Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T04:18:52.746Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EVALUATION OF IMMUNOELECTROOSMOPHORESIS ON CELLULOSE POLYACETATE FOR ASSESSING PREDATION OF LEPIDOPTERA (TORTRICIDAE) BY COLEOPTERA (CARABIDAE) SPECIES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Wayne R. Allen  and
E. A. C. Hagley
Wayne R. Allen
Affiliation:
Agriculture Canada, Research Station, Vineland Station, OntarioL0R 2E0
E. A. C. Hagley
Affiliation:
Agriculture Canada, Research Station, Vineland Station, OntarioL0R 2E0
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Immunoelectroosmophoresis (IEO) on cellulose polyacetate strips was found to be a rapid, convenient, and highly sensitive procedure for detecting prey antigens (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in predators (Coleoptera: Carabidae). The antisera employed were induced with whole-body extracts of larvae of Choristoneura rosaceana Harris, Grapholitha molesta Busck, and Cydia pomonella L. Extracts of single larvae gave IEO reactions to a dilution of at least 1/1024 (mg fresh wt./μl diluent), when using as little as 1–3μl of the reactants. Larval antigens of G. molesta, C. pomonella, or C. rosaceana were detectable in laboratory-fed Pterostichus melanarius III. for c. 24, 48, or at least 72 h, respectively. Antigens of all prey species were detectable in Amara sp. and Harpalus affinis Schr. for at least 72 h.All antisera also reacted to some extent with 10–15 other Lepidoptera species and reacted slightly with extracts from starved carabids. Manipulations with the antisera (e.g. dilution, cross-absorption, and (or) antibody selection) eliminated reactions with carabids and species of Lasiocampidae, Gracillariidae, and Geometridae, but not with all species of Tortricidae or Noctuidae. The broad antigenic similarities observed among Lepidoptera appear to preclude reliable use of immunoprecipitin procedures for assessing natural predation on specific prey, unless specific antisera can be produced.

Résumé

L'immunoélectroosmophorèse (IEO) sur bandes de polyacetate de cellule s'est avérée une méthode rapide, commode et très sensible pour détecter la présence d'antigènes de la proie (Lépidoptères : Tortricidés) chez certains prédateurs (Coléoptères : Carabidés). Les antiserums utilisés sont activés par des extraits corporels de larves de Choristoneura rosaceana Harris, Grapholitha molesta Busck et Cydia pomonella L. Des extraits de larves donnent des réactions IEO à une dilution d'au moins 1/1024 (mg (poids sec)/μl de diluant), pour aussi peu que 1–3μl des réactifs. Les antigènes larvaires de G. molesta, C. pomonella ou C. rosaceana sont décelables chez Pterostichus melanarius III. nourri en laboratoire, pendant environ 24, 48 ou au moins 72 heures respectivement. Les antigènes de toutes les espèces proies sont détectables chez Amara sp. et Harpalus affinis Schr. pendant au moins 72 heures.Tous les antiserums réagissent également dans une certaine measure avec 10 à 15 autres espèces de Lépidoptères et légèrement avec des extraits de carabidés affamés. Les manipulations des antiserums (p. ex. dilution, absorption croisée et (ou) sélection des anticorps) éliminent les réactions avec les carabidés et les espèces de Lasiocampidés, Gracillariidés et Geometridés, mais pas avec toutes les espèces de Tortricidés ou de Noctuidés. Les similarités antigéniques générales observées parmi les Lépidoptères semblent empêcher l'utilisation de méthodes à l'immunoprécipitine pour évaluer la prédation naturelle de proies spécifiques à moins de pouvoir produire des antiserums spécifiques.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 114 , Issue 11 , November 1982 , pp. 1047 - 1054
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1982

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, W. R. 1968. Tomato bushy stunt virus from Prunus avium. II. Serological typing and the characterization of antibody types and activities. Can. J. Bot. 46: 229–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boreham, P. F. L. and Ohiagu, C. E.. 1978. The use of serology in evaluation invertebrate pre-predator relationships: a review. Bull. ent. Res. 68: 171–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downe, A. E. R. and West, A. S. 1954. Progress in the use of the precipitin test in entomological studies. Can. Ent. 85: 181–184.Google Scholar
Frank, J. H. 1967. A serological method used in the investigation of the predators of the pupal stage of the winter moth, Operophtera brumata L. (Hydriomenidae). Quaest. ent. 3: 95–105.Google Scholar
Gardner, W. A., Shepard, M., and Noblet, R.. 1981. Precipitin test for examining predator–prey interactions in soybean fields. Can. Ent. 113: 365–369.Google Scholar
Hagley, E. A. C. and Hikichi, A.. 1972. The arthropod fauna in unsprayed apple orchards in Ontario. I. Major pest species. Proc. ent Soc. Ont. 103 (1973): 60–64.Google Scholar
Hagley, E. A. C., Trottier, R. T., Herne, D. H. C., Hikichi, A., and Maitland, A.. 1978. Pest management in Ontario apple orchards. Min. Supply Serv. Can. Cat. A52–50/1978.Google Scholar
Hagley, E. A. C., Holliday, N. J., and Barber, D. R.. 1982. Laboratory studies of the food preference of some orchard carabids (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Can. Ent. 114: 431–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, R. R., Downe, A. E. R., MacLellan, C. R., and West, A. S.. 1953. Evaluation of insect predator-prey relationships by precipitin test studies. Mosquito News 13: 199–204.Google Scholar
Healy, J. A. and Cross, T. F.. 1975. Immunoelectroosmophoresis for serological identification of predators of the sheep tick Ixodes ricinus. Oikos 26: 97–101.Google Scholar
Holliday, N. J. and Hagley, E. A. C.. 1978. Occurrence and activity of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in a pest management apple orchard. Can. Ent. 110: 113–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohn, J. 1960. Cellulose acetate electrophoresis and immunodiffusion techniques, pp. 56–90in Smith, I. (Ed.). Chromatographic and Electrophoretic Techniques. Interscience, New York.Google Scholar
Loughton, B. G., Derry, C., and West, A. S.. 1963. Spiders and the spruce budworm. Mem. ent. Soc. Can. 31: 249–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lund, R. D. and Turpin, F. T.. 1977. Serological investigations of black cutworm larval consumption by ground beetles. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 70: 322–324.Google Scholar
MacLellan, C. R. 1973. Natural enemies of the light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana. in the Australian Capital Territory. Can. Ent. 105: 681–700.Google Scholar
Miller, M. C., Chappell, W. A., Gable, W., and Bridges, J. R.. 1979. Evaluation of immunodiffusion and immunoelectrophoretic tests using a broad spectrum anti-adult southern pine beetle serum. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 72: 99–104.Google Scholar
Newbould, B. B. 1965. Production of allergic encephalomyelitis in rats in injections of spiral cord adjuvant into the inguinal lymph nodes. Immunology 9: 613–614.Google Scholar
Sergeeva, T. K. 1975. The use of cross- immunoelectrophoresis for improving the sensitivity of the serological reactions when studying trophic relationships in insects. Zool. Zh. 54: 1014–1019.Google Scholar