56 research outputs found
Enterogyrus cichlidarum Paperna 1963
No full textEnterogyrus cichlidarum Paperna, 1963 Enterogyrus cichlidarum Paperna, 1963: 183-186, figs 1-3. — Bilong Bilong et al. 1989: 104, figs 4, 5. Enterogyrus niloticus Eid & Negm, 1987: 79-84, figs 1-4. — Khidr 1990: 741, 742. TYPE MATERIAL. — Holotype: Hebrew University, Department of Parasitology, no specified number. TYPE HOST. — Of E. cichlidarum: Tilapia zillii (Gervais, 1848) (first species cited by Paperna [1963]). Of E. niloticus: Oreochromis niloticus (Linnaeus, 1758). TYPE LOCALITY. — Of E. cichlidarum: Rubin River, Israel. Of E. niloticus: Barher Mouise, Nile River, Egypt. ADDITIONAL HOSTS. — Sarotherodon galilaeus sanagaensis (Thys van den Audenaerde, 1966) and Tilapia nyongana Thys van den Audenaerde, 1971 (Bilong Bilong et al. 1996). SITE. — Stomach. ADDITIONAL LOCALITIES. — Jordan and coastal systems, Israel (Paperna 1979); South of Cameroon on O. niloticus (Bilong Bilong et al. 1989); Sakbayémé, Sanaga Basin, Cameroon on Sarotherodon galilaeus sanagaensis and So’o, Nyong Basin, Cameroon on Tilapia nyongana (Bilong Bilong et al. 1996). REMARKS The comparison by Khidr (1990) of Enterogyrus species specimens from Tilapia zillii and Oreochromis niloticus in Egypt revealed no differences and led this author to synonymise E. niloticus with E. cichlidarum.Published as part of Pariselle, Antoine & Euzet, Louis, 2009, Systematic revision of dactylogyridean parasites (Monogenea) from cichlid fishes in Africa, the Levant and Madagascar, pp. 849-898 in Zoosystema 31 (4) on page 851, DOI: 10.5252/z2009n4a6, http://zenodo.org/record/452041
Cichlidogyrus dionchus , Paperna 1968
No full text<i>Cichlidogyrus dionchus</i> Paperna, 1968 <p> <i>Cichlidogyrus dionchus</i> Paperna, 1968: 89, 90, pl. 1, figs 4, 5.</p> <p> <i>Cichlidogyrus brevicirrus</i> Paperna & Thurston, 1969: 17, 18. — Paperna 1979: 9, 10.</p> <p>TYPE MATERIAL. — Holotype: MRAC M.T. 35.585 from type host (Paperna 1979).</p> <p> TYPE HOST. — Of <i>C. dionchus</i>: <i>Sarotherodon galilaeus</i> (Linnaeus, 1758). Of <i>C. brevicirrus</i>: <i>Haplochromis guiarti</i> (Pellegrin, 1904).</p> <p> TYPE LOCALITY. — Of <i>C. dionchus</i>: Mamahuma stream, Accra, Ghana. Of <i>C. brevicirrus</i>: Jinja, Kazi, Victoria Lake, Uganda.</p> <p> ADDITIONAL HOSTS. — Of <i>C. dionchus</i>: <i>Chromidotilapia guentheri</i> (Sauvage, 1882) (Paperna 1979). Of <i>C. brevicirrus</i>: <i>Haplochromis longirostris</i> (Hilgendorf, 1888), <i>Haplochromis obesus</i> (Boulenger, 1906), <i>Haplochromis obliquidens</i> (Hilgendorf, 1888), <i>Haplochromis</i> sp., <i>Hoplotilapia retrodens</i> (Hilgendorf, 1888) and <i>Tilapia zillii</i> (Gervais, 1848).</p> <p>SITE. — Gills.</p> <p> ADDITIONAL LOCALITIES. — Afram sector, Volta Lake and Adutor lower reaches of the Volta River, Ghana on <i>H.fasciatus</i>; Ghana on <i>Chromidotilapia guentheri</i> (Paperna 1979).</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p> Paperna (1968) used for this species two spellings: <i>C. dioncus</i> and <i>C. dionchus</i>, as the first one was latter use by Paperna (1979) and other authors, we accept this spelling. Dossou & Birgi (1984) indicated that a proportion of individuals named <i>C. dionchus</i> by Paperna (1968: fig.6, p. 91) correspond to <i>C. falcifer</i> (individuals from <i>Hemichromis fasciatus</i>) and we agree with that. Dossou (1982) indicated that <i>C. dionchus</i> (on <i>Sarotherodon galilaeus</i>) is a valid species. Some hosts were added by Paperna (1979): <i>Pseudocrenilabrus multicolor</i> (Schoeller, 1903), <i>Tilapia rendalli</i> (Boulenger, 1897) and <i>Haplochromis wingatii</i> (Boulenger, 1902), but probably because of the presence of <i>C.</i> cf. <i>brevicirrus</i>, which was synonymised by this author with <i>C. dionchus</i>, when we propose to synonymise <i>C.</i> cf. <i>brevicirrus</i> with <i>C. digitatus</i>. In the same way, Paperna (1979) deposits a paratype (MRAC M.T. 35.586, probably <i>C.</i> cf. <i>brevicirrus</i>) from <i>Tilapia discolor</i> (Günther, 1903) for <i>C. dionchus</i>, we consider this specimen as being a <i>C. digitatus</i>. In the original description by Paperna(1968) the only true <i>C.dionchus</i> was illustrated by the drawing 5 (pl. 1, p. 91) and by the figures of <i>C. brevicirrus</i> in its original description (Paperna & Thurston 1969: 18), this latter species had been synonymised with <i>C. dionchus</i> by Paperna (1979); we agree with this conclusion.</p>Published as part of <i>Pariselle, Antoine & Euzet, Louis, 2009, Systematic revision of dactylogyridean parasites (Monogenea) from cichlid fishes in Africa, the Levant and Madagascar, pp. 849-898 in Zoosystema 31 (4)</i> on page 862, DOI: 10.5252/z2009n4a6, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/4520413">http://zenodo.org/record/4520413</a>
CDNA cloning of chick brain α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid receptors reveals conservation of structure, function and post-transcriptional processes with mammalian receptors
No full textA: Internet Usage by Patients with Multiple Sclerosis
No full textOnline health information and services for patients were suggested to improve symptom management and treatment adherence, thereby contributing to healthcare optimization. This paper aimed to characterize multiple sclerosis (MS) patients Internet usage. Information regarding browsing habits, Internet reliability, and the medical team's attitude to information collected online was obtained by questionnaires from MS patients. Data was compared between nonbrowsers, browsers on MS topics, and browsers on non-MS topics only. From the 96 patients recruited, 61 (63.5%) performed MS-related searches. The most viewed topics were "understanding the disease" and "treatments". Patients reported that the information helped coping with MS and assured them of the appropriateness of their therapy. Shorter disease duration was correlated with higher Internet activity. Disabled patients were more interested in online interaction with specialists and support groups. This paper suggests that MS patients benefit from online information, and it emphasizes the importance of resources tailored to patients needs
Internet Usage by Patients with Multiple Sclerosis: Implications to Participatory Medicine and Personalized Healthcare
No full textOnline health information and services for patients were suggested to improve symptom management and treatment adherence, thereby contributing to healthcare optimization. This paper aimed to characterize multiple sclerosis (MS) patients Internet usage. Information regarding browsing habits, Internet reliability, and the medical team's attitude to information collected online was obtained by questionnaires from MS patients. Data was compared between nonbrowsers, browsers on MS topics, and browsers on non-MS topics only. From the 96 patients recruited, 61 (63.5%) performed MS-related searches. The most viewed topics were “understanding the disease” and “treatments”. Patients reported that the information helped coping with MS and assured them of the appropriateness of their therapy. Shorter disease duration was correlated with higher Internet activity. Disabled patients were more interested in online interaction with specialists and support groups. This paper suggests that MS patients benefit from online information, and it emphasizes the importance of resources tailored to patients needs.</jats:p
Dactylogyrus yassensis Musilová, Ehulková & Gelnar, 2009, n. sp.
No full textDactylogyrus yassensis n. sp. (Figure 7, Table 1) Synonym: Dactylogyrus cyclocirrus Paperna, 1973 of Guégan et al. (1988). Type host and locality: Labeo coubie, Gambia River near the Campement du Lion (13 º 01.493’N; 13 º 14.491 ’W), Niokolo-Koba National Park, Senegal. Other records: Labeo senegalensis, Niger River (Bamako), Baoulé River (Missira), Mali; Guiers Lake, Senegal, (Guégan et. al. 1988); Labeo coubie, Gambia River near the hotel Simenti (sand beach 13 ° 01.543’N; 13 º 17.471 ’W, gravel beach 13 º 01.395’N; 13 º 17.350 ’W), Niokolo-Koba National Park, Senegal. Site: Gill lamellae. Type specimens: Holotype RMCA 37646; 2 paratypes RMCA 37647, 37648. Material examined: 1 unflattened and 3 flattened specimens in GAP. Comparative material examined: Dactylogyrus cyclocirrus Paperna, 1973: 12 syntypes RMCA M.T. 35.699 from Labeo cylindricus, 3 paratypes RMCA M.T. 35.700 from L. victorianus (see Paperna 1979); D. omega Guégan & Lambert, 1991: paratype MNHN HC 452 (Tj 239) from L. rouaneti. Etymology: The species name refers to the yassa, a very popular dish in Senegal. Description: Body length 571; greatest width 117. Haptor 95 long, 127 wide. Single pair of anchors (dorsal): inner length 38 (38–39; n = 3); outer length 36 (35–38; n = 3); inner root truncate, 13 (12–14; n = 3) long; outer root blunt, 6 (5–7; n = 3) long; curved shaft slightly swollen at level of filament hitch; point not reaching level of tip of inner root, 11 (9–12; n = 3) long. Anchor filaments well-developed. Two bars: dorsal bar bone like, with short truncate posteromedial process, 26 (26–27; n = 3) long, 5 (5–7; n = 3) wide; ventral bar reduced in size, vestigial, 7 (6–7; n = 3) long, 1 (1–2; n = 3) wide. Hooks 7 pairs, dissimilar in size; hook lengths (n = 2): pair I = 20; pair V = 22; pairs II, III, IV, VI and VII = 17 (16–18). Needles (1 pair) located near hooks of pair V. No sclerotized vagina observed. Copulatory organ a coiled wide tube of about 1.5 rings, with large base lacking flange; total length 38 (35–43; n = 3); tube trace-length 76 (74–79; n = 3). Accessory piece slightly sclerotized, articulated to base. Remarks: Based on the drawings of the sclerotized structures, this species markedly resembles D. cyclocirrus Paperna, 1973 from Labeo victorianus (Paperna 1979) and from L. senegalensis (Guégan et al. 1988), and D. omega Guégan & Lambert, 1991 from L. rouaneti (Guégan & Lambert 1991). The former species was described briefly and incompletely (i.e. without drawings of sclerotized structures) by Paperna (1973) on the gills of L. cylindricus (type host) from Ruaha River (Tanzania), L. victorianus from Nzoia River (Kenya), L. senegalensis and L. coubie from Volta Lake (Ghana). Six years later, this author supplemented the original description with drawings of the sclerotized structures of D. cyclocirrus collected from L. cylindricus and L. victorianus, and pointed out considerable morphometric variations in sclerotized structures depending on host species and locality (see Paperna 1979). Indeed, Paperna’s (1979) drawings of the sclerotized structures and our examination of the type specimens of D. cyclocirrus revealed that the description of this parasite was obtained from two morphologically different species. Although the type specimens available to us were in poor condition, features of visible sclerotized structures clearly show the non-conspecificity of the specimens from L. cylindricus (syntypes RMCA M.T. 35.699) and specimens from L. victorianus (paratypes RMCA M.T. 35.700), based on the size and morphology of the anchors, dorsal bars, and hooks (compare Fig. 8 II with Fig. 8 I). Furthermore, Paperna (1979) did not depict the vestigial ventral bar, which we observed only in the specimens from L. victorianus and whose presence distinguishes these specimens from the specimens collected from L. cylindricus. On top of that, the parallel designation of syntypes and paratypes within the same type series is wrong, based on the “name-bearing types fixed in the original publication (holotypes and syntypes)” (Article 73, 1999 ICZN). In view of our findings above and the fact that Paperna (1979) designated L. cylindricus as the type host of D. cyclocirrus, we designate the lectotype for this species of Dactylogyrus from the syntypes collected from this host only (see Fig. 8 II). Overlooking Paperna’s (1979) mistake, Guégan et al. (1988) identified their Dactylogyrus specimens from L. senegalensis as D. cyclocirrus, probably based on the morphological similarity between their specimens and the specimens from L. victorianus (Paperna 1979). Further, our comparison