Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
21
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
21 results for “parasitic crustaceans”
Fig. 3 in Global diversity of fish parasitic isopod crustaceans of the family Cymothoidae
Fig. 3. Representative cymothoid forms. Mothocya (A); Olencira (B); Norileca (C); Anilocra (D); Nerocila (E); Telotha (F); Cymothoa (G); Cinusa (H); Ceratothoa (I); Agarna (J, K). Scale bars = 5 mm.
Fig. 2 in Global diversity of fish parasitic isopod crustaceans of the family Cymothoidae
Fig. 2. Different attachment sites of cymothoids. External or scale attaching (A), flesh-burrowing (B) buccal dwelling (C, E, F) and gill attaching (D).
Fig. 4 in Global diversity of fish parasitic isopod crustaceans of the family Cymothoidae
Fig. 4. Number of marine Cymothoidae in biogeographic regions (Marine Ecoregions of the World). Data from Poore and Bruce (2012).
Fig. 1 in Global diversity of fish parasitic isopod crustaceans of the family Cymothoidae
Fig. 1. Absolute numbers and cumulative percentage of species of Cymothoidae (373) published per decade since Linnaeus (1758). Data from the World List of Marine, Freshwater and Terrestrial Isopod Crustaceans hosted by the Smithsonian and at the WoRMS database (Schotte et al., 1995 onwards).
Fig. 2 in Impacts of crustacean invasions on parasite dynamics in aquatic ecosystems: A plea for parasite-focused studies
Fig. 2. Introduced hosts ‾ native parasites: hypothetical examples of the potential effects of invasive crustaceans on native parasites. Note that only a subsample of nonexclusive scenarios from a number of potential outcomes of biological invasion on native parasite dynamics is represented here. The hypothetical native parasite considered here has a two-host life cycle involving a definitive host predator and an intermediate host prey, transmission from the intermediate host to the definitive host requiring consumption of infected intermediate host prey. The variable sizes of squares, circles and diamonds represent relative intermediate and definitive hosts, and parasite abundances, respectively. During transmission, some parasites are unsuccessful and therefore lost from the system (parasite loss); the thickness of the arrows indicates the relative numbers that are either lost or successfully transmitted. The life cycle at the top represents the situation prior to the invasion, providing a benchmark for comparisons. (A) The invader is a suitable alternative intermediate host in which native parasite larvae can survive. However, the introduced host is also a poor transmission vector, due to low predation rate from the definitive host and/or failed host manipulation by the parasite, for example. Introduced hosts are thus more infected than their congeneric, native hosts only because of the accumulation of native parasite larvae that fail to get transmitted to the definitive host. This may in turn negatively affect parasite dynamics in native hosts as shown here. (B) The invader is again a suitable alternative intermediate host but also a good transmission vector to the definitive host, leading to greater infection risk for native definitive hosts. In this case, the invader positively influences parasite dynamics and may increase infection levels in definitive hosts, as shown here. In extreme cases, invasive hosts may be more efficient vectors for the parasite than native hosts and become key hosts. (C) The invader is not a suitable host but directly impacts native intermediate hosts, the transmission vector for the parasite, through predation and thus indirectly reduces native parasite abundance in native definitive hosts.
Fig. 1 in Impacts of crustacean invasions on parasite dynamics in aquatic ecosystems: A plea for parasite-focused studies
Fig. 1. Hypothetical examples of enemy release (A), dilution effect (B), parasite spillback (C) and spillover (D) following introduction of a non-native host in a recipient ecosystem, illustrating the fundamental differences among the different processes. The theoretical recipient ecosystem is here composed of a native host infected by a parasite with a simple life cycle and direct transmission, invaded by a congeneric non-native host infected with a co-introduced parasite with a similar life cycle, to simplify representation. The variable sizes of squares and diamonds represent relative host and parasite abundances, respectively. The thickness of the arrows represents transmission dynamics of the parasite and account for parasite loss during transmission. Enemy release (A) happens when the introduced species benefits from a reduction, or total loss as represented here, in parasitism as a result of invasion. This may in turn have drastic effects on invasion success and both native and invasive host abundances. Dilution effect (B) results from the failure of native parasites to use invasive hosts for successful reproduction and transmission. Native parasites may be unable to infect or be killed (as represented here) by the invasive host. Dilution may in turn decrease parasite transmission among native hosts and negatively affect parasite population dynamics. Parasite spillback (C) happens when invasive hosts acquire a native parasite that is already present in the native host population. Infected invasive hosts can then act as reservoirs of native parasites, potentially increasing infection levels in native hosts as represented here. Increased infection levels in the native host may in turn reduce native host abundance, compared to pre-invasion levels (not represented here). Parasite spillover (D) follows the co-introduction of non-native parasites with their invasive hosts and infection of native hosts by the introduced parasite. Infection of the native host can be maintained by the invasive host, which acts as a reservoir of infection, self-sustained if the parasite can reproduce in its novel host, or both as represented here. Infection of the native host by the introduced parasite can in turn influence host abundances, compared to pre-invasion levels. Note that in scenario D, the native host may or may not possess native parasites.
