Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-sv6ng Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-16T18:32:26.126Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Serological and morphological studies on the inter- and intraspecific differences of the plant-parasitic nematodes Heterodera and Ditylenchus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

J. M. Webster  and
D. J. Hooper
J. M. Webster
Affiliation:
Nematology Department, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts.
D. J. Hooper
Affiliation:
Nematology Department, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Saline extracts of species of Ditylenchus and Heterodera initiated antibody production when inoculated separately into rabbits. On agar gel-diffusion plates these antisera gave a precipitate response against their homologous extracts and against extracts of some of the other nematode species. Up to four precipitation bands occurred, indicating the presence of at least four distinct antigens. Antisera to these extracts did not precipitate against extracts of the host plant or against the extracts of nematodes from other genera. None of the nematode extracts precipitated against normal serum. The precipitation response divided the Heterodera species tested into two groups, one containing H. schachtii, H. trifolii and H. rostochiensis and the other containing H. cruciferae, H. carotae and H. goettingiana with apparently no antigens common to both groups. The three species of Ditylenchus were serologically distinct, and it was not possible to interbreed D. myceliophagus and D. destructor. The extent of the postvulval sac was the most useful morphological character for separating D. myceliophagus from D. destructor. Only slight intraspecific serological differences were detected between five races (narcissus, oat, red clover, tulip and giant) of D. dipsaci and between the two pathotype populations (Colyton and Woburn) of H. rostochiensis. Precipitates occurred at the excretory pore of living larvae and adults of Ditylenchus species and at the vulval aperture of white females of Heterodera species placed in their homologous antisera.

We thank Dr A. J. Gibbs for much advice.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 58 , Issue 4 , November 1968 , pp. 879 - 891
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1968

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

REFERENCES

Bird, A. F. (1964). Serological studies on the plant parasitic nematode, Meloidogyne javanica. Expl Parasit. 15, 350–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clarke, A. J., Cox, P. & Shepherd, A. M. (1967). The chemical composition of the eggshells of the potato cyst-nematode Heterodera rostochiensis Woll. Biochem. J. 104, 1056–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodey, J. B. (1952). The influence of the host on the dimensions of the plant parasitic nematode, Ditylenchus destructor. Ann. appl. Biol. 39, 468–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodey, J. B. (1958). Ditylenchus myceliophagus n.sp. (Nematoda: Tylenchidae). Nematologica 3, 91–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hesling, J. J. (1965). Heterodera: morphology and identification. In Southey, J. F. (Ed.) Plant Nematology. Tech. Bull. 7, pp. 103–130. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Jackson, G. J. (1965). Differentiation of three species of Neoaplectana (Nematoda: Rhabditida), grown axenically. Parasitology 55, 571–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, F. G. W. & Pawelska, K. (1963). The behaviour of populations of potato-root eelworm (Heterodera rostochiensis Woll.) towards some resistant tuberous and other Solanum species. Ann. appl. Biol. 51, 269–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, D. L. (1965). The Physiology of Nematodes, 154 pp. London: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Mansi, W. (1958). Slide gel diffusion precipitin test. Nature, Lond. 181, 1289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shepherd, A. M. (1963). A water sprinkler to separate Heterodera cysts from debris in hatching experiments. Nematologica 9, 647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smart, G. C. & Darling, H. M. (1963). Pathogenic variation and nutritional requirements of Ditylenchus destructor. Phytopathology 53, 249–372.Google Scholar
Soulsby, E. J. L. (1956). Studies on the serological response in sheep to naturally acquired gastro-intestinal nematodes. I. Preparation of antigens and evaluation of serological techniques. J. Helminth. 30, 120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taffs, L. F. & Voller, A. (1962). Fluorescent antibody studies in vitro on Ascaris suum Goeze, 1782. J. Helminth. 36, 339–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Triantaphyllou, A. C. & Hirschmann, H. (1964). Reproduction in plant and soil nematodes. A. Rev. Phytopath. 2, 57–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, J. M. (1965). Controlled mating to produce hybrids between pathotypes of Heterodera rostochiensis Woll. Nematologica 11, 299–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, J. M. (1967). The significance of biological races of Ditylenchus dipsaci and their hybrids. Ann. appl. Biol. 59, 77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, Liang-Yu. (1960). Comparative study of Ditylenchus destructor Thorne, 1945 (Nematoda: Tylenchidae) from potato, bulbous iris, and dahlia, with discussion of de Man's ratios. Can. J. Zool. 35, 1175–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar