Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T22:23:54.328Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Life-history and Chromosome Cycle of Aggregata eberthi [Protozoa: Sporozoa: Coccidia]

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Clifford Dobell
Clifford Dobell
Affiliation:
National Institute for Medical Research, London, N.W.3.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The life-history of Aggregata, eberthi is summarized in the accompanying diagram (Text-fig. 3). The stages shown above the dotted line occur in Sepia officinalis, those below in Portunus.

Merozoites (R), when swallowed by the cuttlefish, pass through the epithelium and enter the submucous tissue of the caecum or intestine, where they develop into young (undifferentiated) parasites (A) which grow into males (B) or females (E). The former, after undergoing repeated nuclear divisions (C), produce broods of microgametes (D)—each of which (D*) has a complicated structure. Females (E), on the other hand, are bodily converted into macrogametes (F), which undergo a complex series of nuclear changes during maturation. No reduction occurs during gametogenesis.

Fertilization (G) is effected by the union of one microgamete with one macrogamete, and is followed by the formation of a fertilization membrane which, in part, gives rise to the oocyst. The zygote (H) becomes a sporont, which, after repeated division of its nucleus (I, J), ultimately segments—leaving no residuum—into a large number of spherical uninucleate sporoblasts (K). Bach of these is then converted into a spore (L) containing three sporozoites and a small sporocystic residue.

The ripe spores pass out of the intestine with the cuttlefish's excrement; and when swallowed by a Portunus they open in its intestine and liberate their contained sporozoites (M). These penetrate the epithelium of the crab's midgut, and enter the subepithelial connective tissue, where they grow into schizonts (N, O). Finally, the schizonts undergo schizogony, producing large broods of merozoites (P, Q). No further development takes place unless the schizogonic cysts, in the crab's coelome, are eaten by a cuttlefish: in which case they liberate their contained merozoites (R) and the development just described then begins anew.

A. eberthi is, at every stage but one in the whole life-cycle, a haploid organism. Every nuclear division is mitotic: and every nucleus (except the zygote nucleus) contains a single set of six differentiated and unpaired chromosomes. In the zygote nucleus alone there are 12 chromosomes—six homologous pairs—derived from the two gamete nuclei: but at the first division of this nucleus (first division in sporont, Text-fig. 3, I) the chromosomes are again halved to six. Reduction (meiosis) thus occurs immediately after fertilization. No halving of the chromosome number occurs during gametogenesis or schizogony; and males, females, and asexual parasites all possess an identical chiomosomic constitution. Every nucleus in Text-fig. 3 is therefore an x nucleus, with the exception of stage H, which is 2x. (Between stages G and I many nuclear changes occur, but only one—the so-called “fertilization spindle”—is figured (H) in the diagram.)

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , January 1925 , pp. 1 - 136
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1925

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

Allen, O. E. (1905). Die Keimung der Zygote bei Coleochaete. Ber. deutsch. bot. Ges. XXIII. 285.Google Scholar
Bastin, A. (1919). Contribution à l'étude des Grégarines monocystidées. Le cycle d'évolution de Monocystis agilis Hesse (Stein pro parte). Bull. biol. (scientif.) France et Belgique, LIII. 325.Google Scholar
