# Anyone ever tested their roaches for parasite?



## gothra (Aug 18, 2009)

My dubia colony has pinworms. I have started over 3 times since 2 years ago, everytime when the number starts to build up, I find traces of parasite in their "excretion" (squeeze the roach to obtain a bit of wet poop, then check under microscope). The colony itself seems very healthy, breeding and eating very well, I hardly have any deaths or dropped egg case. Its only when you look at the poop with a microscope, then you'll notice the presence of parasite(s). I wonder how common this is, I have obtained roaches from 2 different sources, and both ended up the same after a year.

I have talked to my vet about this (I own leopard geckos), she said pinworms are species specific, so my geckos won't get infected from eating the roaches.

I am not going to discard my colony and start all over again this time. I'm going to mix a bit of panacur in their water once a week for 6 weeks and see if that'll help. I'll post the outcome later if anyone is interested to know.


----------



## Matt K (Aug 18, 2009)

Panacur should kill off the roaches pretty well.  It should not be a problem for your reptiles, but if you are concerned you can treat the reptiles with the panacur as a prevenative measure.

Most insects, reptiles, humans, etc., carry a fair variety of commensurate gut fauna.  This is normal.


----------



## gothra (Aug 18, 2009)

Actually, there is no need to treat the reptiles at all, because the roach pins cannot infect reptiles; the pinworm eggs will be ate and passed undigested. About the panacur killing the roaches, that may happen I don't know, but I'm willing to give that a try. It just makes me feel so much better if I can make my feeder roaches absolutely parasite free.

Thanks for your reply.


----------



## Galapoheros (Aug 18, 2009)

Seems like your curiosity has to do with where the parasites came from(?)  Me too, I wonder if they come from fruit flies or some other kind of insects flying around that landing in the roach colony.  I plan on getting a good microscope, a friend of mine got a good professional one off of Craigslist.  I've had several cheapy ones when I was a kid.  But it's time for the real thing!


----------



## gothra (Aug 18, 2009)

Yea, I found a silver fish in the tub before, I wonder if it could be the source? If it is, then it'll hard to prevent...


----------



## Stylopidae (Aug 18, 2009)

What makes you think what you're seeing are parasites and not something else, like an agaeus? 

What are you using to look at their frass?

Post pictures of your roaches.

There are two types of pinworms, one specific to humans and another that can infest either humans or chimpanzees. What you are seeing are most certianly _not_ pinworms as you know them.

The nematodes that most often infest insects tend to kill them as part of their life cycle, so unless you're seeing a massive dieoff I doubt what you're seeing are parasites.

Most treatments that kill nematodes tend to kill insects as well. Treating is a bad idea.


----------



## Matt K (Aug 18, 2009)

Thank you Cheshire for chiming in... that is the points I should have made earlier.
Panacur- if it will kill one invertebrate (worm) it can kill most others (roaches included).  2+2=4, normally.


----------



## Galapoheros (Aug 18, 2009)

I think "pinworm" was used to describe the look of the worms, because of human bias lol, "we" get pinworms.  It does sound like their roaches have some kind of worm in their gut though.  The roaches defecate less processed food when under stress and it sounds like that's what they are looking at under the micro.  What do you think these things are and how do you think they got there?


----------



## skips (Aug 19, 2009)

I'd like to see if it will kill his roaches.  fenbendazole is supposed to have a high affinity for parasite tubulins over others.  I think there are a few factors that make it an interesting experiment.  One is that parasites have to have a very readily permeable cell structure to obtain nutrition--obviously vertebrates dont.  But the roach does have an open circulatory system whereas vertebrates obviously dont.

With the comment that most nematode species kill their hosts.  I really have no idea.  You may be right, but would that really make evolutionary sense?  Its a guiding principle at least in virology; if you kill your host you'd better be incredibly virulent.  Otherwise it makes much more sense to let the host live so that you have more time to reproduce.  Point being, do you think it is the case that most cases we _see_ are where the host is killed?  I'm willing to bet there are several "normal" species that live in all our roaches.

I want to go look at some roach frass...when I get a microscope to use.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stylopidae (Aug 19, 2009)

skips said:


> I'd like to see if it will kill his roaches. fenbendazole is supposed to have a high affinity for parasite tubulins over others.  I think there are a few factors that make it an interesting experiment.  One is that parasites have to have a very readily permeable cell structure to obtain nutrition--obviously vertebrates dont.  But the roach does have an open circulatory system whereas vertebrates obviously dont.


There are deeper biochemical differences that I won't get into, but I think you've got the essential idea. Medicines work on the basis of differential toxicity. The things that you give horses to kill their parasites are toxic, but the effect the parasites more than the horses.

Problem is that insects and nematodes are related. Not closely but enough so that things like avermectin will kill both lice and nematodes, and leave humans untouched. I'd be very wary of using anything used to kill nematodes on cockroaches.

As for parasites needing to be permeable, this isn't necessarily true. They need a mouth and an intestine at bare minimum.

I'm not familiar with this drug, or it's mechanism of action, so I won't say with absolute certianty that it _will_ kill the roaches, but I feel comfortable saying that it's a very, very bad idea.



> With the comment that most nematode species kill their hosts.  I really have no idea.  You may be right, but would that really make evolutionary sense?  Its a guiding principle at least in virology; if you kill your host you'd better be incredibly virulent.  Otherwise it makes much more sense to let the host live so that you have more time to reproduce.  Point being, do you think it is the case that most cases we _see_ are where the host is killed?  I'm willing to bet there are several "normal" species that live in all our roaches.
> 
> I want to go look at some roach frass...when I get a microscope to use.


Oh, definitely. When it comes to insect pathology, the guiding principle for the research is 'how can we use this to our advantage' and that's what we tend to focus on. An entomologist can work in all sorts of fields like agriculture or medicine, but I've been told that the main job for a parasitologist is teaching.

Anyways, evolution is a funny thing. What's best for one critter might not work so well for another. Tachinid flies and parasitoid wasps (for example) are thought to have evolved their lifestyles through scavenging and predation respectively. Both kill the hosts. It's kind of like predation, but over a much longer time period.

What most nematodes do aren't too different. A nematode like _Steinernema_ will infect it's host with a bacterium that kills it, then uses the bacteria as a food source. Something like a mermithid or a nematomorph will use the host as a food source to complete it's development and then kill the host when it's no longer needed.

That's the funny thing about evolution...some critters will benefit from their host's longetivity, some won't. Viruses are the same way. Some insect viruses will kill the insect outright after converting 30% of the insect's mass to virus (that's a lot of virus) some viruses, like the yellow fever virus, will barely effect one of their hosts (the mosquito) but may kill another host in their life cycle (the human)

Evolution only cares about what works. 

But in either case, you're absolutely right...I should have said most _known_ entomoparasitic (insect-parasitic) nematodes kill their hosts because the research that's done on those buggers seems to have a utilitarian bias to it which doesn't mesh with the ecological one we were discussing.

There's a lot to be discovered, and you're right that there may be some endosymbionts/commensals that cockroaches have that we don't know about.

Just didn't want someone pouring something into their roach colonies that might kill the roaches or spiders.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## blazetown (Aug 19, 2009)

If you had access to something to radiate the roaches with that might work lol. I saw american roaches subject to lethal doses to a person that weren't even touched by the radiation...ah mythbusters lol


----------



## skips (Aug 19, 2009)

Cheshire said:


> There are deeper biochemical differences that I won't get into, but I think you've got the essential idea. Medicines work on the basis of differential toxicity. The things that you give horses to kill their parasites are toxic, but the effect the parasites more than the horses.
> 
> Problem is that insects and nematodes are related. Not closely but enough so that things like avermectin will kill both lice and nematodes, and leave humans untouched. I'd be very wary of using anything used to kill nematodes on cockroaches.
> 
> ...


If you're going to make a biochemistry point, please explain the biochemistry.  Right, panacur works on the basis that it prefers certain parasite tubulins like nematodes, trematodes, even some protozoans over other cell types, which it still binds to.  I'm saying he should test it on a few and then move on to use it on the others.

You're absolutely right that not all parasite need to be permeable.  I've said before, if there's a crevice capable of sustaining life, there's a parasite for it.  And they are more related being both part of the ecdysozoa, but to the extent that fenbendazole will work I think anybody would hard pressed to comment with any certainty.  Plus, eve though nematodes have a cuticle, do they really selectively allow fluids into the pseudocoelom?  If not selective I cant see rennet cells being nearly as efficient at getting rid of toxins as malpighian tubules.

