4.8 Article

A Sensory Code for Host Seeking in Parasitic Nematodes

Journal

CURRENT BIOLOGY
Volume 21, Issue 5, Pages 377-383

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2011.01.048

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  2. Helen Hay Whitney postdoctoral fellowship
  3. National Institutes of Health (NIH)
  4. NIH United States Public Health Service [T32GM07616]
  5. Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowships

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Parasitic nematode species often display highly specialized host-seeking behaviors that reflect their specific host preferences. Many such behaviors are triggered by host odors, but little is known about either the specific olfactory cues that trigger these behaviors or the underlying neural circuits. Heterorhabditis bacteriophora and Steinemema carpocapsae are phylogenetically distant insect-parasitic nematodes whose host-seeking and host-invasion behavior resembles that of some devastating human- and plant-parasitic nematodes. We compare the olfactory responses of Heterorhabditis and Steinernema infective juveniles (IJs) to those of Caenorhabditis elegans dauers, which are analogous life stages [1]. The broad host range of these parasites results from their ability to respond to the universally produced signal carbon dioxide (CO2), as well as a wide array of odors, including host-specific odors that we identified using thermal desorption-gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy. We find that CO2 is attractive for the parasitic IJs and C. elegans dauers despite being repulsive for C. elegans adults [2-4], and we identify a sensory neuron that mediates CO2 response in both parasitic and free-living species, regardless of whether CO2 is attractive or repulsive. The parasites' odor response profiles are more similar to each other than to that of C. elegans despite their greater phylogenetic distance, likely reflecting evolutionary convergence to insect parasitism.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available