Fig. 3 in Impacts of crustacean invasions on parasite dynamics in aquatic ecosystems: A plea for parasite-focused studies
Fig. 3. Introduced parasites ‾ native/introduced hosts: hypothetical examples of the potential effects of invasive crustaceans on native parasites. Note that only a subsample of non-exclusive scenarios from a number of potential outcomes of non-native parasite introduction is represented here. The hypothetical non-native parasite considered here has a two-host life cycle involving a definitive host predator and an intermediate host prey, transmission from the intermediate host to the definitive host requiring consumption of infected intermediate host prey. The variable sizes of squares, circles and diamonds represent relative intermediate and definitive hosts, and parasite abundances, respectively. During transmission, some parasites are unsuccessful and therefore lost from the system (parasite loss); the thickness of the arrows indicates the relative numbers that are either lost or successfully transmitted. The life cycle at the top left represents the situation in the ecosystem of origin of the parasite, providing a benchmark for comparisons. Prior to the invasion, the hypothetical recipient ecosystem does not contain native parasites for simplification of representation. (A) The parasite is co-introduced with its intermediate host prey. The invasive parasite retains its original, co-introduced hosts and uses native definitive hosts to complete its life cycle. The situation represented here is the simplest one where the native predator exactly replaces the original definitive host of the parasite with no effect on either parasite dynamics or host abundance. However, parasite invasion may in turn negatively affect native predators and change parasite dynamics compared to that observed in the original ecosystem (shown at the top left). (B) The parasite is again cointroduced with its intermediate host prey. The invasive parasite retains its original, co-introduced hosts and uses native definitive hosts to complete its life cycle but also uses the native prey species as an alternative transmission vector. The introduced parasite may negatively influence native host abundance, thus influencing invasion success of its co-introduced host, as shown here. This may in turn lead to greater infection levels in definitive hosts in the recipient ecosystem than in the original ecosystem of the parasite (situation not represented here) (C) The non-native parasite is introduced without its original host (or this host does not survive translocation) but is subsequently included in the recipient food web. The novel parasite may in turn have drastic effects on intermediate and/or native hosts and reach higher infection levels in these novel hosts as represented here. However, a multitude of alternative scenarios are possible with as many outcomes in terms of parasite dynamics.
Figure 6 in Intensity and prevalence of some crustacean fish parasites in Turkey and their molecular identification
Figure 6. Livoneca punctata on gill of Alosa immaculata (A), manca (B, D), adult female L. punctata and its juvenile manca (C).
Figure 5 in Intensity and prevalence of some crustacean fish parasites in Turkey and their molecular identification
Figure 5. Infestation of Nerocila spp. on Platichthys flesus (A) and infestation of Nerocila bivittata on Pegusa nasuta (B), mechanic injury on caudal peduncle of sole (C), clear lesions on caudal fin of sea bass (D. labrax) (D).
Fig. 1 in Infestation pattern and parasitic castration of the crustacean Riggia paranensis (Crustacea: Cymothoidea) on the fresh water fish Cyphocharax gilbert (Teleostei: Curimatidae)
Fig. 1. Relationship between size of Riggia paranensis and its host Cyphocharax gilbert classified into two (groups 3 and 4) body length indexes [BLI= [((TLRi mm)/(SLCy mm)).100]: total body length of the parasite (TLRi) and standard length of the host (SLCy)]. The total includes all hosts and parasites collected between September 1997 to August 2000. Data are also presented separately for the autumn-winter (March through August) and spring-summer (September through February) periods. All specimens collected in the middle rio Itabapoana, Brazil.
Figure 4 in Intensity and prevalence of some crustacean fish parasites in Turkey and their molecular identification
Figure 4. Caligus minimus male (A), caudal rami (B), lunules (C), sternal furca (D).
Figure 2 in Intensity and prevalence of some crustacean fish parasites in Turkey and their molecular identification
Figure 2. Caligus minimus on mouth cavity (A) and tongue (B) of Dicentrarchus labrax.
Figure 1 in Intensity and prevalence of some crustacean fish parasites in Turkey and their molecular identification
Figure 1. Sampling area.
Exploring the preservation of a parasitic trace in decapod crustaceans using finite elements analysis
<p>The fossil record of parasitism is poorly understood, due largely to the scarcity of strong fossil evidence of parasites. Understanding the dynamics of preservation for fossil parasitic evidence is critical to contextualizing the fossil record of parasitism. Here, we present the first use of X-ray computed tomography (CT) scanning and finite elements analysis (FEA) to analyze the impact of a parasite-induced fossil trace on host preservation. Seven fossil and modern decapod crustacean specimens with branchial swellings attributed to an epicaridean isopod parasite were CT scanned and examined with FEA to assess differences in the magnitude and distribution of stress between normal and swollen branchial chambers. The results of the FEA show highly localized stress peaks in reaction to point forces, with higher peak stress on the swollen branchial chamber for all specimens, suggesting a possible shape-related decrease in the preservation potential of these parasitic swellings. Broader application of these methods as well as advances in the application of 3D data analysis in paleontology are critical to understanding the fossil record of parasitism and other poorly represented fossil groups.</p>
Figure 4 in ERRATUM The gastropod-crustacean connection: towards the phylogeny and evolution of the parasitic copepod family Splanchnotrophida
Figure 4. Phylogeny of Splanchnotrophidae. Strict consensus tree of the main parsimony analysis with bootstrap support (> 50, in parentheses) and Bremer decay values. Geographical distributions are indicated according to major regions. Branch length reflects number of character-state changes.
Exploring the preservation of a parasitic trace in decapod crustaceans using finite elements analysis
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Resistance to a bacterial parasite in the Crustacean Daphnia magna shows Mendelian segregation with dominance
The influence of host and parasite genetic background on infection outcome is a topic of great interest because of its pertinence to theoretical issues in evolutionary biology. In the present study we use a classical genetics approach to examine the mode of inheritance of infection outcome in the crustacean Daphnia magna when exposed to the bacterial parasite Pasteuria ramosa. In contrast to previous studies in this system we use a clone of P. ramosa, not field isolates, which allows for a more definitive interpretation of results. We test parental, F1, F2, backcross and selfed parental clones (total 284 genotypes) for susceptibility against a clone of P. ramosa using 2 different methods, infection trials and the recently developed attachment-test. We find that D. magna clones reliably exhibit either complete resistance or complete susceptibility to P. ramosa clone C1 and that resistance is dominant and inherited in a pattern consistent with Mendelian segregation of a single-locus with two alleles. The finding of a single host locus controlling susceptibility to P. ramosa suggests that the previously observed genotype-genotype interactions in this system have a simple genetic basis. This has important implications for the outcome of host-parasite coevolution. Our results add to the growing body of evidence that resistance to parasites in invertebrates is mostly coded by one or few loci with dominance.
Figure 2 from: Aneesh P-T, Sudha K, Helna AK, Anilkumar G, Trilles J-P (2014) Multiple parasitic crustacean infestation on belonid fish Strongylura strongylura. In: Wehrtmann IS, Bauer RT (Eds) Proceedings of the Summer Meeting of the Crustacean Society and the Latin American Association of Carcinology, Costa Rica, July 2013. ZooKeys 457: 339-353. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.457.6817
Figure 2 - A Simultaneous occurrence of parasitic crustaceans (Cymothoa frontalis, Lernanthropus tylosuri, Caligodes lacinatus and Bomolochus bellones, Dermoergasilus coleus) parasitizing the fish Strongylura strongylura B Levels of single, double, triple and quadruple crustacean parasitism on the fish Strongylura strongylura C Double parasitism on the fish Strongylura strongylura – different combinations is represented in percentage D Triple parasitism on the fish Strongylura strongylura – different combinations is represented in percentage E Quadruple parasitism on the fish Strongylura strongylura – different combinations is represented in percentage. Legends: CL – Cymothoa frontalis and Lernanthropus tylosuri; CCl – Cymothoa frontalis and Caligodes lacinatus; CB – Cymothoa frontalis and Bomolochus bellones; LCl – Lernanthropus tylosuri and Caligodes lacinatus; LB – Lernanthropus tylosuri and Bomolochus bellones; CLCl – Cymothoa frontalis, Lernanthropus tylosuri and Caligodes lacinatus; CLB – Cymothoa frontalis, Lernanthropus tylosuri and Bomolochus bellones; CLD – Cymothoa frontalis, Lernanthropus tylosuri and Dermoergasilus coleus; LClD – Lernanthropus tylosuri, Caligodes lacinatus and Dermoergasilus coleus; CLBD – Cymothoa frontalis, Lernanthropus tylosuri, Bomolochus bellones and Dermoergasilus coleus; CClBD – Cymothoa frontalis, Caligodes lacinatus, Bomolochus bellones and Dermoergasilus coleus.
Figure 1 from: Aneesh P-T, Sudha K, Helna AK, Anilkumar G, Trilles J-P (2014) Multiple parasitic crustacean infestation on belonid fish Strongylura strongylura. In: Wehrtmann IS, Bauer RT (Eds) Proceedings of the Summer Meeting of the Crustacean Society and the Latin American Association of Carcinology, Costa Rica, July 2013. ZooKeys 457: 339-353. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.457.6817
Figure 1 - A Host fish Strongylura strongylura B–E Cymothoa frontalis B male C transitional D female E juvenile F Lernanthropus tylosuri – female G Bomolochus bellones – female H Caligodes lacinatus – female I Dermoergasilus coleus.
Data from: Resistance to a bacterial parasite in the Crustacean Daphnia magna shows Mendelian segregation with dominance
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.