4.1 Article

Sarcocystis lindsayi n. sp (Protozoa: Sarcocystidae) from the South American opossum, Didelphis albiventris from Brazil

Journal

JOURNAL OF EUKARYOTIC MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 48, Issue 5, Pages 595-603

Publisher

SOC PROTOZOOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1550-7408.2001.tb00196.x

Keywords

budgerigars; cell culture; development; molecular; sarcocysts; schizonts

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A new species, Sarcocystis lindsayi n. sp., is proposed for a parasite resembling Sarcocystis falcatula. It was obtained from the lungs and muscles of budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus) fed sporocysts from a naturally-infected South American opossum, Didelphis albiventris, from Jaboticabal, Brazil. Sarcocysts of S. lindsayi n. sp. in budgerigars are microscopic, up to 600 mum long and up to 50 mum wide. The cyst wall is up to 2 mum thick. Ultrastructurally, the sarcocyst wall consists of numerous slender villar protrusions (up to 2.0 mum long and up to 0.3 mum wide), each with a stylet at its tip. Schizonts in cell culture divide by endopolygeny leaving a residual body. Sporocysts are similar to 12 x 7 mum. The parasite is genetically distinct from other organisms that also cycle between opossums and avian species and resemble S. falcatula. Diagnostic genetic variation has been observed in the nuclear large subunit ribosomal RNA gene, the internal transcribed spacer (ITS-1), and each of two other genetic loci. Although the structure of the sarcocyst wall may not provide sufficient grounds for differential diagnosis, several other attributes including schizont morphology and genetic variation at each of these genetic loci permit identification of S. lindsayi n. sp.. Natural intermediate hosts for S. lindsayi n. sp. are not known, and fuller characterization of these and other Sarcocystis species would benefit from experimental avian hosts that are more permissive to the maturation of sarcocysts.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available