BĚlař, K. (1923). Untersuchungen an Actinophrys sol Ehrenberg. I. Die Morphologic des Formwechsels. Arch. f. Protistenk. XLVI. 1.Google Scholar
Blanchard, R. (1900). Les Coccidies et leur rôle pathogène. Caus. scientif. Soc. Zool. France, I. 133.Google Scholar
Bonnet, J. (1914). Reproduction sexuée et alternance des générations chez les Algues. Progr. Rei bot. v. 1.Google Scholar
Brasil, L. (1907). Recherches sur le cycle évolutif des Selenidiidae, Grégarines parasites d'Annélides polychètes. I. Selenidium caulleryi n.sp. Arch. f. Protistenk. VIII. 370.Google Scholar
Brasil, L. (1909). Documents sur quelques Sporozoaires d'Annélides. Arch. f. Protistenk. XVI. 107.Google Scholar
Brumpt, E. (1913). Précis de Parasitologie. 2e ed. (Paris).Google Scholar
Burgeff, H. (1915). Untersuchungen über Variabilität, Sexualität und Erblichkeit bei Phycomyces nitens Kunze. II. Flora (N.P.) VIII. 353.Google Scholar
Buschkiel, A. L. (1911). Beiträge zur Kenntnis des Ichthyophthirius multifiliis Fouquet. Arch. f. Protistenk. XXI. 61.Google Scholar
Claussen, P. (1912). Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der Ascomyceten. Pyronema confluens. Zeitschr. f. Bot. IV. 1.Google Scholar
Dakin, W. J. (1911). Notes on a new coccidian (Merocystis kathae n.gen. et sp.) occurring in the renal organ of the whelk. Arch. f. Protistenk. XXIII. 145.Google Scholar
Debaisieux, P. (1911). Recherches sur les Coccidies. II. Adelea ovata A. Schneid. III. Coccidium lacazei Schaud. La Cellule, XXVII. 255.Google Scholar
Debaisieux, P. (1922). Note sur deux coccidies des Mollusques: Pseudoklossia (?)patellae et P. chitonis. La Cellule XXXII. 231.Google Scholar
Dobell, C. (1907). Observations on the life-history of Adelea ovata Aimé Schneider [etc.]. Proc. Roy. Soc., (B) LXXIX. 155.Google Scholar
Dobell, C. (1909). Some observations on the Infusoria parasitic in Cephalopoda. Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci. LIII. 183.Google Scholar
Dobell, C. (1909 a). Chromidia and the binuclearity hypotheses: a review and a criticism. Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci. LII. 279.Google Scholar
Dobell, C. (1911). The principles of protistology. Arch. f. Protistenk. XXIII. 269.Google Scholar
Dobell, C. (1914). Le cycle évolutif de l'Aggregata. Bull. Inst. Océanogr. Monaco. No. 283, pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
Dobell, C. (1914 a). Cytological studies on three species of Amoeba [etc.]. Arch. f. Protistenk. XXXIV. 139.Google Scholar
Dobell, C. (1914 b). A commentary on the genetics of the Ciliate Protozoa. Journ. Genet, IV. 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobell, C. and Jameson, A. P. (1915). The chromosome cycle in Coccidia and Gregarines. Proc. Roy. Soc. (B), LXXXIX. 83.Google Scholar
Dobell, C. and O'Connor, F. W. (1921). The Intestinal Protozoa of Man. (London.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doflein, F. (1901). Die Protozoen als Parasiten und Krankheitserreger. (Jena.)Google Scholar
Doflein, F. (1911). Lehrbuch der Protozoenkunde. III Aufl. (Jena.)Google Scholar
Doflein, F. (1916). Idem, IV Aufl.Google Scholar
Duboscq, O. (1918). Selysina perforans Dub. [etc.] Arch. Zool. exp. LVIII. 1.Google Scholar
Eberth, C. J. (1862). Ueber die Psorospermienschläuche der Cephalopoden. Zeitschr. f. wiss. Zool. XI. 397.Google Scholar
Fantham, H. B. (1908). The Schizogregarines: a review and a new classification. Parasitol. I. 369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foulon, C. (1919). Merocystis kathae Dakin, une Aggrégate de Buccinum undatum. La Cellule, XXX. 123.Google Scholar
Frenzel, J. (1885). Ueber einigeinSeetieren lebende Gregarinen. Arch. mikr. Anat. XXIV. 545.Google Scholar
