the selection and matching of tubes with the same number of eggs after 48 hr. This permitted the detection of small changes in egg production by decreasing intertube variation. Mating recognition between male and femaleS. mansoni was evaluated by culturing separated adult worms with their original partner or with a different partner. During the first 24 hr, mating occurred among a greater percentage of worm pairs comprised of their original partner than among worm pairs comprised of different partners (P < 0.001). After 48 and 72 hr of cultivation, these differences were not statistically significant. Similar results were obtained with a culture of mixed males and females. Two drugs were studied for their effects on the mating ofS. mansoni in vitro. Aminoglutethimide (AG) at a concentration of 1 × 10(-4) had no effect on the frequency of mating whereas diethyldithiocarbamate (DDC) completely inhibited mating at a concentration of 3 × 10(-6) M and reduced the level of ATP in these worms.

References

  1. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1963 Nov;57:425-32 - PubMed
  2. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1958 Dec;30(3):492-500 - PubMed
  3. J Parasitol. 1978 Aug;64(4):585-92 - PubMed
  4. Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 1960 Apr;54:112-7 - PubMed
  5. Int J Zoonoses. 1976 Dec;3(2):105-13 - PubMed
  6. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1956 Oct;93(1):16-9 - PubMed
  7. Exp Parasitol. 1983 Oct;56(2):255-8 - PubMed
  8. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1971 Feb;176(2):455-63 - PubMed
  9. J Parasitol. 1983 Oct;69(5):989-90 - PubMed
  10. J Parasitol. 1968 Oct;54(5):921-30 - PubMed
  11. Exp Parasitol. 1969 Aug;25(1):58-71 - PubMed
  12. Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 1954 Jun;48(2):194-200 - PubMed
  13. Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 1953 Jun;47(2):139-45 - PubMed
  14. Adv Parasitol. 1968;6:233-90 - PubMed
  15. Biochem Pharmacol. 1978 Mar 1;27(5):817-20 - PubMed
  16. J Parasitol. 1962 Aug;48:551-4 - PubMed
  17. J Parasitol. 1975 Jun;61(3):385-89 - PubMed
  18. Exp Parasitol. 1982 Oct;54(2):271-6 - PubMed
  19. Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 1947 Sep;41(2):266-77 - PubMed
  20. J Parasitol. 1978 Apr;64(2):283-9 - PubMed
  21. J Parasitol. 1979 Apr;65(2):253-61 - PubMed
  22. Am J Hyg. 1958 Nov;68(3):322-39 - PubMed
  23. J Parasitol. 1982 Aug;68(4):650-2 - PubMed
  24. J Parasitol. 1965 Aug;51:605-16 - PubMed

Publication Types