池蝶蚌(贝)血细胞显微观察

本文对池蝶蚌血细胞的形态结构及其动态变化进行了研究。根据血细胞形态、大小和密度等特征，把血细胞分为六类：颗粒细胞、透明细胞、浆液细胞、类淋巴细胞、梭形细胞和血栓细胞；并对各种血细胞显微结构予以描述，统计了血细胞胞体大小、细胞核大小、核质比、密度及所占比例，其中颗粒细胞所占比例最大，透明细胞次之，类淋巴细胞最少，颗粒细胞和透明细胞是两种主要的细胞类型，约占总数的82%，担负着最基本的代谢和免疫功能；通过对池蝶蚌血细胞形态的连续观察，发现血细胞存在形态变化现象，推测细胞间可能存在相互转化的情况。     

池蝶蚌和三角帆蚌谷胱甘肽S转移酶基因表达特征

采用RT-PCR方法克隆获得池蝶蚌(Hyriopsis schlegerlii)和三角帆蚌(H.cumingii)GST片段,两种蚌的GST核苷酸序列相同,推导其编码92个氨基酸;经与不同物种进行氨基酸序列比对,显示其与软体动物、两栖动物和高等哺乳动物的GST具有高度同源性。RT-PCR半定量分析表明,GST在两种蚌的肝、闭壳肌等11种组织中除肠以外均有表达,肝中表达量较大;注射嗜水气单胞菌(Aeromonas hydrophila)后,三角帆蚌血细胞中GST表达量先降低后升高,而池蝶蚌血细胞中GST表达量先升高后降低,且在感染3h、6h、9h和24h时表达量约为三角帆蚌的2倍。     

淡水育珠蚌褶纹冠蚌血细胞的初步研究

国外关于海产双壳贝血细胞形态与功能的研究虽然较多,但对于淡水育珠蚌褶纹冠蚌的血细胞却无研究报道,国内关于软体动物血细胞的研究甚少,对于育珠蚌血细胞只笼统地称之为游走细胞,颗粒细胞等,对它们的种类和形态无详细的描述。为此作者对褶纹冠蚌的血细胞进行了形态学的初步观察,以期对今后的研究工作提供参考。     

褶纹冠蚌α2M基因的组织分布及原核表达

α2-巨球蛋白(alpha-2 Macrogloblin,α2M)是存在于无脊椎动物和脊椎动物血浆中的一类广谱性蛋白酶抑制因子。本文利用RT-PCR方法分析了α2M基因mRNA在褶纹冠蚌不同组织的表达及在嗜水汽单胞菌刺激后褶纹冠蚌血细胞中的表达变化。结果表明,α2M仅在血细胞中有表达,而在外套膜、闭壳肌、肝胰腺和鳃组织中均无表达。注射嗜水气单胞菌6h、12h、24h后,褶纹冠蚌血细胞中α2M的mRNA表达水平显著升高,表明α2M是褶纹冠蚌基础免疫系统中的重要组成部分。选择褶纹冠蚌α2M基因包含有受体结合区片段的第1369～1589氨基酸设计含有酶切位点的表达引物,构建重组表达质粒,经过IPTG诱导表达,利用SDS-PAGE分析表达产物。结果表明重组的α2M在大肠杆菌Escherichia coli Rosetta-gami(DE3)中获得了表达,产物为40.81KDa的融合蛋白。     

河蚌血细胞对细菌趋化移动的初步研究

采用改进的毛细管法 ,研究了圆背角无齿蚌 (Anodontawoodianapacifica)和三角帆蚌 (Hyriopsiscum ingii)两种淡水河蚌离体血细胞对两种水体中常见病原细菌的趋化移动作用 ,及血清对其的影响。结果显示 ,两种河蚌的离体血细胞对细菌都具有趋化移动作用 ,产生趋化移动的血细胞数量都显著高于无细菌的对照组 (P <0 0 5 )。在有血清时 ,血细胞对荧光极毛杆菌 (Pseudomonasfluorescens)的趋化移动活性略高于肠型点状气单孢菌 (Aeromonaspunctataf.intestinalis) ,圆背角无齿蚌离体血细胞的趋化移动能力显著高于三角帆蚌 (P <0 0 5 )。血清对河蚌离体血细胞的趋化移动作用有显著的促进作用 (P <0 0 5 )。     

栉孔扇贝血液细胞的免疫功能

利用光镜、扫描电镜和透射电镜技术对栉孔扇贝(Chlamysferreri)血细胞与细胞免疫功能相关的几个因素进行了初步研究。对血细胞的数量和不同功能细胞的比例研究结果表明,健康血淋巴中血细胞的平均密度为3.03±0.11×107cell/ml,其中颗粒细胞占42.6%,透明细胞占57.4%;病贝血淋巴中血细胞的平均密度为2.78±0.34×107cell/ml,其中颗粒细胞占40.2%,透明细胞占59.8%。扫描电镜观察表明,血细胞的表面结构主要有表面光滑型,表面松果型和表面褶皱阿米巴型3类。透射电镜观察表明,颗粒细胞吞噬外源性颗粒(Ⅰ型颗粒)通过溶酶体(Ⅱ型颗粒)进行降解。并观察到同心片层结构出现在吞噬泡的降解过程中。利用APIZYM试剂盒对栉孔扇贝血细胞及血清中的19种酶进行检测,结果在血清中检测到了13种酶,在血细胞中检测到10种酶,健康血淋巴中酶的含量高于病贝。对血细胞吞噬活性的研究结果表明,血细胞对大肠杆菌和对类立克次体(RLO)的吞噬率分别为25.4%和21.7%。颗粒细胞的吞噬活性(30%-40%)远远大于透明细胞(4.8%-14%)。环境胁迫对血细胞吞噬活性的影响的研究结果表明,病原菌感染和温度、盐度等环境胁迫因素对血细胞的吞噬活性均有不同程度的影响,其中高温因素影响较大,但未发现贝龄有显著影响     

