Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Infected host responses across entomopathogenic nematode phylogeny Cover

Infected host responses across entomopathogenic nematode phylogeny

Journal of Nematology
Volume 53 (2021): Issue 1 (January 2021)
By: Hilal Erdogan,  Glen Stevens,  Asa Stevens,  David Shapiro-Ilan,  Fatma Kaplan,  Hans Alborn and  Edwin Lewis  
Open Access
|Dec 2021

Figures & Tables

Figure 1:

Abbreviated phylogeny showing the five EPN species used in the current study. Adapted from Kaplan et al. (2012), Spiridonov and Subbotin (2016) and De Brida et al. (2017).
Abbreviated phylogeny showing the five EPN species used in the current study. Adapted from Kaplan et al. (2012), Spiridonov and Subbotin (2016) and De Brida et al. (2017).

Figure 2:

Dispersal responses of five EPN species after exposure to their own macerate. Bars show means +/- SEM. Symbols over bars indicate species that showed statistically significant increases in dispersal after conspecific macerate exposure († = P < 0.10, ** = P < 0.01).
Dispersal responses of five EPN species after exposure to their own macerate. Bars show means +/- SEM. Symbols over bars indicate species that showed statistically significant increases in dispersal after conspecific macerate exposure († = P < 0.10, ** = P < 0.01).

Figure 3:

Dispersal responses of five EPN species after exposure to macerate derived from Heterorhabditis bacteriophora-infected cadavers. Bars show means ± SEM. Symbols over bars indicate species that showed statistically significant changes in dispersal after conspecific macerate exposure (**= P < 0.01). Relative to H. bacteriophora, increasing distance to the right along the graph represents increasing phylogenetic distance, according to Spiridonov and Subbotin (2016).
Dispersal responses of five EPN species after exposure to macerate derived from Heterorhabditis bacteriophora-infected cadavers. Bars show means ± SEM. Symbols over bars indicate species that showed statistically significant changes in dispersal after conspecific macerate exposure (**= P < 0.01). Relative to H. bacteriophora, increasing distance to the right along the graph represents increasing phylogenetic distance, according to Spiridonov and Subbotin (2016).

Average number of IJs infecting G_ mellonella larvae after exposure to either DI water, their own macerate, or macerate derived from H_ bacteriophora infected cadavers_ Data show means ± SEM_ Significant effects of macerate exposure based on post-hoc tests comparing DI water to macerate treatment; † = P < 0_10, * = P < 0_05_

SpeciesOwn maceratea H. bacteriophora macerateb
DI waterMacerateDI waterMacerate
H. bacteriophora 04.4 ± 1.1*03.2 ± 2.1
H. georgiana 015.9 ± 12.50.5 ± 0.50.8 ± 0.5
H. megidis 143.7 ± 31.183.7 ± 25.4102.3 ± 50.265.3 ± 21.3
H. indica 2.4 ± 1.526.1 ± 13.4† 2.5 ± 2.51.8 ± 0.7
S. feltiae 08.6 ± 3.9*00
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/jofnem-2021-105 | Journal eISSN: 2640-396X | Journal ISSN: 0022-300X
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 1 - 9
Submitted on: Jul 15, 2021
Published on: Dec 14, 2021
Published by: Society of Nematologists, Inc.
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:
Dispersal,
Entomopathogenic nematode,
Host cadaver,
Infectivity,
Macerate
Related subjects:
Life sciences,
Life sciences, other

© 2021 Hilal Erdogan, Glen Stevens, Asa Stevens, David Shapiro-Ilan, Fatma Kaplan, Hans Alborn, Edwin Lewis, published by Society of Nematologists, Inc.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 53 (2021): Issue 1 (January 2021)Next article