1974
DOI: 10.1016/0022-1910(74)90235-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of X-irradiation on the formation of the puparium in the fleshfly, Sarcophaga bullata

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

1975
1975
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is tempting to speculate that these neurosecretory substances are released posterior to median ligatures in larvae that pupariate posteriorly in view of the fact that both Ohtaki (1972) and Whitehead (1974) have shown that oxygen supply is not the limiting factor for pupariation, and both authors have shown that factors produced posterior to such ligatures are involved in pupariation. Sivasubramanian et al (1974a) have shown that X-irradiation can (L 2528) temporarily inhibit production of ecdysone anteriorly and its conversion to ecdysterone posteriorly in Sarcophaga larvae, as well as permanently inhibiting assumption of the typical puparial shape. They interpret this in terms of a neuromuscular control, in addition to neurosecretory control, of pupariation by the central nervous system.…”
Section: Pupariationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It is tempting to speculate that these neurosecretory substances are released posterior to median ligatures in larvae that pupariate posteriorly in view of the fact that both Ohtaki (1972) and Whitehead (1974) have shown that oxygen supply is not the limiting factor for pupariation, and both authors have shown that factors produced posterior to such ligatures are involved in pupariation. Sivasubramanian et al (1974a) have shown that X-irradiation can (L 2528) temporarily inhibit production of ecdysone anteriorly and its conversion to ecdysterone posteriorly in Sarcophaga larvae, as well as permanently inhibiting assumption of the typical puparial shape. They interpret this in terms of a neuromuscular control, in addition to neurosecretory control, of pupariation by the central nervous system.…”
Section: Pupariationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since thoracic musculature development is in progress from the seventh to the 15th day within Glossina puparia (Riordan, 1970), it seems likely that radiation-sensitivity of G. morsitans puparia between days 11 and 20 is also due to effects on musculature but that radiation-sensitive aspects of muscular development are completed earlier in the female than in the male. The difference in sensitivity to irradiation between males and females on day 23 remains unexplained, although the apparent neuromuscular control of pupariation by the central nervous system in Sarcophaga larvae, which is permanently inhibited by X-irradiation (Sivasubramanian et al, 1974a), suggests the possibility that direct damage to the central nervous system might also play a part in preventing adult emergence from irradiated puparia.…”
Section: Metamorphosismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies on common fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster) and red flour beetle (Tribolium castaneum) show that irradiation suppresses gene activation that is required for ecdysone signaling and regulation, leading to delayed developmental progression (Halme et al, 2010;Sang et al, 2016b). Injection of ecdysone restores the puparium formation in irradiated larvae of Mediterranean flour moth (Ephestia kuehniella) and gray flesh fly (Sarcophaga bullata) (Kuzin et al, 1968;Sivasubramanian et al, 1974). Feeding irradiated fruit flies with ecdysone Fecundity Y = e (A+BX) UF × IM 5.630 ± 0.009 (χ 2 = 156 511.0, P < 0.0001) -0.009 ± 0.000 (χ 2 = 17 731.2, P < 0.0001) IF × UM 5.417 ± 0.012 (χ 2 = 76 368.5, P < 0.0001) -0.023 ± 0.000 (χ 2 = 20 725.9, P < 0.0001) IF × IM 5.374 ± 0.012 (χ 2 = 67 002.9, P < 0.0001) -0.028 ± 0.000 (χ 2 = 20 846.3, P < 0.0001) Hatch rate Y = 1/ [1 + e -(A+BX) ] U F× IM 2.005 ± 0.383 (χ 2 = 36.9, P < 0.0001) -0.015 ± 0.003 (χ 2 = 30.3, P < 0.0001) IF × UM 1.131 ± 0.423 (χ 2 = 8.4, P = 0.0038) -0.071 ± 0.015 (χ 2 = 55.7, P < 0.0001) IF × IM 1.149 ± 0.426 (χ 2 = 8.5, P = 0.0035) -0.082 ± 0.018 (χ 2 = 59.1, P < 0.0001) UF, untreated female; UM, untreated male; IF, irradiated female; IM, irradiated male.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies on common fruit fly ( Drosophila melanogaster ) and red flour beetle ( Tribolium castaneum ) show that irradiation suppresses gene activation that is required for ecdysone signaling and regulation, leading to delayed developmental progression (Halme et al ., 2010; Sang et al ., 2016b). Injection of ecdysone restores the puparium formation in irradiated larvae of Mediterranean flour moth ( Ephestia kuehniella ) and gray flesh fly ( Sarcophaga bullata ) (Kuzin et al ., 1968; Sivasubramanian et al ., 1974). Feeding irradiated fruit flies with ecdysone can also minimize the slowdown in their development (Halme et al ., 2010).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Owing to its complexity, the system is rather vulnerable to various physical and chemical influences. The former include extreme temperatures (unpublished observations), electrical stimulation [4], y-irradiation [5], and microwave irradiation [6,7]. Chemical effectors include paralytic agents, neuromuscular stimulators, contact insecticides, tanning-inhibiting drugs [l], animal venoms [8], compounds interfering with deposition of the cuticle [9], and high doses of ecdysteroids [10,11].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%