4.4 Article

Stylostome formation by parasitic larvae ofAllothrombium fuliginosum(Trombidiformes: Trombidiidae): morphology of feeding tubes and factors affecting their size

Journal

EXPERIMENTAL AND APPLIED ACAROLOGY
Volume 82, Issue 3, Pages 359-378

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10493-020-00553-8

Keywords

Ectoparasites; Feeding tubes; Parasitengona; Host-parasite interaction; Ultrastructure

Categories

Funding

  1. Wroclaw Centre of Biotechnology, program Leading National Research Centre (KNOW) for 2014-2018
  2. Russian Foundation for Fundamental Research [N 18-04-00075-a]
  3. State Federal Scientific Program [AAAA-A19-119020790133-6]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The morphology and formation of stylostomes (feeding tubes) in hosts' body during the parasitic phase ofAllothrombium fuliginosum(Hermann) larvae were studied for the first time with light microscopy (LM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). The stylostomes were observed in three aphids species-Acyrthosiphon pisum(Harris),Elatobium abietinum(Walker), andMacrosiphum rosae(L.)-parasitized by mites under laboratory conditions. They consisted of 2-6 main branches, preliminarily unbranched, then producing secondary and sometimes also tertiary branches as finally formed structures. Their walls were uniformly electron-dense, without any longitudinal and transverse stratifications and showed rather irregular outlines. Distally, the stylostome branches revealed transparent pores and cavities in their walls, connecting the stylostome canal with surrounding haemocoelic space. The total length of stylostomes at the end of the parasitic phase was on average 16x greater than that recorded in the youngest stylostomes. No differences in the overall shape of feeding tubes between host species were stated. The stylostomes formed in different host species did not differ significantly, except their total length, which attained the highest value in tissues ofAc. pisum.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available