Parasitic manipulation: going beyond behaviour

The parasitism of Flamingolepis liguloides (Gervais, 1847) (Cestoda, Hymenolepididae) in Artemia salina (Crustacea, Branchiopoda) in two saline lakes in Algeria

“…Many other effects and modifications are reported in infected Artemia individuals by cestodes, which make them more profitable to predators (Poulin 1995, de Jong-Brink and Koene 2005, Helluy and Holmes 2005, Sanchez et al 2009). The red colour associated with modifications of feeding behaviour and carotenoids accumulation make hosts more visible by water birds (Thiéry et al 1990, Amat et al 1991a, Robert and Gabrion 1991, Varó et al 2000, Sánchez et al 2006.…”

Differential influence ofPomphorhynchus laevis(Acanthocephala) on brain serotonergic activity in two congeneric host species

“…We therefore conclude that G. roeseli can, to some extent, resist manipulative attempts by P. laevis. However, since little is known about the precise molecular pathways by which manipulative parasites modify the behaviour and nervous system of their hosts (De Jong-Brink & Koene 2005), it is only possible to speculate about the origin of apparent resistance to manipulation by P. laevis in G. roeseli. Considering the interplay between the immune system and the nervous system, Adamo (2002) argued that host manipulation by parasites may have evolved as a consequence of the interaction between parasites and the immune system of their host.…”

“…However, two important aspects of host manipulation deserve further consideration. First, although the ecological and the evolutionary aspects of parasitic manipulation have drawn considerable attention (see reviews in Moore 2002; Thomas et al 2005), its mechanistic basis remains poorly understood (Adamo 2002;De Jong-Brink & Koene 2005;Klein 2005). Second, although behavioural manipulation can show extensive variation between infected individuals belonging to the same host population (Cézilly et al 2000;Tain et al 2006), between host populations (Kennedy 2003) and between host species (Bauer et al 2000), the functional significance of variability in host manipulation remains largely unexplored (Cézilly & Perrot-Minnot 2005).…”

Total protein and carbohydrate content and protease and disaccharidase activities in the hemolymph of Lymnaea stagnalis naturally infected with digenean larvae

“…Hypoproteinemia, i.e., the decrease in amino acid concentration, a decrease in the contents of carotenoids and some ions as well as an increase of urea concentration in the hemolymph Lymnaea stagnalis infected with digenean larvae 279 are the result of nitrogen compounds transformations in infected snails (Pokora 1990;Tunholi et al 2011). Mechanisms by which trematodes interfere with host behaviour, physiology and metabolism have been intensively studied in the case of schistosome and its intermediate snail hosts (Jong-Brink & Koene 2005;Humphries 2011). Upon infestation, synthesis and secretion of various neuropeptides that control growth and reproduction directly (e.g., insulin-like hormone, the caudodorsal cells hormone, or indirectly, e.g., neuropeptide Y, schistosomin, FMRamide-like peptides) are regulated in the neuroendocrine cells of the central nervous system (CNS) of infected snails (Sluiters & Geraerts 1984;Jong-Brink et al 1991;Li & Geraerts 1992;Jong-Bring et al 1999;Hoek et al 2005).…”