圆背角无齿蚌血细胞培养

用新设计的培养基培养了圆背角无齿蚌的血细胞,在倒置相差镜下进行了活体观察及扫描电镜摄影,发现培养的血细胞无颗粒细胞、颗粒细胞、透明细胞和类淋巴细胞,前三者均能伸出长的伪足和突起,与瓶壁紧密贴附,呈体外培养的成纤维细胞型;后者呈圆形,不与瓶壁贴附;四者的比例约为4：2：3：1。在活体内注射或在培养基上加入PHA和ConA,培养2－7d中,每天取部分供加入秋水仙素,用空气干燥法制片,作染色体观察,但未观察到转化细胞和有丝分裂相。研究结果表明,圆背角无齿蚌的颗粒细胞、无细胞和透明细胞在体外贴附玻璃表面的特征与高等动物的巨噬细胞类似,而不贴瓶的圆形细胞与高等动物的淋巴细胞类似,但在体外培养均不能繁殖,它们可能是高度分化的细胞。     

池蝶蚌组织蛋白酶L基因的组织表达及免疫应激分析

应用cDNA文库筛查及同源片段克隆拼接技术,克隆了池蝶蚌组织蛋白酶L(Hs-CtsL)cDNA基因全长序列(GenBank注册号为JN604558)。其cDNA全长1152 bp,5′-非翻译区(Untranslated Region,UTR)长1 bp,3′-UTR长149 bp包括1个多聚腺苷信号AATAAA和Poly(A)尾巴,开放阅读框(Open reading frame ORF)为1002 bp,编码333个氨基酸组成的多肽链。其分子量约37.7 kD,理论等电点为7.16,包含信号肽、前体域和成熟域。系统进化分析显示,Hs-CtsL同无脊椎动物组织蛋白酶L聚为一支,且同三角帆蚌亲缘关系最近,其次为褶纹冠蚌。组织表达分析结果显示,池蝶蚌组织蛋白酶L在肠、鳃、性腺、外套膜、斧足、闭壳肌、血细胞、肝胰腺、肾和心脏均有表达,其中血细胞中表达量最高。应激实验表明,经嗜水气单胞菌刺激后,Hs-CtsL在血细胞、鳃、肝胰腺和外套膜中的表达量显著上调。其中在肝胰腺中刺激后6h表达量到达峰值,在血细胞、鳃和外套膜中的表达模式近似,表现为一个波动变化,在4h、12h和48h被上调。结果暗示着Hs-CtsL除参与了池蝶蚌血细胞的先天性免疫防御以外,还参与了其消化腺免疫器官的免疫应答反应。     

内脏团插核术刺激对三角帆蚌血细胞的影响

为了探讨三角帆蚌(Hyriopsis cumingii Lea)血细胞的类型及内脏团插核手术刺激对血细胞形态结构和数量的影响,研究利用相差显微镜、光学显微镜、透射电子显微镜和流式细胞仪对三角帆蚌血细胞进行了形态学研究。流式细胞术光散射图谱显示血细胞被分两类,一类为颗粒度高的大细胞,另外一类为颗粒度低的小细胞;相差显微镜观察显示,血细胞可分为胞体暗、折光性差和胞体明亮、折光性强的两类;Giemsa和H.E染色显示细胞分为胞质染色不均一、胞内颗粒明显和胞质染色均一、胞内颗粒不明显的两类;透射电镜超薄切片观察显示,颗粒明显的细胞胞质内线粒体、高尔基体等细胞器较丰富,颗粒不明显的细胞胞质内细胞器较少;负染结果表明血细胞主要分为表面不光滑、突起明显和细胞表面光滑、突起较不明显的两类。综合上述实验结果可见,三角帆蚌血细胞分为颗粒明显的细胞和颗粒不明显的透明细胞两大类。内脏团插核术刺激后,血细胞的形态和比例均发生显著变化。血细胞形态更多样,伪足状突起更明显,细胞内囊泡状物质增多,血细胞密度显著增高(P0.01),颗粒细胞数量相对增加,透明细胞数量相对减少,并且手术刺激后两类细胞所占比例的变化在相差显微镜观测中差异极显著(P0.01)。研究表明,作为三角帆蚌免疫系统重要组成部分的血细胞,在插核手术后,其类型、形态结构和数量均产生明显变化,这是机体对外界刺激产生的免疫防御反应,其中颗粒细胞担负着主要的免疫功能。     

背角无齿蚌外套膜和鳃瓣的扫描电镜初步观察

关于育珠蚌类的研究。国内外学者已有了大量论著,但迄今为止。对蚌外套膜等表面细微结构研究的报道还十分少见,为此,本文以背角无齿蚌为材料,对其外套膜的内、外表皮和鳃瓣的表面在扫描电镜下进行了观察,希望能为进一步研究其结构与功能提供一点基础性的理论依据。     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor