4.2 Article

Fischoederius cobboldi: A scanning electron microscopy investigation of surface morphology of adult rumen fluke

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL PARASITOLOGY
卷 130, 期 4, 页码 400-407

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.exppara.2012.02.001

关键词

Fischoederius cobboldi; Rumen fluke; Tegument; Scanning electron microscopy

资金

  1. Mahidol University
  2. Srinakharinwirot University
  3. Thailand Research Fund and Commission on Higher Education

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Adults Fischoederius cobboldi are conical-shaped, concave ventrally and convex dorsally, measures about 8-10 mm in length and 4-6 mm in width across the mid section. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) of entire body showed that the tegumental surface exhibits highly corrugation and transverse folds alternating with grooves and without spines. At higher magnification, the surface of each fold is further increased with a meshwork of ridges separated by irregular-sized pits. The ventral surface has more complex corrugations and invaginations than those of the dorsal surface of the body. Both anterior and posterior suckers have thick edges covered with transverse folds and appear spineless. The genital pore is located at the anterior one-third of the body. There are two types of sensory papillae on the surface: type 1 is bulbous in shape and nipple-like tips, measuring 10-15 mu m in diameter at the base, and also type 2 is a similar shape and has short cilia on tips. These sensory papillae occur in large clusters, each having between 7 and 25 units depending on the region of the body. Clusters of papillae on the ventral surface and around the anterior suckers tend to be more abundant and larger in size. The dorsal side of the body exhibit similar surface features, but papillae appear less numerous and are smaller. Corrugations and invaginations of the dorsal aspect are also less extensive than those on the ventral surface of the body. Crown Copyright (C) 2012 Published by 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

4.2
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