Skip to content
1887

Microbiology Society logo Microbiology

Volume 60, Issue 1

The Host-Parasite Relationship between Freshwater Crayfish and the Crayfish Disease Fungus : Responses to Infection by a Susceptible and a Resistant Species Free

Abstract

SUMMARY: In studies of the responses to infection by the crayfish disease fungus of the susceptible European crayfish and the resistant Western American species the latter was consistently more resistant to infection by injection or via aquarium water; the difference in resistance was more striking in the second method. The American crayfish was only slightly less sensitive than the European crayfish to the toxic action of large numbers of dead spores of and to infection by living spores of another phycomycete, which is not a natural parasite of crayfish. acquired a significantly higher degree of resistance to infection by injection or via the ambient water as a result of two previous exposures to sublethal numbers of spores of the pathogenic fungus.

The two strains of tested behaved identically within the cuticular layer of the exoskeleton of both crayfish species, showing strain-dependent degrees of ability to penetrate and grow within the cuticle. The epicuticle offered a major barrier to penetration in both hosts. The fungus was unable to establish growth within the musculature and developed only sparsely along the ventral nerve cord of living animals of both species; fungal growth was luxurious shortly before and after the death of both crayfish. Aggregation of injected spores and their encirclement by haemocytes occurred rapidly in living as well as in but melanization of the spore aggregates and hyphal elements was considerably more pronounced in the resistant crayfish, The observations suggest the participation of at least some active processes of native and acquired resistance of crayfish to the crayfish disease fungus, particularly in the internal tissues and the epicuticle.

  • Accepted:
  • Published Online:
© Society for General Microbiology 1970
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/micro/10.1099/00221287-60-1-77
1970-01-01
2025-04-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/micro/60/1/mic-60-1-77.html?itemId=/content/journal/micro/10.1099/00221287-60-1-77&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Benisch J. 1940; Künstlich hervorgerufener Aphanomyces-Befall bei Wollhandskrabben.. Zeitschrift für Fischerei und deren Hilfswissenschaften 38:71
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Boyden S. 1963; Cellular recognition of foreign matter.. International Review of Experimental Pathology 2:311
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Briggs J. D. 1964; Immunological responses.. The Physiology of Insecta Ed. by Rockstein M. 3259 New York: Academic Press.;
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Crowley G. J. 1964; Studies in arthropod serology. 11. An invertebrate response to injected antigenic materials.. Wasmann Journal of Biology 22:185
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Dennell R. 1960; Integument and exoskeleton.. The Physiology of Crustacea Ed. by Waterman T. H. 1449 New York: Academic Press.;
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Fowles B. 1967 Factors affecting Growth and Reproduction of Aphanomyces Doctoral Thesis: University of California, Berkeley.;
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Koidsumi K. 1957; Antifungal action of cuticular lipids in insects.. Journal of Insect Physiology 1:40
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Kuo M. J., Alexander M. 1967; Inhibition of the lysis of fungi by melanins.. Journal of Bacteriology 94:624
     [Google Scholar]
  9. MacLeod D. M., Loughheed T. C. 1965; Entomogenous fungi.. Recent Progress in Microbiology 8:141
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Metlitskii L. Y., Ozeretskovskaya O. L. 1968 Plant Immunity New York: Plenum Press.;
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Nybelin O. 1936; Untersuchungen über die Ursache der in Schweden gegenwärtig vorkommenden Krebspest.. Meddelanden från Statens Undersöknings-och Försögsanstalt for Sotvattensfisket 9:1
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Pathology Society Symposium 1967; Defense reactions in invertebrates.. Federation Proceedings. Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology 26:1664
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Prasertphon S. 1967; Mycotoxin production by species of Entomophthora.. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 9:281
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Reed L. J., Muench H. 1938; A simple method of estimating fifty per cent endpoints.. American Journal of Hygiene 27:493
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Rennerfelt E. 1936; Untersuchungen über die Entwicklung und Biologie des Krebspestpilzes Aphanomyces astaci Schikora.. Meddellanden från Statens Undersöknings-och Försögsanstalt för Sötvattensfisket 10:1
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Schäperclaus W. 1935; Die Ursache des pestartigen Krebssterbens.. Zeitschrift für Fischeri und deren Hilfswissenschaften 33:343
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Schäperclaus W. 1954 Fischkrankheiten Berlin: Akademie Verlag.;
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Seaman G. R., Robert N. L. 1968; Immunological response of male cockroaches to injection of Tetrahymena pyriformis.. Science, New York 161:1359
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Seligo A. 1895; Bemerkungen über Krebspest, Wasserpest, Lebensverhältnisse des Krebses. Zeitschrift für Fischerei und deren Hilfswissenschaften 3:247
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Smith R. T., Miescher P. A., Good R. A. 1966 Phytogeny of Immunity Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida Press.;
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Sussman A. S. 1951a; Studies of an insect mycosis. I. Etiology of the disease.. Mycotogia 43:338
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Sussman A. S. 1951b; Studies of an insect mycosis. II. Host and pathogen ranges.. Mycotogia 43:423
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Travis D. F., Friberg U. 1963; The deposition of skeletal structures in the Crustacea. VI. Microradiographic studies of the exoskeleton of the crayfish Orconectes virilis Hagen.. Journal of Ultrastructure Research 9:285
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Unestam T. 1965; Studies on the crayfish plague fungus Aphanomyces astaci. I. Some factors affecting growth in vitro.. Physiotogia Plantarum 18:483
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Unestam T. 1966a; Chitinolytic, cellulolytic, and pectinolytic activity in vitro of some parasitic and saprophytic oomycetes.. Physiotogia Plantarum 19:15
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Unestam T. 1966b; Studies on the crayfish plague fungus Aphanomyces astaci. II. Factors affecting zoospores and zoospore production.. Physiotogia Plantarum 19:1110
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Unestam T. 1969; On the adaptation of Aphanomyces astaci as a parasite.. Physiologia Plantarum 22:221
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Yendol W. G., Miller M. E., Behnke C. N. 1968; Toxic substances from entomophthoraceous fungi.. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 10:313
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journal/micro/10.1099/00221287-60-1-77
Loading
The Host-Parasite Relationship between Freshwater Crayfish and the Crayfish Disease Fungus Aphanomyces astaci: Responses to Infection by a Susceptible and a Resistant Species
Microbiology 60, 77 (1970); https://doi.org/10.1099/00221287-60-1-77
/content/journal/micro/10.1099/00221287-60-1-77
/content/journal/micro/10.1099/00221287-60-1-77
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error