Granata, L. (1919). Drilosphaera binucleata n.g., n.sp. nuovo sporozoo parassita dei Limnodrilus. Rivista di Biol. I. 594.Google Scholar
Greiner, J. (1921). Cytologische Untersuchung der Gametenbildung und Befruchtung von Adelea ovata (A. Schneider). Zool. Jahrb. (Anat.) XLII. 327.Google Scholar
Hollande, A. C. (1916). Coloration noire des coupes histologiques, par l'emploi du chlorocarmin à l'alun de fer. C.R. Soc. Biol. LXXIX. 662.Google Scholar
Ikeda, I. (1914). Studies on some sporozoan parasites of Sipunculoids. II. Dobellia binucleata n.g. n.sp., a new coccidian from the gut of Petalostoma minutum Keferstein. Arch. f. Protistenk. XXXIII. 205.Google Scholar
Jacquemet, M. (1903). Sur la systématique des Coccidies des Céphalopodes. Arch. f. Protistenk. II. 190.Google Scholar
Jahn, E. (1911). Myxomyeetenstudien. 8. Der Sexualakt. Ber. deutsch. bot. Gesellsch. XXIX. 231.Google Scholar
Jameson, A. P. (1920). The chromosome cycle of Gregarines, with special reference to Diplocystis schneideri Kunstler. Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci. LXIV. 207.Google Scholar
Jatta, G. (1896). I Cefalopodi viventi nel Golfo di Napoli. (Sistematica.) Fauna u. Flora d. Golfes v. Neapel. Monogr. 23. (Berlin.)Google Scholar
Jollos, V. (1909). Multiple Teilung und Reduktion bei Adelea ovata (A. Schneider). Arch. f. Protistenk. XV. 249.Google Scholar
Joyet-Lavergne, P. (1924). L'appareil de Golgi dans la gamogonie de la coccidie Aggregata eberthi. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, CLXXVIII. 136.Google Scholar
Joybt-Laverone, P. (1924 a). L'appareil de Golgi dans les schizozoïtes d'un Aggrégatidé. C. R. Soc. Biol., XC. 680.Google Scholar
Kunze, W. (1907). Ueber Orcheobius herpobdellae Schuberg et Kunze, ein Coccidium aus Herpobdella atomaria Car. (Nephelis vulgaris Moq.-Tand.) Arch. f. Protistenk. IX. 382.Google Scholar
Labbé, A. (1895). Sur le noyau et la division nucléaire chez les Benedenia. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, CXX. 381.Google Scholar
Labbé, A. (1896). Recherches zoologiques, cytologiques et biologiques sur les Coccidies. Arch. Zool. exp. (3 sér.), IV. 517.Google Scholar
Labbé, A. (1899). Sporozoa, in Das Tierreich. (Berlin.)Google Scholar
Léger, L. (1901). Sur une nouvelle grégarine parasite des Pinnothères des Moules. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, CXXXII. 1343.Google Scholar
Léger, L. (1911). Caryospora simplex, Coccidie monosporée, et la classification des Coccidies. Arch. f. Protistenk. XXII. 71.Google Scholar
Léger, L. and Duboscq, O. (1903). Aggregata vagans n.sp. Grégarine gynmosporée parasite des Pagures. Arch. Zool. exp. (4 sér.) I. p. 147 (Notes).Google Scholar
Léger, L. and Duboscq, O. (1906). Sur l'évolution des Grégarines gymnosporées des Crustacés. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, CXLII. 1225.Google Scholar
Léger, L. and Duboscq, O. (1906 a). L'évolution d'une Aggregata de la seiche chez le Portunus depurator Leach. C. R. Soc. Biol. LX. 1001.Google Scholar
Léger, L. and Duboscq, O. (1907). L'évolution nucléaire du schizonte de l'Aggregata eberthi. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, CXLIV. 990.Google Scholar
Léger, L. and Duboscq, O. (1907 a). L'evolution des Frenzelina (n.g.), grégarines intestinales des crustacés décapodes. C. R. Acad. Sci. CXLV. 773.Google Scholar
Léger, L. and Duboscq, O. (1908). L'évolution schizogonique de l'Aggregata (Eucoccidium) eberthi Labbé. Arch. f. Protistenk. XII. 44.Google Scholar
Léger, L. and Duboscq, O. (1909). Protozoaires parasites de l'intestin du homard. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, CXLVIII. 363.Google Scholar
Léger, L. and Duboscq, O. (1911). Deux grégarines de crustacés. Porospora portunidarum Frenz. et Cephaloidophora maculata n.sp Arch. Zool. exp. (5 sér.) VL (Notes et Rev.) p. lix.Google Scholar
Léger, L. and Duboscq, O. (1911 a). Deux nouvelles espèces de grégarines appartenant au genre Porospora. Ann. Univ. Grenoble, XXIII. 401.Google Scholar
Léger, L. and Duboscq, O. (1913). Sur les premiers stades du développement des grégarines du genre Porospora (=Nematopsis). G. R. Soc. Biol. LXXV. 93.Google Scholar
Léger, L. and Duboscq, O. (1915). Pseudoklossia glomerata n.g. n.sp., coccidie de lamellibranche. Arch. Zool. exp. LV. (Notes et Rev.) 7.Google Scholar
Léger, L. and Duboscq, O. (1915 a). Porospora nephropis n.sp. C. R. Soc. Biol. LXXVIII. 368.Google Scholar
Léger, L. and Duboscq, O. (1917). Pseudoklossia pectinis n.sp. et l'origine des Adéleidées. Arch. Zool. exp. LVI. (Notes et Rev.) 88.Google Scholar
Lermantoff, E. (1913). Ueber Myriospora trophoniae n.gen., n.sp., ein neues, in Trophonia plumosa parasitierendes Coccidium. Arch. f. Protistenk. XXXII. 205.Google Scholar
Lieberkühn, N. (1854). Ueber die Psorospermien. Arch. f. Anat. u. Physiol. (J. Müller), pp. 1–24. Fortsetzung, pp. 349–368.Google Scholar
Lieberkühn, N. (1854 a). Évolution des Grégarines. Mém. couronnés et Mém. des Savants étrangers publ. par l'Acad. Roy. de Belgique, XXVI. 1.Google Scholar
Lühe, M. (1902). Ueber Geltung und Bedeutung der Gattungsnamen Eimeria und Coccidium. Centralbl. f. Bakt. I Abt. (Orig.), XXXI. 771.Google Scholar
Lühe, M. (1903). Die Coccidien-Literatur der letzten vier Jahre. Zool. Zentralbl. x. 617.Google Scholar
Milojevic, B. D. (1921). Sur le protoplasma génératif chez Gregarina cuneata. C. R. Soc. Biol. LXXXIV. 99.Google Scholar
Minchin, E. A. (1903). Sporozoa, in Lankester's Treatise on Zoology. Pt. 1, fasc. ii. (London.)Google Scholar
Mingazzini, P. (1890). La parentela dei Coccidi colle Gregarine. Boll. Soc. Natural. Napoli (ser. 1), IV. (anno IV), p. 151.Google Scholar
Mingazzini, P. (1892). Contributa alla conoscenza dei Coccidi. Atti Accad. Lincei, Roma. Rendiconti (5 ser.), I (I sem.), p. 175.Google Scholar
Mingazzini, P. (1892 a). Ciclo evolutive della Benedenia octopiana. Atti Accad. Lincei, Roma. p. 218.Google Scholar
Mingazzini, P. (1893). Contributo alla conoscenza degli Sporozoi. Ricerche fatte nel Laboratorio di Anatomia normale della R. Università di Roma [etc.] pubbl. d. F. Todaro. III. 31.Google Scholar
Monticelli, F. S. (1888). Contribuzioni allo studio della fauna elmintologica del Golfo di Napoli. I. Ricerche sullo Scolex polymorphus Rud. Mitteil. Zool. Stat. Neapel, VIII. 85.Google Scholar
Moroff, T. (1906). Sur l'évolution des prétendues Coccidies des Céphalopodes. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, CXLII. 652.Google Scholar
Moroff, T. (1906 a). Bemerkungen über den Kern der Aggregata Frenzel. Zool. Anz. XXXI. 72.Google Scholar
Moroff, T. (1907). Nucleolen, Caryosom und ihre Funktion. Centralbl. f. Physiol. XXI. 169.Google Scholar
Moroff, T. (1907 a). Untersuchungen über Coccidien. I. Adelea zonula n.sp. Arch. f. Protistenk. VIII. 17.Google Scholar
Moroff, T. (1908). Die bei den Cephalopoden vorkommenden Aggregataarten als Grundlage einer kritischen Studie über die Physiologie des Zellkernes. Arch. f. Protistenk. XI. 1.Google Scholar
Moroff, T. (1911). Untersuchungen über Coccidien. II. Khssia vitrina Mor. Arch. f. Protistenk. XXIII. 51.Google Scholar
Mulsow, K. (1911). Ueber die Fortpflanzungserscheinungen bei Monocystis rostrata n.sp. Arch. f. Protistenk. XXII. 20.Google Scholar
Neresheimer, E. (1908). Der Zeugungskreis des Ichthyophthirius. Ber. d. K. bayer. biol. Versuchsstat. München, I. 165.Google Scholar