As far as virology.  Being that virulent is I would say a necessary evil, not an intrinsic thing.  They've done studies where in villages in africa they basically fought their water born diseases (giardia, ameobic dysentary, etc.) by not fighting them.  By giving a parasite greater access to it's host, it doesnt need to be as virulent.  That's what happened.  Virulence is usually an evolutionary trade off you dont really want to use, but sometimes you have to.  Evolution is definitely about what works, but it's fundamentally about what's laziest but will still allow you to reproduce.  out of 100,000 described species of nematode with almost no morphological way to discern which is which, trying to say which one is in that roach is...a stretch.  And out of 100,000 species only 15,000 are parasitic.  So my question would be with those studies.  Were they done generally, looking at every nematode in a sample group, or were they dont on specifically those nematodes that are adversely parasitic?--especially as this would make a researcher more inclined to get a grant.

I would definately not recommend giving panacur to all the roaches, but trying a subset of them can't hurt.  Though I think even the OP realizes that all of our pets have ubiquitous gut flora that dont negatively effect the host.


----------



## gothra (Aug 19, 2009)

I did try to take some pics last time, I showed the pics to my vet and she said those could be a type of pinworms. I did actually see 2 moving worms in one sample but didn't have a pic of that. I don't have the best microscope and I held the camera by hand, so its not the best quality; but here are the pics at 100x magnification:













I don't know much on the biochemistry stuff, I'm only trying the panacur on one group of dubias (mostly babies); I gave the first dose on Friday, they're still kicking as of today. I'll keep updating my experiment.


----------



## skips (Aug 19, 2009)

I'm glad they are still kicking.  I've used fenbendazol on chickens, dart frogs, dogs, etc.  In my dart frogs it didnt work...so I cant say it will definitely work for you.  If your babies are still alive in 3 or so treatments I would try and use them on adults as the next thing id be worried about is the infertility of your adults.

Another good question, how much would it cost to use panacur on your entire colony?  I would think very expensive and maybe not worth it?  Your choice though


----------



## gothra (Aug 19, 2009)

I only have a small colony with about 80 adults. I bought panacur powder that is intended for dogs. I made the solution very diluted, and just sprayed a thin layer on the water crystals. I will take away all their water source on Thursday night, then I will put back a dish of medicated crystals on Friday night. I hope they will be thirsty enough to go for the crystals right away.


----------



## Stylopidae (Aug 21, 2009)

Skips...what, exactly, do you do? Are you a biology student? If not, you should be.



skips said:


> If you're going to make a biochemistry point, please explain the biochemistry.  Right, panacur works on the basis that it prefers certain parasite tubulins like nematodes, trematodes, even some protozoans over other cell types, which it still binds to.  I'm saying he should test it on a few and then move on to use it on the others.


Although not a whole lot about nematode biochemistry is known, it's thought that nematodes are very closely related to the arthropods. A large part of this is based on the fact that they moult as do the arthropods, but also that the same chemicals (20-hydroxyecysone...since you seem to have an interest in biochemistry) that trigger moulting in insects will also trigger nematodes to moult.

I'm going to mention that the relationships between nematodes and the rest of the ecdysozoa are pretty much up for grabs. Nobody really knows how to place most of the members in that clade, and further studies will be needed to determine any relationships.



> You're absolutely right that not all parasite need to be permeable.  I've said before, if there's a crevice capable of sustaining life, there's a parasite for it.  And they are more related being both part of the ecdysozoa, but to the extent that fenbendazole will work I think anybody would hard pressed to comment with any certainty.  Plus, eve though nematodes have a cuticle, do they really selectively allow fluids into the pseudocoelom?  If not selective I cant see rennet cells being nearly as efficient at getting rid of toxins as malpighian tubules.


The nematode's cuticle is made up of a really thick layer of collagen, and many species will ensheath themselves in a partially shed cuticle as protection against the elements (entomopathogenic species do this). Combine this with the fact that nematodes need to maintain a really high pressure inside their bodies to move, I'd say that it's relatively impermeable.