of their drawings of the sclerotized structures with Paperna’s (1979) “ paratypes ” of D. cyclocirrus revealed small differences in the morphology of the anchors and dorsal bars. Anchors of D. cyclocirrus reported by Guégan et al. (1988) are larger and with a shorter point than those in Paperna’s (1979) “ paratypes ”. On the other hand the dorsal bar described by the former authors is smaller in relation to anchor size than that in the “ paratypes ” of D. cyclocirrus (compare Fig. 3 of Guégan et. al (1988) with Fig. 8 I presented herein). Based on the abovementioned differences we believe that the specimens from these two host species belong to two different Dactylogyrus species. However, the morphology of all sclerotized structures (i.e. haptoral sclerites and copulatory organ) in specimens collected by us from L. coubie is in agreement with that reported by Guégan et al. (1988) in the record of D. cyclocirrus. Therefore, we consider D. cyclocirrus of Guégan et al. (1988) from L. senegalensis to be an older subjective synonym of D. yassensis n. sp. This new species is confused easily with D. omega described by Guégan and Lambert (1991) on L. rouaneti (see Fig. 9) from Guinea and on L. parvus from Sierra Leone and Ivory Coast. However, these species are distinguished by the fact that D. yassensis n. sp. possesses: (1) a larger anchors; (2) a shorter point not reaching the level of the tip of inner anchor root (extending past level of tip of inner anchor root in D. omega); (3) a dorsal bar smaller in relation to anchors size; and (4) a copulatory tube with noticeably larger diameter (see Tab. 1, Figs. 7 and 9). Although the comparative morphology of corresponding structures does not differ markedly, the designation of D. yassensis n. sp. is supported also by Guégan and Lambert (1991) who distinguished their D. omega from D. cyclocirrus of Guégan et al. (1988) by the different tube diameter of their copulatory organs. D. yassensis n. D. cyclocirrus D. omega Character sp. Host and locality: Labeo victorianus, Nzoia River, Kenya, (Paperna 1973). Site: Gill lamellae. Material examined: Dactylogyrus cyclocirrus Paperna, 1973: 3 syntypes (originally erroneously designated as paratypes) RMCA M.T. 35.700 from L. victorianus (see Paperna 1979). Remarks: As a result of our examination of the type specimens of D. cyclocirrus, it was found that Paperna’s (1979) type series contains two distinct species (see Remarks on D. yassensis n. sp.). Based on the morphology of the sclerotized structures, the specimens from L. victorianus (syntypes RMCA M.T. 35.700) is intermediate between D. omega and D. yassensis n. sp. by having an anchor point extending past level of tip of inner root, similar to that of D. omega, and a wide copulatory tube diameter (i.e. 4–5; n = 2) like that of D. yassensis n. sp. (see Tab. 1). However, the available specimens are insufficient for description and therefore we believe they only reflect undescribed species.Published as part of Musilová, Na Ď A, Ehulková, Eva Ř & Gelnar, Milan, 2009, Dactylogyrids (Platyhelminthes: Monogenea) from the gills of the African carp, Labeo coubie Rüppell (Cyprinidae), from Senegal, with descriptions of three new species of Dactylogyrus and the redescription of Dactylogyrus cyclocirrus Paperna, 1973, pp. 47-68 in Zootaxa 2241 on pages 55-57, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19057
Functional characterization of mongoose nicotinic acetylcholine receptor α-subunit: resistance to α-bungarotoxin and high sensitivity to acetylcholine
No full textAbstractThe mongoose is resistant to snake neurotoxins. The mongoose muscle nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (AChR) α-subunit contains a number of mutations in the ligand-binding domain and exhibits poor binding of α-bungarotoxin (α-BTX). We characterized the functional properties of a hybrid (α-mongoose/βγδ-rat) AChR. Hybrid AChRs, expressed in Xenopus oocytes, respond to acetylcholine with depolarizing current, the mean maximal amplitude of which was greater than that mediated by the rat AChR. The IC50 of α-BTX to the hybrid AChR was 200-fold greater than that of the rat, suggesting much lower affinity for the toxin. Hybrid AChRs exhibited an apparent higher rate of desensitization and higher affinity for ACh (EC50 1.3 vs. 23.3 μM for the rat AChR). Hence, changes in the ligand-binding domain of AChR not only affect the binding properties of the receptor, but also result in marked changes in the characteristics of the current
How Does the Mongoose Cope with α‐Bungarotoxin?: Analysis of the Mongoose Muscle AChR α‐Subunit
No full text- …