Parisi, B. (1915). II genere Portunus nel Mediterraneo e descrizione di una nuova specie. Monit. zool. ital. XXVI. 256.Google Scholar
Pascher, A. (1916). Ueber die Kreuzung einzelliger, haploider organismen: Chlamydomonas. Ber. deutsch. bot. Ges. XXXIV. 228.Google Scholar
Pixell-Goodrich, H. L. M. (1914). The sporogony and systematic position of the Aggregatidae. Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci. LX. 159.Google Scholar
Reichenow, E. (1920). Los hemococcidios de los lacértidos [etc.]. Trab. Mus. Nas. Cien. Nat. Madrid (ser. zool.), No. 30, pp. 1–153. [Spanish translation of Reichenow (1921), infra.]Google Scholar
Reichenow, E. (1920 a). Die Coccidien. Handb. d. pathogen. Prot. (Prowazek), III. 1136.Google Scholar
Reichenow, E. (1921). Die Hämococcidien der Eidechsen. Vorbemerkungen und I Teil: Die Entwick-lungsgeschichte von Karyolysus. Arch. f. Protistenk. XLII. 179.Google Scholar
Reichenow, E. and Schellack, C. (1912). Streitfragen in der Coccidienforschung. Zool. Anz. XXXIX. 609.Google Scholar
Schaudinn, F. (1900). Untersuchungen über die Generationswechsel bei Coccidien. Zool. Jahrb. (Anat.), XIII. 197.Google Scholar
Schaudinn, F. (1902). Studien über Krankheitserregenden Protozoen. I. Cyclospora caryolytica Schaud. [etc.]. Arb. kaiserl. Gesundheitsamte, XVIII. 378.Google Scholar
Schellack, C. and Reichenow, E. (1913). Coccidien-Untersuchungen. I. Barrouxia schneideri. Arb. kaiserl. Gesundheitsamte XLIV. 30.Google Scholar
Schellack, C. and Reichenow, E. (1915). Coccidien-Untersuchungen. III. Adelea ovata A. Schn. Arb. kaiserl. Gesundheitsamte XLVIII. 425.Google Scholar
Schneider, Aimé (1875). Note sur la psorospermie oviforme du poulpe. Arch. Zool. exp. IV. (Notes et Revue), p. xl.Google Scholar
Schneider, Aimé (1875 a). Note sur les rapports des psorospermies oviformes aux véritables grégarines. Arch. Zool. exp. p. xlv.Google Scholar
Schneider, Aimé (1881). Sur les Psorospermies oviformes ou Coccidies. Arch. Zool. exp. IX. 387.Google Scholar
Schneider, Aimé (1883). Nouvelles observations sur la sporulation du Klossia octopiana. Arch. Zool. exp. (2 ser.), I. 77.Google Scholar
Siedlecki, M. (1898). Étude cytologique et cycle évolutif de la coccidie de la seiche. Ann. Inst. Pasteur, XII. 799.Google Scholar
Siedlecki, M. (1898 a). Reproduction sexuée et cycle évolutif de la coccidie de la seiche. C. R. Soc. Biol. (10), v. 663.Google Scholar
Siedlecki, M. (1899). Étude cytologique et cycle évolutif de Adelea ovata Schneider. Ann. Inst. Pasteur, XIII. 169.Google Scholar
Siedlecki, M. (1905). Ueber die Bedeutung des Karyosoms. Bull. internat. Acad. Sci. Cracovie (Cl. Sci. math, et nat.), Ann. 1905, p. 559.Google Scholar
Siedlecki, M. (1907). Ueber die Struktur und die Lebensgeschichte von Caryotropha Mesnilii. Bull. internat. Acad. Sci. Cracovie Ann. 1907, p. 453.Google Scholar
Smith, Geoffrey (1905). Note on a gregarine (Aggregata inachi, n.sp.) which may cause the parasitic castration of its host (Inachus dorsettensis). Mitteil. Zool. Stat. Neapel, XVII. 406.Google Scholar
Smith, Theobald (1910). A protective reaction of the host in intestinal coccidiosis of the rabbit. Journ. Med. Res. XXIII. 407.Google Scholar
Tolosani, O. (1916). Osservazioni sul ciclo di Monocystis Michaelseni Hesse. Monit. zool. ital. XXVII. 217.Google Scholar
Trinci, G. (1916). “Orcheocystis lacertae,” nuovo Telosporidio (Aggregatario?) parassita del testicolo di Lacerta [etc.]. Arch. f. Protistenk. XXXVI. 311.Google Scholar
Van Beneden, P. J. (1875). Les Commensaux et les Parasites dans le Règne Animal. (Paris. Bibl. Scient. Internat.) Also English translation, London, 1889.Google Scholar
Wasielewski, T. v. (1924). Fortschritte der Coccidienforschung. Ergebn. d. Hyg., Bakt., Immunitätsf. u. exp. Therap. VI. 305.Google Scholar