Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-15T23:40:01.928Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

AN AUTORADIOGRAPHIC STUDY OF ENDOCRINE ACTIVITY FOLLOWING FRONTAL GANGLIONECTOMY IN VIRGIN FEMALES OF MELANOPLUS SANGUINIPES (ORTHOPTERA: ACRIDIDAE)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

C. Gillott ,
G. S. Dogra  and
Al B. Ewen
C. Gillott
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, University of Saskatchewan, Sasltatoon
G. S. Dogra
Affiliation:
Research Station, Canada Department of Agriculture, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Al B. Ewen
Affiliation:
Research Station, Canada Department of Agriculture, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The synthetic ability of type-A neurosecretory cells (NSC) and corpus allatum (CA) was investigated autoradiographically in both normal virgin females and those from which the frontal ganglion had been removed. Incorporation of 3H-cystine and 3H-uridine into the NSC was significantly lower in frontal ganglionectomized insects than in controls. There appeared to be no relationship between the level of isotope uptake and the amount of stainable material in the NSC. Ability of the CA to incorporate 3H-uridine seemed unaffected by the operation.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 102 , Issue 9 , September 1970 , pp. 1083 - 1088
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1970

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

Cameron, M. L. 1953. Secretion of an orthodiphenol in the corpus cardiacum of the insect. Nature, Lond. 172: 349–350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clarke, K. U., and Gillott, C. 1965. Relationship between the removal of the frontal ganglion and protein starvation in Locusta migratoria L. Nature, Lond. 208: 808–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, K. U., and Gillott, C. 1967 a. Studies on the effects of the removal of the frontal ganglion in Locusta migratoria L. I. The effect on protein metabolism. J. exp. Biol. 46: 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, K. U., and Gillott, C. 1967 b. Studies on the effects of the removal of the frontal ganglion in Locusta migratoria L. II. Ribonucleic acid synthesis. J. exp. Biol. 46: 27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, K. U., and Langley, P. A. 1962. Factors concerned in the initiation of growth and moulting in Locusta migratoria L. Nature, Lond. 194: 160–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, K. U., and Langley, P. A. 1963 a. Studies on the initiation of growth and moulting in Locusta migratoria migratorioides R. and F.—II. The role of the stomatogastric nervous system. J. Insect Physiol. 9: 363–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, K. U., and Langley, P. A. 1963 b. Studies on the initiation of growth and moulting in Locusta migratoria migratorioides R. and F.—III. The role of the frontal ganglion. J. Insect Physiol. 9: 411–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, K. U., and Langley, P. A. 1963 c. Studies on the initiation of growth and moulting in Locusta migratoria migratorioides R. and F.—IV. The relationship between the stomatogastric nervous system and neurosecretion. J. Insect Physiol. 9: 423–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, K. U., and Langley, P. A. 1963 d. Effect of the removal of the frontal ganglion on the development of the gonads in Locusta migratoria L. Nature, Lond. 198: 811–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davey, K. G., and Treherne, J. E. 1963. Studies on crop function in the cockroach (Periplaneta americana L.)—II. The nervous control of crop-emptying. J. exp. Biol. 40: 775–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dogra, G. S., and Tandan, B. K. 1964. Adaptation of certain histological techniques for in situ demonstration of the neuro-endocrine system of insects and other animals. Q. Jl microsc. Sci. 105: 455–466.Google Scholar
Dogra, G. S., and Ewen, Al B. 1970 a. Egg laying by allatectomized females of the migratory grasshopper, Melanoplus sanguinipes. J. Insect Physiol. 16: 461–469.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dogra, G. S., and Ewen, Al B. 1970 b. Histology of the neurosecretory system and the retrocerebral endocrine glands of the adult migratory grasshopper, Melanoplus sanguinipes (Fab.) (Orthoptera: Acrididae). J. Morph. In Press.Google Scholar
Engelmann, F. 1968. Feeding and crop emptying in the cockroach Leucophaea maderae. J. Insect Physiol. 14: 1525–1531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engelmann, F. 1969. Food-stimulated synthesis of intestinal proteolytic enzymes in the cockroach Leucophaea maderae. J. Insect Physiol. 15: 217–235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gillott, C. 1964. The role of the frontal ganglion in the control of protein metabolism in Locusta migratoria L. Helgoländer Wiss. Meeresunters. 9: 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Highnam, K. C. 1961. The histology of the neurosecretory system of the adult female desert locust, Schistocerca gregaria. Q. Jl microsc. Sci. 102: 27–38.Google Scholar
Highnam, K. C. 1965. Some aspects of neurosecretion in arthropods. Zool. Jber. (Physiol.) 71: 558–582.Google Scholar
Highnam, K. C., Hill, L., Mordue, W. 1966. The endocrine system and oocyte growth in Schistocerca in relation to starvation and frontal ganglionectomy. J. Insect Physiol. 12: 977–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, L., Mordue, W., and Highnam, K. C. 1966. The endocrine system, frontal ganglion, and feeding during maturation in the female desert locust. J. Insect Physiol. 12: 1197–1208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pickford, R. 1958. Observations on the reproductive potential of Melanoplus bilituratus (Wlk.) (Orthoptera: Acrididae) reared on different food plants in the laboratory. Can. Ent. 90: 483–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roussel, J. P. 1966. Contribution à l'étude du rôle du ganglion frontal chez les insectes. Bull. Soc. Zool. Fr. 91: 379–391.Google Scholar
Strong, L. 1966. Effect of removal of the frontal ganglion on corpus allatum function in Locusta migratoria migratorioides R. and F. Nature, Lond. 210: 330–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar