4.5 Article

Pathogenicity caused by high virulent and low virulent strains of Steinernema carpocapsae to Galleria mellonella

期刊

JOURNAL OF INVERTEBRATE PATHOLOGY
卷 75, 期 1, 页码 47-54

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1006/jipa.1999.4899

关键词

Galleria mellonella; Steinernema carpocapsae; alpha-fucosidase; alpha-mannosidase; pathogenicity; proteases; high virulent strain; low virulent strain; virulence factors

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Steinernema carpocapsae is an entomopathogenic nematode associated with a symbiotic bacterium, Xenorhabdus nematophilus. Both components of the complex participate in a pathogenic process in insects. This has raised two questions: how much does each one participate, and what mechanisms are involved? In this paper we compare the virulence of two strains of S. carpocapsae: a high virulent strain (Breton) and a low virulent strain (Az27), both of which are free of symbiotic bacteria. Breton and Az27 strains each one have similar ability to invade Galleria mellonella with median infectious times of 3.9 and 3.2 h, respectively. However, the LD50 Of the Breton and Az27 strains are 48.6 and 894.5 infective juveniles per insect, respectively. Breton strain takes 38 h to kill 100% of exposed insects, whereas Az27 takes three times longer. The lethal time of the low virulent strain in G. mellonella larvae is highly dependent on the number of nematodes which have penetrated the hemocelium, whereas it is not on the high virulent strain. Hemolymph patterns in SDS-PAGE of insects parasitized by the high virulent strain showed important differences in respect to the low virulent strain and control. Secretion/excretion products of the high virulent strain have important proteolytic activity as well as alpha-mannosidase and alpha-fucosidase activities, whereas, in secretion/excretion products of the avirulent strain, proteolytic activity was lower and alpha-mannosidase and alpha-fucosidase activities were undetected. (C) 2000 Academic Press.

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