Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T19:26:56.052Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effect of the sulphydryl reagent, mersalyl acid, on sex pheromone reception by Heterodera schachtii (Nematoda: Heteroderidae) males

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

J. Aumann
Affiliation:
Institute of Phytopathology, University of Kiel, Hermann-Rodewald-Strasse 9, W-2300 Kiel 1, Germany

Summary

Female sex pheromone reception was inhibited in a bioassay by treating males of the beet cyst nematode, Heterodera schachtii, with the sulphydryl reagent, mersalyl acid. This effect was blocked by the sulphydryl group protectant, dithiothreitol, indicating the occurrence of sulphydryl groups in the receptor molecules and a role for sulphydryl groups in pheromone reception.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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

Aumann, J., Clemens, C. D. & Wyss, U. (1990). Influence of lectins on female sex pheromone reception by Heterodera schachtii (Nematoda: Heteroderidae) males. Journal of Chemical Ecology 19, 2371–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bone, L. W. & Bottjer, K. P. (1985). Cuticular carbohydrates of three nematode species and chemoreception by Trichostrongylus colubriformis. Journal of Parasitology 71, 235–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bryant, B. P. (1990). Specific inhibition of the binding of the taste stimulus, L-alanine, by sulfhydryl reagents, in Ictalurus punctatus. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 95A, 533–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Disanzo, C. P. (1973). Nematode response to carbofuran. Journal of Nematology 5, 22–7.Google Scholar
Dropkin, V. H. & Boone, W. R. (1966). Analysis of host–parasite relationships of root-knot nematodes by single-larva inoculations of excised tomato roots. Nematologica 12, 225–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Getchell, M. L. & Gesteland, R. H. (1972). The chemistry of olfactory reception: Stimulus-specific protection from sulfhydryl reagent inhibition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 69, 1494–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jansson, H.-B., Jeyaprakash, A., Damon, R. A. & Zuckerman, B. M. (1984). Caenorhabditis elegans and Panagrellus redivivus: Enzyme-mediated modification of chemotaxis. Experimental Parasitology 58, 270–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jansson, H.-B. & Nordbring-HERTZ, B. (1984). Involvement of sialic acid in nematode chemotaxis and infection by an endoparasitic nematophagous fungus. Journal of General Microbiology 130, 3943.Google Scholar
Jeyaprakash, A., Jansson, H.-B., Marban-MENDOZA, N. & Zuckerman, B. M. (1985). Caenorhabditis elegans: Lectin-mediated modification of chemotaxis. Experimental Parasitology 59, 90–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mavier, P. & Hanoune, J. (1975). Adenylate cyclase from rat-liver plasma membrane: inhibition by mersalyl and other mercurial derivatives. European Journal of Biochemistry 59, 593–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Menevse, A., Dodd, G. H. & Poynder, T. M. (1978). A chemical-modification approach to the olfactory code. The Biochemical Journal 176, 845–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menevse, A., Dodd, G. H., Poynder, T. M. & Squirrel, D. (1977). A chemical-modification approach to the olfactory code. Biochemical Society Transactions 5, 191–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimada, I., Shiraishi, A., Kijima, H. & Morita, H. (1972). Effects of sulphydryl reagents on the labellar sugar receptor of the fleshfly. Journal of Insect Physiology 18, 1845–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shirley, S., Polak, E. & Dodd, G. H. (1983). Chemical-modification studies on rat olfactory mucosa using a thiol-specific reagent and enzymatic iodination. European Journal of Biochemistry 132, 485–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, K. A. (1983). Nematode chemosensilla: form and function. Journal of Nematology 15, 151–8.Google ScholarPubMed