Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-27T13:18:41.483Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Notes on certain points in the Cytology Of Trypanosoma raiae and Bodo caudatus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Muriel Robertson
Muriel Robertson
Affiliation:
Protozoologist at the Lister Institute.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. T. raiae and Bodo caudatus are investigated using Feulgen's nucleal reaction in addition to the usual nuclear stains. The nature and value of this method is discussed.

2. In T. raiae the parabasal body or kinetonucleus is found to consist of chromatin as shown by the nucleal reaction. An achromatic element in its composition is suggested in the division by the desmose between the two halves being achromatic.

The blepharoplast is an achromatic structure. It seems probable that it persists in the aflagellar phase of the trypanosome. In T. raiae the division of the blepharoplast precedes but does not apparently orientate the division of the parabasal body. The division of the parabasal body does not present a mitotic figure.

3. The nucleus in T. raiae consists of an achromatic karyosome body with some chromatin surrounding it, there is also chromatin arranged upon the inner surface of the nuclear membrane.

4. At division the karyosome apparently draws out into an achromatic spindle figure, the chromatin collects in the prophase into a loose granular mass and then becomes arranged at the equator. The mass divides into two portions; it is not possible to distinguish chromosomes with sufficient certainty. The nuclei are finally reconstructed from the achromatic ends of the spindle and the chromatin which has travelled to either pole.

5. In Bodo caudatus the parabasal body (kinetonucleus) is composed of chromatin and of an achromatic substance, the blepharoplasts or basal granules are achromatic bodies which play an orientating part in the division of the parabasal body: this division does not show an equatorial plate stage. The nucleus is made up of an achromatic nucleolus-karyosome surrounded by a hollow sphere of chromatin; there is a very definite division process which takes place apparently within the nuclear space. There is no equatorial plate formed and the achromatic figure which is derived directly from the karyosome is a division column which inserts itself into the already dividing chromatin and is not of the spindle fibre type found in the mitosis of the metazoan cell and of many protozoa.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , December 1927 , pp. 375 - 393
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1927

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

Alexieff, (1912). Arch. Zool. Exper. 29.Google Scholar
Alexieff, (1917). C. R. Soc. Biol. 80, 358, 499, 512.Google Scholar
Arndt, (1924). Arch. Protist. 49, 1.Google Scholar
Bělaˇr, (1915). Arch. Protist. 35, 103.Google Scholar
Bělaˇr, (1920). Arch. Protist. 41, 308.Google Scholar
Bělaˇr, (1926). Ergebnisse der Zool. 6, 235.Google Scholar
Breslau, and Scremin, (1924). Arch. Protist. 48, 509.Google Scholar
Dawson, (1919). J. Exper. Zool. 29, 423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, (1920). J. Exper. Zool. 30, 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobell, (1908). Quart. J. Microsc. Sci. 52, 75.Google Scholar
Dobell, (1909). Quart. J. Microsc. Sci. 53, 201.Google Scholar
Entz, (1918). Arch. Protist. 38, 324.Google Scholar
Feulgen, and Rossenbeck, (1924). Zeitschr. Physiol. Chem. 135, 202.Google Scholar
Feulgen-Brauns, (1924). Pflüger's Archiv, 203, 415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, and Nöller, (1918). Arch. Protist. 38, 355.Google Scholar
Jameson, (1914). Arch. Protist. 33, 21.Google Scholar
Kofoid, and Swezy, (1915). Proc. Amer. Acad. of Arts and Sci. 51, 289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kofoid, and Swezy, (1920). Univ. California Publ. Zool. 20, 117.Google Scholar
Kuczynski, (1917). Arch. Protist. 38, 94.Google Scholar
Kudo, (1926). Arch. Protist. 53, 191.Google Scholar
Kühn, (1915). Arch. Protist. 35, 212.Google Scholar
Kühn, (1920). Arch. f. Entwickl. der Org. 46, 259.Google Scholar
Kühn, and Schuckmann, (1912). Zool. Jahrb. 15, Suppl. 329.Google Scholar
Mackinnon, (1910). Parasitology 3, 255.Google Scholar
Mackinnon, (1911). Parasitology 4, 28.Google Scholar
Mackinnon, (1915). Quart. J. Microsc. Sci. 61, 105.Google Scholar
Martin, (1913). Quart. J. Microsc. Sci. 49, 175.Google Scholar
Minchin, and Thomson, (1915). Quart. J. Microsc. Sci. 60, 463.Google Scholar
Robertson, (1909). Quart. J. Microsc. Sci. 54, 119.Google Scholar
Robertson, (1911). Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. B, 202, 29.Google Scholar
Robertson, (1913). Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. B 203, 161.Google Scholar
Swezy, (1916). Univ. California Publ. Zool. 16, 185.Google Scholar
Wenyon, (1913). Arch. Protist. 31, 1.Google Scholar
Wenyon, (1926). Protozoology. A Manual for Medical Men, Veterinarians and Zoologists. London.Google Scholar
Wilson, (1916). Univ. California Publ. Zool. 16, 241.Google Scholar
Woodcock, (1916). Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. B, 207, 375.Google Scholar
Woodcock, (1926). J. Roy. Army Med. Corps, 46, 354.Google Scholar