4.5 Article

The life cycle and host specificity of Psychodiella sergenti n. sp. and Ps. tobbi n. sp. (Protozoa: Apicomplexa) in sand flies Phlebotomus sergenti and Ph. tobbi (Diptera: Psychodidae)

期刊

JOURNAL OF INVERTEBRATE PATHOLOGY
卷 105, 期 2, 页码 182-189

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jip.2010.07.001

关键词

Psychodiella; Gregarine; Phlebotomus; Lutzomyia; Cross-infection; Life cycle differences; Blood meal; SSU rDNA phylogeny

类别

资金

  1. Czech Ministry of Education [MSM0021620828, LC06009]
  2. National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, USA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two new gregarines in the recently erected genus Psychodiella (formerly Ascogregarina), Psychodiella sergenti n. sp. and Psychodiella tobbi n. sp., are described based on morphology and life cycle observations conducted on larvae and adults of their natural hosts, the sand flies Phlebotomus sergenti and Phlebotomus tobbi, respectively. The phylogenetic analyses inferred from small subunit ribosomal DNA (SSU rDNA) sequences indicate the monophyly of newly described species with Psychodiella chagasi. Ps. sergenti n. sp. and Ps. tobbi n. sp. significantly differ from each other in the life cycle and in the size of life stages. The sexual development of Ps. sergenti n. sp. (syzygy, formation of gametocysts and oocysts) takes place exclusively in blood-fed Ph. sergenti females, while the sexual development of Ps. tobbi n. sp. takes place also in males and unfed females of Ph. tobbi. The susceptibility of Phlebotomus perniciosus, Phlebotomus papatasi, Ph. sergenti, Ph. tobbi, and Phlebotomus arabicus to both gregarines was examined by exposing 1st instar larvae to parasite oocysts. High host specificity was observed, as both gregarines were able to fully develop and complete regularly the life cycle only in their natural hosts. Both gregarines are considered as serious pathogens in laboratory-reared colonies of Old World sand flies. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据