Time related decay in prey antigens ingested by the predator Podisus maculiventris (Hemiptera, Pentatomidae) as detected by ELISA

Abstract

Individual nymphs of the predaceous pentatomid Podisus maculiventris Say were each fed a single first instar Douglas Fir tussock moth larva, Orgyia pseudotsugata McDunnough, and held without further feeding at constant temperature for a known number of days before being frozen. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, ELISA, was used to examine these predators for the presence of prey antigens. The concentration of prey antigens in these predators declined at a linear rate over the 7 days they were held post-feeding. Detectable antigens remained in 50% of the predators after three days at 24°C. On the day in which the prey was consumed (day 0) only 80% of the unstarved predators had detectable prey antigens which suggests the possibility of instinctive killing of prey with little or no subsequent ingestion. The amount of prey antigen in molted and unmolted predators was not statistically distinguishable; although molting interrupts feeding, digestion of the antigen(s) employed in this study seems to be continuous.

Identification of predator–prey relationships between coccinellids and Saissetia oleae (Hemiptera: Coccidae), in olive groves, using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay

“…The variability in the CE values of the coccinellids fed with S. oleae was greater than the starved coccinellids reflecting the amount of preys actually ingested in the laboratory experiment. This pattern was also observed by authors like Fichter and Stephen (1981) and Symondson and Liddell (1993).…”

“…Time since feeding and digestion rate of each coccinellid species have a great influence on the proportion of that species containing detectable prey antigens at any given time in the field (Sunderland et al 1987). Time elapsed from prey ingestion to predator analysis can also contribute to increase false negatives due to antigen decay as predator digestion proceeds (Fichter and Stephen 1981;. Given these limitations, although the strength of the ELISA reaction is unlikely to be a good quantitative indicator of S. oleae predation, it is a good qualitative indicator, as they indicate what proportion of a population of coccinellids contain the target prey, but cannot directly translate to predation rates Naranjo and Hagler 2001).…”

“…Consequently, analytical methods must often be used to assess prey consumption (Sopp et al 1992). Serological arthropod gut analyses, such as the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), have been widely used to investigate predation on invertebrates offering a rapid identification of the remains of specific prey in the guts of predators (Fichter and Stephen 1981;Sunderland et al 1987;Sopp et al 1992;McIver and Tempelis 1993;Symondson and Liddell 1993;Symondson et al 1996;Morris et al 1999). Serological tests were successfully used in olive groves to study the natural enemies of the olive moth, Prays oleae (Bernard), whose main predators were found to be Formicidae, Heteroptera and Coleoptera (Morris et al 1999;Lozano et al 2002).…”

Identifying Predation ofHelicoverpa zea(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Eggs byOriusspp. (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) in Cotton by Using Elisa

“…Different prey species can affect the rate of degradation (Lö vei et al 1990). Other studies indicate that the rate of degradation can change depending on predator species, temperature, time, and meal size (Fichter and Stephen 1981, Hagler and Naranjo 1997, Agustṍ et al 1999. The time that the antigen could be detected in Orius spp.…”

Measuring the Sensitivity of an Indirect Predator Gut Content ELISA: Detectability of Prey Remains in Relation to Predator Species, Temperature, Time, and Meal Size

“…a combination of confounding abiotic and biotic factors. Time elapsed after feeding, temperature, predator digestion rate, prey size, predator size, and the physiological state of a predator and prey can all affect the outcome of a gut content immunoassay (McIver, 1981;Fichter and Stephen, 1981;Lovei et al, 1985;Hagler and Cohen, 1990;Hagler et al, 1992;Sunderland, 1996). Before a precise estimate of predation can be made, these factors must be considered.…”