Parasitology Research

, Volume 79, Issue 7, pp 543–546 | Cite as

Studies onEchinococcus granulosus using the scanning electron microscope

II. The hooks
  • Maria Antoniou
  • Y. Tselentis
Original Investigations

Abstract

The morphology of the hooks ofEchinococcus granulosus at the protoscolex level was studied by means of scanning electron microscopy. Hooks were uncovered in situ and also freed from the rostellum so as to study them in detail. There were two types of hooks: those of the upper row, which were larger and had a projecting, rounded stout guard, and those of the lower row, which were smaller and had a flattened guard. These and other differences in the morphology of the two types of hooks were studied and related to the differences in their function.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Antoniou M (1986) Simple plastic sieves and hairloops for handling nematodes, cysts, eggmasses and eggs. Nematol Medit 14:161–162Google Scholar
  2. Antoniou M, Tselentis Y (1993) Studies onEchinococcus granulosus using the scanning electron microscope. I. Preparations of the parasite for infection of the final host. Parasitol Res 79:537–542PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Hobbs RP, Lymbery AJ, Thompson RCA (1990) Rostellar hook morphology ofEchinococcus granulosus (Batsch, 1786) from natural and experimental Australian hosts, and its implications for strain recognition. Parasitology 101:273–281PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Kumaratilake LM, Thompson RCA (1984) Morphological characterization of Australian strains ofEchinococcus granulosus. Int J Parasitol 14:467–477PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Rogan MT, Richards KS (1987)Echinococcus granulosus: changes in the surface ultrastructure during protoscolex formation. Parasitology 94:359–367PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Smith SA, Richards KS (1991) Ultrastructure and microanalyses of the protoscolex hooks ofEchinococcus granulosus. Parasitology 103:267–274PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Smyth JD (1979)Echinococcus granulosus andE. multilocularis: in vitro culture of the strobilar stages from protoscoleces. Angew Parasitol 20:137–147PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Smyth JD (1985) In vitro culture ofEchinococcus spp. Proceedings, XIII International Congress of Hydatidology, Madrid, 1985 pp 73–90Google Scholar
  9. Sweatman GK, Williams RJ (1963) Comparative studies on the biology and morphology ofEchinococcus granulosus from domestic livestock, moose and reindeer. Parasitology 53:339–390PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Swiderski Z (1983)Echinococcus granulosus: hook-muscle systems and cellular organisation of infective oncospheres. Int J Parasitol 13:289–299PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Vogel H (1957) Über denEchinococcus multilocularis Süddeutschlands. I. Das Bandwurmstadium von Stämmen menschlicher und tierischer Herkunft. Z Tropenmed Parasitol 8:404–454PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Yamashita J, Ohbayashi M, Konno S (1956) Studies on echinococcosis. III. On experimental infection in dogs, especially on the development ofEchinococcus granulosus (Batsch, 1786). Jpn J Vet Res 4:113–122Google Scholar
  13. Yamashita J, Ohbayashi M, Kitamura Y (1958) Studies on Echinococcosis. IX. Differences in development of the tapeworm stage betweenE. granulosus (Batsch 1786) andE. multilocularis (Leuckart, 1863). Jpn J Vet Res 6:226–229Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Antoniou
    • 1
  • Y. Tselentis
    • 1
  1. 1.Medical School, Department of Parasitology, Zoonoses and Tropical DiseasesUniversity of CreteIrakion, CreteGreece

Personalised recommendations