Not that this means that certian chemicals can't filter in or out through the cuticle...after all, _we_ have a very impermeable surface that covers our body and some substances are absorbed through the skin very well. Nematodes are also thought to expel metabolic wastes through their body walls...so there is some exchange with the environment.

Nobody really knows what the renette system does, even though lots of folks call it an excretory system.



> As far as virology.  Being that virulent is I would say a necessary evil, not an intrinsic thing. Virulence is usually an evolutionary trade off you dont really want to use, but sometimes you have to.  Evolution is definitely about what works, but it's fundamentally about what's laziest but will still allow you to reproduce.


I might have said before that evolution favors the lazy, but I'm beginning to question that. What's 'lazy' will vary quite a bit between lineages and will depend greatly on physiology and other things.

For example, to become resistant to some pesticides insects will often produce more of a specific type of esterase (something which noms a specific type of chemical bond) rather than simply change the action site of the enzyme the pesticide will disable. Producing a significant amount of those enzymes (often tens to hundreds of times more) will require more energy than producing the modified enzyme.

They do this because modifying something like acetylcholinesterase will have some pretty drastic fitness tradeoffs whereas upregulating esterases will have less fitness tradeoffs.

Some insects simply up and modify acetylcholinesterase, as well.

It's bizarre, but that's what makes it cool. 

I'd have to ask you for documentation on the whole parasite thing.



> Out of 100,000 described species of nematode with almost no morphological way to discern which is which, trying to say which one is in that roach is...a stretch.  And out of 100,000 species only 15,000 are parasitic.  So my question would be with those studies.  Were they done generally, looking at every nematode in a sample group, or were they dont on specifically those nematodes that are adversely parasitic?--especially as this would make a researcher more inclined to get a grant.


They were done by a group of people far more familiar with nematode ecology than we are. An entomologist in a specific feild will know a bit about the ecology of his insects, but an entomologist in a different feild (medical VS pollinator biology for example) will know almost nothing about those insects. However, if you get them to collaborate on a project, they'll be able to compare notes.

I'm guessing that's how those studies were done.



> I would definately not recommend giving panacur to all the roaches, but trying a subset of them can't hurt.  Though I think even the OP realizes that all of our pets have ubiquitous gut flora that dont negatively effect the host.


It's not just that there are gutflora that won't hurt the cockroach, some of those gutflora the cockroach can't live without. You wipe those out, you could very well kill your colony.

When treating feeders, you also have to worry about biomagnification with anything you feed them.

Unless the OP has a chemistry lab with the proper reagents available to them, I'd strongly recommend against further experimenting on the roaches which the OP intends to feed to their tarantulas.

To the OP: one of the reasons I wanted you to post pictures was to look for microsporidia. Insects with microsporidian infections take on very specific symptoms which I should be able to recognize with some good quality photographs of the bugs in question.


----------



## gothra (Aug 22, 2009)

Ok, here are some pictures of my roaches taken just then. I don't know if they are good enough, but its about the best I can get of them.

























Also, what do you think about the previous microscope pics that I posted? Do they look like pinworm eggs to you? I want to mention again that I did see 2 actual worms swimming in one of the sample.


----------



## skips (Aug 22, 2009)

Cheshire said:


> Skips...what, exactly, do you do? Are you a biology student? If not, you should be.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


how do you do that thing where you pull the quote apart by they way?  I cant figure out how to do that


----------



## Galapoheros (Aug 22, 2009)

There is some basic programming language they explain somewhere on this site about how to do that, it my be a sticky.


----------



## Stylopidae (Aug 23, 2009)

If you hit this button 

	
	
		
		
	


	




, you'll be able to see the programming language on the site which looks like this sans asterisks:

[*QUOTE=skips;1470357*]how do you do that thing where you pull the quote apart by they way?  I cant figure out how to do that[*/QUOTE*]

Copy the beginning part, including brackets and put it in the section of the chunk of text then copy the end and put it at the end of that same chunk of text.

The number up there corresponds to the post being quoted. If you're quoting someone who might say that you're taking them out of context (I've seen you in TWH...you're gonna encounter this ere too long), you're going to need the semicolon and that number.

As for my background, I am an entomology student at Iowa State University and plan to study pesticide resistance in parasite vectors (ideally...we'll see how that goes).

Anyways...reply later.


----------

