4.2 Article

Ultrastructural characterization of Acarispora falculifera n.gen., n.sp., a new microsporidium (Opisthokonta: Chytridiopsida) from the feather mite Falculifer rostratus (Astigmata: Pterolichoidea)

期刊

ACTA PARASITOLOGICA
卷 60, 期 2, 页码 200-210

出版社

SPRINGER INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING AG
DOI: 10.1515/ap-2015-0029

关键词

Acarispora; arthropod; Chytridiopsida; Falculiferidae; microsporidia; mite

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Only about 20 species of microsporidia have been described from mites. All except one species produce typical spores with a long polar filament and a polaroplast. This paper is the first study of an atypical microsporidium infection in a feather mite (Falculifer rostratus). The infection of the pigeon feather mite is restricted to the colon epithelium where it leads to hypertrophy of the concerned cells. During sporogony, a multinucleate plasmodial aggregate is formed within a sporont (endogenous sporogony resulting in a polysporophorous vesicle). The cisterns delimiting the single sporoblasts later form the spore walls. Sporogonial stages are in direct contact to the host cell cytoplasm. Merogonial stages were not present. Spores are tiny (3.6 mu m x 2.6 mu m), broad oval in form and monokaryotic. The spore wall of mature spores consists of a three-layered endospore and a thin, electron-dense, wavy exospore. The polar filament is anisofilar and completely coiled in 3-4 turns. In cross-sections, it has a star-like appearance because the electron-dense core forms rounded compartments of lucent material at its surface. In superficial sections, this results in a honeycomb-like pattern. A polaroplast is missing. The polar filament arises subapically at a polar sac that lacks an internal anchoring disk. These atypical spore structures clearly classify the species from the feather mite as a member of the order Chytridiopsida. It could not be clearly affiliated to one of the known genera, so we created a new genus, Acarispora, with the species A. falculifera.

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

4.2
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