Some models describing the distribution of eggs of the parasitePseudeucoila bochei (Hym., Cynip.) over its hosts, larvae ofDrosophila melanogaster

Bakker, K.; Eijsackers, H.J.P.; Lenteren, J.C. van; Meelis, E.

doi:10.1007/bf00822760

Cited by 64 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Under the conditions used, many larvae contained more than one egg; the highest number found was seven. Superparasitism occurs in Leptopilina but only one larva successfully continues development so one adult wasp emerges from each Drosophila pupal case (14).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selective destruction of a host blood cell type by a parasitoid wasp.

Rizki¹,

Rizki²

1984

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Foreign objects that enter the hemocoel of Drosophila melanogaster larvae are encapsulated by one type of blood cell, the lamellocyte, yet eggs of the parasitoid wasp Leptopilina heterotoma remain unencapsulated in D. melano. gaster larval hosts that have many lamellocytes. Here we demonstrate that shortly after a female wasp oviposits in the hemocoel the lamellocytes undergo morphological changes and lose their adhesiveness. These affected blood cells are eventually destroyed as the parasitoid egg continues its development. The factor responsible for lamellocyte destruction, lamellolysin, is contained in an accessory gland of the female reproductive system and is injected along with the egg into the host hemocoel.Lamellolysin does not alter the morphology or the defense functions of the other types of blood cells in the host.Large foreign bodies entering the hemocoel of an insect are encapsulated by the circulating blood cells and permanently sealed in melanized cellular capsules. Thus, the successful development of a parasitoid wasp egg in the hemocoel of an insect host depends upon its ability to avoid encapsulation by its host's blood cells. Some parasitoid wasp eggs have special surface features so that they do not arouse a host defense response (1, 2). Other wasps actively interfere with host blood cell function when they oviposit. In the latter category are the ichneumonids that coinfect their hosts with viruses during oviposition so that the host's immune system as well as its growth are influenced (3-5). When melanotic tumor (symbol, tu) mutant larvae of Drosophila melanogaster are parasitized by some strains of the cynipid wasp, Leptopilina heterotoma (formerly, Pseudeucoila bochei), the encapsulation of host aberrant tissues to form the inert black masses known as melanotic tumors is blocked together with the inhibition of encapsulation of the wasp eggs (6, 7). The hemocytes of parasitized and unparasitized insect hosts have been compared (8-10), but how the host's immune system is suppressed by parasitoid wasps has not been elucidated.In this report we describe the loss of adhesiveness and eventual destruction of the type of blood cell that encapsulates foreign bodies. We also demonstrate that the factor responsible for suppression of encapsulation in the host is present in the reservoir associated with an accessory gland of the female wasp reproductive system. MATERIALS AND METHODS Insects. A sex-linked, temperature-sensitive melanotic tumor mutant of D. melanogaster, tu(J)Sz's, which develops melanotic masses in the posterior fat body when the larvae are grown at 26°C but not at 18°C (11), was used for the experiments. Larvae were raised at 26°C on cream of wheat/ molasses medium seeded with live yeast. Two autosomal recessive melanotic tumor mutations, tu(2)W and tu(2)bw (12, 13), were used to confirm that the effects of parasitization on lamellocytes are not strain specific. For exposure to female wasps, early third instar larvae were rinsed with distilled H20 and transferred to filter pa...

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selective destruction of a host blood cell type by a parasitoid wasp.

