Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T22:56:10.047Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Isoenzyme characterization of the tick Rhipicephalus appendiculatus Neumann (Acarina: Ixodidae) in Kenya

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

S. S. Kubasu ,
A. S. Young  and
G. R. Karuhize
S. S. Kubasu
Affiliation:
National Museums of Kenya, Department of Invertebrate Zoology, Entomology Section, P. O. Box 40658, Nairobi, Kenya
A. S. Young
Affiliation:
Protozoology Division, National Veterinary Research Centre, Muguga, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, P. O. Box 32, Kikuyu, Kenya
G. R. Karuhize
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Nairobi, P. O. Box 30197, Nairobi, Kenya
Get access

Abstract

Five populations of the tick, Rhipicephalus appendiculatus (collected from Kilifi, South Nyanza, and Uasin Gishu districts, and a Muguga laboratory strain) were subjected to isoenzyme analysis. Isoelectric focusing (IEF) of 11 enzymes on agarose gels was used to determine genetic differences between the tick populations. The isoenzyme profile results of the 11 enzymes investigated indicated that four loci, peptidase 1 (PEP 1:EC 3.4.11.1), PEP 2:EC 3.4.11.1, malate dehydrogenase (MDH:EC 1.1.1.37) and glucose phosphate isomerase (GPI:EC 5.3.1.9) showed differences in the populations. The Uasin Gishu population was distinct from all others. Ten out of the eleven enzymes studied were polymorphic in most of the populations while only one (i.e. PEP 7) was monomorphic.

Résumé

Cinq populations de Rhipicephalus appendiculatus provenant de Kilifi, de Kiambu, de South Nyanza, des districts de Uasin Gishu et du laboratoire de Muguga, ont été soumises à des analyses isoenzymatiques. Différentes populations génetiques de tiques ont été observées à partir du point isoelectrique sur gel d'agar agar de onze enzymes. Les profiles isoenzymatiques des onze enzymes ont montré que 4 loci, peptidase 1 (PEP 1: EC 3.4.11.1), PEP 2: EC 3.4.11.1, malate dehydrogenase (MDH: EC 1.1.1.37) et glucose phosphate isomerase (GPI: EC 5.3.1.9) témoignent de l'existence de populations hétérogènes; la population de Uasin Gishu étant distincte de toutes les autres. Dix des onze enzymes étudiés étaient polymorphiques pour toutes les populations alors que la PEP 7 se trouvait être monomorphique.

Keywords

Tick populationsisoenzymesisoelectric focusingpolymorphismzymograms
Type
Tick Immunology
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 13 , Special Issue 4: Status and Recent Advances in Tick Management in Africa , August 1992 , pp. 475 - 480
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 1992

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

REFERENCES

Agatsuma, T. and Otieno, L. (1988) Isoenzyme studies on two field populations of Glossina pallidipes Austen (Diptera: Glossinidae) in Kenya. Insect Sci. Applic. 9, 527–530.Google Scholar
Allsopp, B. A. and Gibson, W. C. (1983) Isoelectric focusing in agarose, a highly discriminatory method for the detection of enzyme heterogeneity. Ann. Trop. Med. Parasitol. 7, 169–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, K. P. (1960) Notes on the rearing of Rhipicephalus appendiculatus and their infection with Theileria parva for experimental transmission. Bull. Epizoot. Dis. Africa 8, 33–43.Google Scholar
Bull, C. M., Andrews, R. H. and Adams, M. (1984) Patterns of genetic variation in a group of parasites, the Australian reptile ticks. Heredity 53, 509–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffus, W. P. H. (1977) Theileriosis in Kenya. In Theileriosis (Edited by Henson, J. B. and Campbells, M.), pp. 28–30. IDEC 086e, Ottawa. pp. 28–30.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization (1975) Epizootiological survey on tick borne diseases, Kenya. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. AG:DP/KEN/70/522. Tech. Rep. No.l.Google Scholar
Gibson, W. C., Mehlitz, S., Lanham, S. M. and Godfrey, D. C. (1978) The identification of Trypanosoma brucei gambiense in Liberian pigs and dogs by isoenzymes and by resistance to human plasma. Tropenmed. Parasitol. 29, 335–345.Google ScholarPubMed
Gibson, W. C., Marshall, T. F., De, C. and Godfrey, D. C. (1980) Numerical analysis of enzyme polymorphism: a new approach to the epidemiology and taxonomy of trypanosomes of the sub-genus Trypanozoon. Adv. Parasitol. 18, 175–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey, D. C. and Kilgour, V. (1976) Enzyme electrophoresis in characterising the causative organism of Gambian trypanosomiasis. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 70, 219–224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Godfrey, D. G. (1979) The zymodemes of trypanosomes. Symp. British Soc. Parasitol. 17, 31–53.Google Scholar
Harris, H. and Hopkinson, D. A. (1976) Handbook of Enzyme Electrophoresis in Human Genetics. Elsevier/North Holland and Biomedical Press, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Hilburn, L. R. and Sattler, P. W. (1986) Electrophoretically detectable protein variation in the natural populations in the lone star tick Amblyomma americanum (Acarina: Ixodidae). Heredity 56, 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillis, M. D. and Moritz, C. (1990) Molecular Systematics. Sinauer Associates, Inc. Publishers. Sanderland, Massachusett, USA. pp. 45–126.Google Scholar
Kubasu, S. S. (1990) Studies of biological diversity of the tick Rhipicephalus appendiculatus (Acarina: Ixodidae) in relationship to transmission of Theileria parva (Apicomplexa: Theileridae) in Kenya. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Nairobi, Kenya.Google Scholar
Miller, L. H., Pino, J. A. and McKelvey, J. J. (1977) Immunity to Blood Parasites of Animals and Man. New York Plenum Press pp. 1–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pegram, R. C. and Banda, D. S. (1990) Ecology and phenology of cattle ticks in Zambia: Development and survival of free living stages. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 8, 291–301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rechav, Y. (1981) Ecological factors affecting seasonal activity of the brown ear tick, Rhipicephalus appendiculatus. In Tick Biology and Control (Edited by Whitehead, G. B. and Gibson, J. D.), pp. 187–192. Tick Research Unit, Grahamstown, South Africa.Google Scholar
Robson, J., Yeoman, G. H. and Ross, J. P. J. (1961) Rhipicephalus appendiculatus and East Coast feverin Tanganyika. East African Med. J. 38, 206–214.Google Scholar
Sattler, P. W., Hilburn, L. R., Davey, R. B., George, E. J. and Avalos, J. B. R. (1986) Genetic similarity and variability between natural populations and laboratory colonies of North Ametican Boophilus (Acarina: Ixodidae). J. Parasitol. 72, 95–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaklee, J. B. and Keenan, C. P. (1986) A practical laboratory guide to the techniques and methodology of electrophoresis and its application to fish fillet identification. CSIRO Marine Laboratories Publ. 177. Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Van Etten, J. (1982) Enzyme polymorphism in populations of the tsetse fly Glossina pallidipes in Kenya. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 31, 197–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar