Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-skzmx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T11:08:54.453Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The life cycle of Gregarina cuneata in the midgut of Tribolium castaneum and the effects of parasitism on the development of insects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2016

A.A.S. Gigliolli*
Affiliation:
Departamento de Biotecnologia, Genética e Biologia Celular, Universidade Estadual de Maringá (UEM), Paraná, Brazil
A.H.F. Julio
Affiliation:
Departamento de Biotecnologia, Genética e Biologia Celular, Universidade Estadual de Maringá (UEM), Paraná, Brazil
H. Conte
Affiliation:
Departamento de Biotecnologia, Genética e Biologia Celular, Universidade Estadual de Maringá (UEM), Paraná, Brazil
*
* Author for correspondence Phone: +55 44 30114466/ +55 44 99846378 E-mail: adrianasinopolis@hotmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Tribolium castaneum Herbst 1797 (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae), an important pest of stored grains and byproducts, is naturally infected by Gregarina cuneata Stein 1848 (Apicomplexa: Gregarinidae). Changes in the life cycle of insects caused by the parasite development in the midgut were studied. Trophozoites, gamonts (solitary and associated), and gametocysts were present in the midgut of the insects. In young trophozoites, the apical region differentiated into an epimerite that firmly attached the parasite to the host epithelial cells. With maturation, trophozoites developed in gamonts that were associated with the initiation of sexual reproduction in the cell cycle, culminating in the formation of the spherical gametocyst. Morpho-functional analyses indicated that gregarines absorb nutrients from infected cells and can occlude the midgut as they develop. Consequently, nutritional depletion may interfere with the host's physiology, causing decreased growth, delayed development, and high mortality rates of the parasitized insects. These results suggest G. cuneata could be an important biological agent for controlling T. castaneum in integrated pest management programs.

Information

Type
Research Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Photomicrographs of G. cuneata in T. castaneum stained using H/E. Anterior region of the midgut (Ma); posterior region of the midgut (Mp); trophozoites and gamonts in the midgut (arrows); gametocyst in the posterior region of the midgut (G); regenerative crypts (Cr); epithelium (E). Scale bar = 20 µm.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Electron micrographs of development of G. cuneata in the midgut of adult T. castaneum. (a) SEM of non-segmented young trophozoite adhering to the epithelial cell (arrow). Host tissue (h); epicystic folds (Ef). Scale bar = 2 µm. (b) SEM of segmented young trophozoite. Epimerite (E); protomerite (P); deutomerite (D); epicystic folds (Ef); septum (arrow); host tissue (h). Scale bar = 5 µm. (c) TEM of epicystic folds (Ef). Plasma membrane (pm); cytomembranes (c); apical filaments (af); apical arcs (aa). Scale bar = 0.2 µm. (d) Micropore (circle); deutomerite (D); microvilli (mv); epicystic folds (Ef). Scale bar = 0.2 µm (e) Invaginations in internal lamina (circle); deutomerite (D); microvilli (mv); epicystic folds (Ef). Scale bar = 0.2 µm.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Electron micrographs of mature trophozoites and gamonts of G. cuneata. (a) Trophozoites adhering to epithelial cells and detail of the invaginations formed in the microvilli after the release of trophozoites from the tissue (arrows). Microvilli (mv) deutomerite (D); protomerite (P). Scale bar = 2 µm. (b) SEM of trophozoites indicating protomerite (P) and deutomerite (D); septum (arrow); host cell (h). Scale bar = 2 µm. (c) Ultrastructure of maturing trophozoite. Septum (arrow); protomerite (P); deutomerite (D); microvilli (mv); epicytic folds (Ef); mitochondria (m); amylopectin granules (asterisk); nucleus (n). Scale bar = 5 µm. (d, e) Ultrastructure of the protomerite of maturing trophozoites. Electron-dense structure (arrowhead); Golgi region and vesicles (G); fibrils (Fi); amylopectin granules (asterisk). Scale bar = 0.2 µm. (f) SEM of the gamont. Deutomerite (D); projections in the protomerite (arrow); microvilli (mv). Scale bar = 2 µm. (h) TEM indicating deposition of amorphous material (x) between protomerite and microvilli (mv) of the host cell. Scale bar = 2 µm. (i) Lipid drops (L) and amylopectin granules (asterisk) in deutomerite. Scale bar = 0.2 µm.

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Deposition of amylopectin granules during development of G. cuneata. (a) PAS positive gamonts (G) evident by the presence of amylopectin (asterisk); nucleus in the deutomerite (arrowhead); lumen (L); epithelium (E). Scale bar = 20 µm. (b–d) Total preparation of maturing trophozoites, stained with iodinated zinc chloride. Protomerite (P); deutomerite (D). Increased number of amylopectin granules deposited in the protomerite and deutomerite (asterisk); collar-like modified apical part of protomerite of the rather a detached satellite (arrows); nucleus (arrowhead); Scale bar = 20 µm.

Figure 4

Fig. 5. Association of gamonts and gametocysts. (a) Recognition between sexual cells (arrow): primite (Pr) and satellite (S), stained with iodinated zinc chloride. Nucleus (arrowhead); protomerite (P); deutomerite (D). Scale bar = 20 µm. (b) SEM of associated primite (Pr) and satellite (S) gamonts adhering to the host tissue (h); Syzygy junction (arrow). primite (Pr); satellite (S); protomerite (P); deutomerite (D). Scale bar = 10 µm. (c) Satellite gamonts (S) and primite gamonts (Pr) initiating rotation movement, stained with H/E. Junctional complex (arrow); nucleus (arrowhead); epithelium (E). Scale bar = 20 µm. (d) Initial stage of gametocyst formation in which individual gamonts associate (arrow) to form a spherical structure, stained with iodinated zinc chloride. Nucleus (arrowhead), envelope and hyaline space (asterisk). (e) SEM of spherical gametocyst (G) located in the posterior region of the midgut (h). Trophozoite (T). Scale bar = 10 µm.

Figure 5

Fig. 6. Larvae of the T. castaneum with 31 days of the developmental. (a) Unparasitized, (b) parasitized. Scale bar = 1 mm.

Figure 6

Fig. 7. Normal distribution of lengths T. castaneum larvae in third instar. (a) Unparasitized, (b) parasitized by G. cuneata.

Figure 7

Fig. 8. Length of T. castaneum unparasitized and parasitized by G. cuneata. The y-axis is generated for ranking the Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test created with larval lengths, where 1 = 2.5, 2 = 3, 3 = 3.5, 4 = 4, 5 = 4.5, 6 = 5, 7 = 5.5, 8 = 6 cm.

Figure 8

Fig. 9. Survival differences and delays in the development of T. castaneum unparasitized and parasitized by G. cuneata at different stages of development. (a) Insects with 8 days, (b) insects with 20 days, (c) insects with 31 days, (d) insects with 40 days, (e) insects with 48 days, and (f) insects 59 days of development.

Figure 9

Table 1. Differences in survival T. castaneum parasitized and unparasitized by G. cuneata throughout its life cycle.