Rizki¹,

Rizki²

1984

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Where oviposition is not entirely suppressed by MP, females may still lay smaller clutches (Ikawa & Okabe, 1985;Papaj et al, 1990). The extent to which clutch size is reduced in a previously utilized host has been shown in gregarious parasitoids to be a function of the number of eggs that were deposited previously in that host (Bakker et al, 1972;van Dijken & Waage, 1987).…”

Section: Effects Of Mps On Female Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A similar correlation between marking time and clutch size deposited within a host has also been found for the gregarious wasp, Telenomus fariai (Bosque & Rabinovich, 1979). In other cases in which females make a graded assessment of level of infestation, the underlying mechanism has not been conclusively established (Bakker et al, 1972(Bakker et al, , 1990van Lenteren & Debach, 1981;van Dijken & Waage, 1987).…”

Section: Benefits Of Marking Hostsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Host marking behavior in phytophagous insects and parasitoids

Nufio¹,

Papaj²

2001

Entomologia Exp Applicata

192

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Oviposition behavior in phytophagous insects and entomophagous parasitoids is often modified by the presence of conspecific brood (eggs and larvae). Often, females avoid laying eggs on or in hosts bearing brood, a behavior that acts to reduce the level of competition suffered by their offspring. Avoidance of occupied hosts is typically mediated by cues and/or signals associated with brood. In this article, we review the role of Marking Pheromones (MPs) as signals of brood presence in both phytophagous and entomophagous insects. We place information about the function and evolution of MPs in the context of recent theory in the field of animal communication. We highlight the dynamics of host-marking systems and discuss how effects of MPs vary according to factors such as female experience and egg load. We also examine variation in the form and function of MP communication across a variety of insect taxa. While studies of MP communication in phytophagous insects have focused on the underlying behavioral mechanisms and chemistry of MP communication, studies in entomophagous insects have focused on the functional aspects of MPs and their role in 'decision-making' in insects. We argue that an approach that incorporates the important contributions of both of these somewhat independent, but complementary areas of research will lead to a more complete understanding of MPs in insects. Finally, we suggest that MP systems are model systems for the study of animal signaling and its evolution.

show abstract

“…An aborted ovipositional attempt could result in host marking yet leave the potential host available for attack. Bakker et al (1972) developed a model describing egg distribution based on host discrimination. These authors reported that a model where the chance of an egg being deposited decreased as the number of eggs increased provided the best fit.…”

Section: Host Identificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biochemical Coevolution between Parasitoids and their Hosts

Vinson

1975

Evolutionary Strategies of Parasitic Insects and Mites

172

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The coevolution of a predator and its prey suggests that the prey is selected for predator avoidance and escape while the predator is selected for more efficient prey-finding and capture. The predator attacks and consumes its host and, thus being successful, would be expected to propagate. The parasite-host relationship is a similar reciprocating evolutionary relationship with one important difference--the host should not be killed. The parasite must not only locate the host but must constantly adapt to a developing and changing host, a situation resulting in a closely interwoven relationship. The continued development of a host in accord with the evolutionary development of the host species is of benefit to the parasite. It is probably advantageous for the parasite to evolve towards a condition where the parasite has a minimal affect on the host species. This would insure the continued existence of a viable host population.The parasitoid-host relationship is akin to the predator-and parasite-host relationship, but with some unique aspects. The term parasitoid is used for arthropods where the egg and early larval stages are parasitic, but where the host is eventually killed. The adult is free living. In the parasitoid-host relationship, the parasitoid must not only locate the host, but must utilize the host for the progeny's benefit. Once the host has been parasitized, the parasitoid's progeny grow and develop at the expense of the host; ultimately killing the host. The host's future development is only of importance to the parasitoid. Thus the evolutionary strategy of the parasitoid is different from that of a parasite or predator. The parasitized host can no longer be considered as a member of the host species, but must be viewed as a container for the parasitoid. The evolutionary development of the parasitized host towards a

show abstract

Some models describing the distribution of eggs of the parasitePseudeucoila bochei (Hym., Cynip.) over its hosts, larvae ofDrosophila melanogaster

Cited by 64 publications

References 15 publications

Selective destruction of a host blood cell type by a parasitoid wasp.

Selective destruction of a host blood cell type by a parasitoid wasp.

Host marking behavior in phytophagous insects and parasitoids

Biochemical Coevolution between Parasitoids and their Hosts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About