Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T09:31:50.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hymenolepis diminuta: the mechanism of egg hatching

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

S. D. Holmes  and
I. Fairweather
S. D. Holmes
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, The Queen's University, Belfast BT7 INN
I. Fairweather
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, The Queen's University, Belfast BT7 INN
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The fine structure and histochemistry of the envelopes surrounding the mature oncosphere of Hymenolepis diminuta have been investigated by transmission electron microscopy and light microscope observations of JB-4 embedded material. The fate of these envelopes during the hatching sequence in vitro has been followed by phase-contrast and scanning electron microscopy. Hatching is considered to comprise 4 stages. Stage 1 involves the mechanical breakage and removal of the shell and the outer cytoplasmic layer of the inner envelope; Stage 2 the activation of the oncosphere and the swelling of the gelatinous layer of the inner envelope; and Stage 3 the digestion and rupture of the embryophore. This is accomplished both by secretions from the penetration gland and by the action of external digestive enzymes, together with hook activity. Trypsin is more effective than amylase in digesting the embryophore. Stage 4 involves the enzymatic weakening of the gelatinous layer which helps the oncosphere to tear itself free with its hooks. Amylase is more effective than trypsin in attacking the gelatinous layer. On emergence from the gelatinous layer, the oncosphere is still enveloped by the ‘oncospheral membrane’, although this covering is soon lost. Once activated, the oncosphere is capable of completing the hatching sequence by itself, without the addition of enzymes. This process is a lengthy one, however, taking up to 2 h, and the expenditure of its glandular and energy reserves makes successful gut penetration by the oncosphere unlikely.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 85 , Issue 2 , October 1982 , pp. 237 - 250
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, R. M. & Lethbridge, R. C. (1975). An experimental study of the survival characteristics, activity and energy reserves of the hexacanths of Hymenolepis diminuta. Parasitology 71, 137–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bancroft, J. D. (1967). An Introduction to Histochemical Technique. London: Butterworth and Co. (Publishers) Ltd.Google Scholar
Berntzen, A. K. & Voge, M. (1965). In vitro hatching of oncospheres of four hymenolepidid cestodes. Journal of Parasitology 51, 235–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collin, W. K. (1969). The cellular organization of hatched oncospheres of Hymenolepis citelli (Cestoda, Cyclophyllidea). Journal of Parasitology 55, 149–66.Google Scholar
Fairweather, I. & Threadgold, L. T. (1981). Hymenolepis nana: the fine structure of the embryonic envelopes. Parasitology 82, 429–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lethbridge, R. C. (1971 a). The hatching of Hymenolepis diminuta eggs and penetration of the hexacanths in Tenebrio molitor beetles. Parasitology 62, 445–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lethbridge, R. C. (1971 b). The chemical composition and some properties of the egg layers in Hymenolepis diminuta eggs. Parasitology 63, 275–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lethbridge, R. C. (1972). In vitro hatching of Hymenolepis diminuta eggs in Tenebrio molitor extracts and in defined enzyme preparations. Parasitology 64, 389–400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lethbridge, R. C. & Gijsbers, M. F. (1974). Penetration gland secretion by hexacanths of Hymenolepis diminuta. Parasitology 68, 303–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moczon, T. (1972). Histochemistry of oncospheral envelopes of Hymenolepis diminuta (Rudolphi, 1819) (Cestoda, Hymenolepididae). Acta Parasitologica Polonica 20, 517–31.Google Scholar
Montgomery, S. (1982). A field study on the parasites of Apodemus sylvaticus. Ph.D. thesis, Queen's University, Belfast.Google Scholar
Pearse, A. G. E. (1968). Histochemistry (Theoretical and Applied), vol. 1. 3rd Edition. London: J. and A. Churchill Limited.Google Scholar
Pence, D. B. (1970). Electron microscope and histochemical studies on the eggs of Hymenolepis diminuta. Journal of Parasitology 56, 84–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reynolds, E. S. (1963). The use of lead citrate at high pH as an electron-opaque stain in electron microscopy. Journal of Cell Biology 17, 208–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rybicka, K. (1972). Ultrastructure of embryonic envelopes and their differentiation in Hymenolepis diminuta (Cestoda). Journal of Parasitology 58, 849–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rybicka, K. (1973 a). Ultrastructure of macromeres in the cleavage of Hymenolepis diminuta (Cestoda). Transactions of the American Microscopical Society 92, 241–55.Google Scholar
Rybicka, K. (1973 b). Ultrastructure of the embryonic syncytial epithelium in a cestode Hymenolepis diminuta. Parasitology 66, 9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spurr, A. R. (1969). A low viscosity epoxy resin embedding medium for electron microscopy. Journal of Ultrastructural Research 26, 31–43.Google Scholar
Sumner, A. T. & Sumner, B. E. H. (1969). A Laboratory Manual of Microtechnique and Histochemistry. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Voge, M. (1970). Hatching in vitro of oncospheres. In Experiments and Techniques in Parasitology (ed. Maclnnis, A. J. and Voge, M.). pp. 26–27. San Francisco: W. H Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
Voge, M. & Berntzen, A. K. (1961). In vitro hatching of oncospheres of Hymenolepis diminuta (Cestoda: Cyclophyllidea). Journal of Parasitology 47, 813–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed