From owner-schistosoma@net.bio.net Tue Jun 11 23:00:00 1996 Path: biosci!HSPH.HARVARD.EDU!cshoemak From: cshoemak@HSPH.HARVARD.EDU (Charles Shoemaker) Newsgroups: bionet.organisms.schistosoma Subject: Schisto glucose transport reply Date: 12 Jun 1996 10:17:06 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 62 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net The following reply to the discussion topic on glucose transport in schisto, composed by Eain Cornford, is forwarded to schistonet with his approval. Please send future replies and additional discussion to the schistonet community as a whole. Thanks, Chuck Shoemaker. Dear Dr. Shoemaker I recently received a message via Ray Damian, and I am responding to your schistonet community suggestion that a discussion be initiated regarding schistosome glucose transport. In response to your query A: Do schistos use active transport? PRO Although I have heard Gary Uglem tell audiences that this is the case, I do not believe any of the three more common schistosome species possess an active transporter. (I know of no reliable evidence supporting such a notion.) CON I would politely remind you that the glucose transporters your group has identified from schisto share homologies with the GLUT1-like mammalian transporter, and not with the sodium-dependent, active SGLT1 transporter which Ernie Wright has sequenced. This you already know. It is accepted that glucose is actively transported in the rat tapeworm H. diminuta, but I do not believe the responsible transporter has been identified. Data which I believe support the hypothesis that schisto glucose transport is not active are from our work (JP 74:116-28, 1988; and EP 73:489-99, 1991). We demonstrated that the initial rate influx of glucose (at tracer concentrations) was greater than that of water in H. diminuta. We measured the Tissue Uptake index (TUI) of glucose in both species; the TUI measures the amount of 14-C glucose influx relative to 3-HOH influx in 5 seconds, with correction for surface-adherent isotopes. In tapeworms the TUI was 120-130% at tracer concentrations. A TUI of more than 100% means that glucose influx was greater than water, and is consistent with an active transporter mechanism. In schistosomes, the glucose influx rate (maximal at tracer concentrations) is on the order of 30% relative to that of water, and the data consistent with a facilitated diffusion mechanism. Furthermore, we estimated the internal free glucose concentration in schistosomes and showed that over the range of anticipated physiological glucose levels, the male glucose content was approximately 20% of the external concentration and the female about 10% (Mol Biochem Parasit 17:131, 1985). We could find no evidence for concentration of glucose in the schistosomes. It seems unlikely that the schisto would need an efflux mechanism for glucose. I have wondered whether readers confuse the SGLT1 of the gut brush border, with the SGTP isoforms of the schistosome, and I know that Ernie always refers to "the sodium-dependent, active, SGLT1" in speaking to audiences. I hope this information is of use to you. Regards Eain From owner-schistosoma@net.bio.net Mon Jun 17 23:00:00 1996 Path: biosci!biochem.dgk.ruu.nl!tielens From: tielens@biochem.dgk.ruu.nl ("A.G.M. Tielens") Newsgroups: bionet.organisms.schistosoma Subject: schisto discussion reply Date: 18 Jun 1996 04:07:23 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 120 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <199606181105.NAA08132@dgkm.diva.dgk.ruu.nl> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net Dear colleagues, I think the initiative of Patrick Skelly and Chuck Shoemaker to start scientific Schistonet dialogues on selected aspects of schistosome research is good and could be very stimulating. I will gladly add some comments and additional discussion topics. *************** Regarding Issue 1-A: Do females need males to obtain much of their glucose? I don't think there is enough evidence to state that males transfer glucose to females. Our experiments on paired and unpaired worms showed that females do not need males for the synthesis of glycogen [Tielens et al. Pararasitol. 98 (1889) 67-73]. Unpaired females were well able to consume glucose without the assistance of males, and unpaired females synthesized glycogen at the same rate as paired females. Apparently the capacity for glucose uptake of unpaired females is not only sufficient for the amount required for immediate use, it is even large enough for the replenishment of depleted glycogen stores. Our results do not exclude the possibility that, in vivo, males stimulate the intake of host erythrocytes by the female [Gupta and Basch, J.Par. 73(1987) 481]. However, an essential role of the male in the uptake of glucose by the female is very unlikely now it is known that female S. mansoni worms do not require any help for the uptake of glucose. ************** Regarding issue 2: What happens to the host glucose after absorption from the host? What is the function of glycogen in adult schistosomes? Relatively large glycogen stores are present in all stages of schistosomes. The function of glycogen in free-living stadia is obvious as they have no access to external food resources, and glycogen is their indispensible energy reserve for the time they need to reach and penetrate a new host. However, adult schistosomes also have large glycogen reserves throughout their body, and these are metabolically active. We showed that these stores are continuously replenished in vivo [MBP 39(1990)195-202]. Energy reserves seem not necessary as these adult worms are surrounded by blood of the host which provides a continuous supply of glucose. We suggested that glycogen is used intermittently, for instance, for the muscle contractions necessary for crawling, and that the glycogen stores are then (almost) instantaneously replenished. Are there any other reasonable alternatives? Additional question: If these glycogen reserves are to be used in other cells than the ones the glycogen is stored in, the gluconeogenic enzyme glucose 6-phosphatase will have to be present in S. mansoni. We showed that this enzyme is indeed present in adult schistosomes [Tielens et al., Parasitol. 102 (1991) 267-276]. In that same article we demonstrated that the other gluconeogenic enzymes (Pyruvate carboxylase, FBPase and PEPCK) are also present in adult schistosomes. What can be the function of these enzymes in adult schistosomes? Gluconeogenesis could not be demonstrated in that and other studies and, indeed, it is difficult to conceive of this process in adults, as they never encounter circumstances in which glucose is scarce or absent, and in which at the same time gluconeogenic substrates are available. As long as the host is alive, its glucostatic mechanisms will provide ample glucose for the parasite in the bloodstream. However, no other function, for example catabolic, could be assigned for the observed gluconeogenic enzymes. So, why are they present? What is their function? Maybe PEPCK, which is remarkably active in schistosomes, has a catabolic function also in this parasite? In other parasitic helminths PEPCK is known to be a catabolic enzyme, necessary for malate dismutation. Adult schistosomes are known, however, to degrade glucose mainly to lactate, but to rely also on Krebs cycle activity for energy generation. Malate dismutation had never been demonstrated in schistosomes. Recently, however, we showed that the sporocysts (in this case in vitro transformed miracidia) produce a large amount of succinate via PEPCK under anaerobic conditions [Tielens et al. MBP (1992) 49-58] This succinate production does not occur in the preceding stage, the miracidia, nor in cercariae or adults. Or does it occur and is the succinate further metabolized or used for anabolic functions?, which would explain the presence of the large PEPCK activity in adults that I mentioned above. *************************** Regarding issue 3 How does it benefit schistosomes to shut down oxidative metabolism upon cercarial transformation? I have discussed this matter in earlier publications [MBP 51(1992) 73-80, Parasitol Today 10 (1994) 346-352]. I want to suggest that schistosomes switch for economic reasons to rapid lactate production as soon as external glucose becomes available. Several systems are known with a comparable rapid glycolytic flux. Hexokinase could play a distinct role in this proces and we have recently shown that the schistosomal hexokinase indeed has the required properties: a high affinity for glucose and a moderate sensitivity to inhibition by glucose 6-phosphate [Tielens et al. JBC 269(1994) 24736-24741]. See the 3 above mentioned papers for a more elaborate discussion on this topic. ************************ All the questions raised by Skelly and Shoemaker clearly demonstrate that the metabolism of schistosomes is still far from being resolved, but I do hope this discussion on internet will help to get a better picture of OUR worm. Best regards, Louis Tielens **************************************************************** Dr. A.G.M. Tielens Laboratory of Veterinary Biochemistry Utrecht University P.O.Box 80176 3508 TD Utrecht The Netherlands tel: (+31 30) 2535380 fax: (+31 30) 2535492 e-mail: tielens@biochem.dgk.ruu.nl *************************************************************** From owner-schistosoma@net.bio.net Tue Jun 18 23:00:00 1996 Path: biosci!daresbury!nntp-trd.UNINETT.no!Norway.EU.net!EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail From: kingfsher@aol.com (KingFsher) Newsgroups: bionet.organisms.schistosoma Subject: New WILDLIFE ECOLOGY Digest! Date: 19 Jun 1996 08:07:34 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Lines: 16 Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com Message-ID: <4q8qi6$87h@newsbf02.news.aol.com> Reply-To: kingfsher@aol.com (KingFsher) NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com Greetings, I am in the process of developing a weekly digest for conversation, thoughts, and general postings concerning wildlife ecology... To receive this digest, please send e-mail to: kingfshr@northcoast.com with the subject: "Subscribe to WED." Any questions can also be sent to this address... Let's hope this develops into a great resource for all! Thanks, David Doyle (kingfshr@northcoast.com) From owner-schistosoma@net.bio.net Tue Jun 18 23:00:00 1996 Path: biosci!internet!biosci!not-for-mail From: biohelp (BIOSCI Administrator) Newsgroups: bionet.organisms.schistosoma Subject: IMPORTANT - BIOSCI Fundraising Update! Date: 19 Jun 1996 02:00:19 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 154 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <199606190900.CAA05709@net.bio.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net BIOSCI is about halfway to its funding goal!! I'm interrupting the usual monthly posting of the BIOSCI miniFAQ to bring you up to date on BIOSCI fundraising progress, a topic of concern to your future use of this resource. Thank you in advance for taking the time to read this message carefully. Last year we announced that BIOSCI was going to adopt the U.S. Public Broadcasting System model to fund its operations after our DOE/NSF grant runs out later this year. Unlike PBS, we are not soliciting contributions from users; we are only selling ads on our Web pages solely to cover our operating costs. Our goal is to seek sponsorships until we build up an operating reserve of about $100,000 and then cease further promotions until we need to build the reserve back up. (The accountants among our readership will be familiar with the problem of deferred revenue which we can not safely utilize until ads have been displayed for a period of time.) We are only about halfway to our funding goal and need to raise further funds to avoid having to curtail services at net.bio.net. Fundraising is time-consuming, however, and we need your help as explained further below. Our operating costs consist of our network connection, phone lines, hardware maintenance (we will be getting newer and faster hardware soon!), plus 0.7 FTE of salaries covering UNIX systems admin, technical support, quality assurance, i.e., testing, of our system, and administrative costs (such as the time it takes to actually find/write/call potential sponsors and raise money!). Although the BIOSCI staff does get compensated for a portion of the work that they do, this project has always received a lot of free after-hours and "vacation" time labor, so we hope that no one will begrudge the time that we do charge to the project to serve you. All of the three part-time staff members, Dave Mack, Julie Lawrence, and myself, have full time day jobs and families in addition to working hard to keep this service running for all of you. Julie and Dave Mack are subcontractors for BIOSCI; my time that is charged to the project defrays a portion of my regular salary instead of adding to my income. Besides having to relocate the project, we were very busy this last year building new infrastructure such as our WWW hypermail interface to the system. This was released last December along with scores of WAIS indices for the newsgroups. Virtually everything is complete, although we do continue to find and fix bugs (many through your helpful feedback!). We are still having some problems with our WAIS indexing. The archives continue to grow rapidly. We are running over 100 indexes now versus three previously and any systems crashes cause greater havoc with the indexing than before! We are still working to fix this as fast as our resources permit and appreciate your patience, but we have been able to automate a lot of the infrastructure to reduce labor as compared to past requirements. We have also implemented new software to make moderation of BIOSCI/bionet newsgroups much easier and combat the growing problem of Internet junk mail and USENET "spamming." About 20% of our groups are now moderated, many of them by the BIOSCI staff! This, for example, made a major difference last year in the quality of content in our EMPLOYMENT/bionet.jobs.offered newsgroup which many commercial concerns and recruiting firms are using **without charge** to recruit candidates for positions in the biological sciences. We are also now in a position to have sponsors for individual newsgroups as you will have noticed if you have visited http://www.bio.net/ and clicked on "Access the BIOSCI/bionet newsgroups" recently. So, how can you help?? ---------------------- As noted above it can take a lot of time to contact potential sponsors if I have to do it all myself. Our request is quite simple. You can do two important things which will take very little time for you individually. First, please use our WWW system at http://www.bio.net/ to access the archives. You can now post or reply to messages via your Web browser. Your usage helps attract sponsors. If you contact any of our sponsors, please be sure to thank them for supporting BIOSCI. It is critical for them to get this feedback if they are to continue their sponsorship for the long term. Second, if you work for a company or organization that provides products or services of interest to the biology community, please pass this message on to your marketing or marketing communications department or other appropriate group. Please ask them to help support BIOSCI by sponsoring our Web site and explain the uses and benefits of the system to the biology community. If they are interested, they can then contact us for further information at our tech support address, biosci-help@net.bio.net. Our hope is to quickly raise several large corporate/institutional sponsors on our heavily-used WWW locations (some stats appended below), and then end this sponsorship campaign so that our resources can continue to be used for service provision, not fundraising. Many of our specialty newsgroup WWW archives are still used by small communities of scientists (and they haven't been heavily promoted yet). While these may be valuable niche markets to some advertisers, it will generate more labor and overhead having to find these sponsors, fairly price the locations, and deal with lots of smaller sponsorships than fewer mid-to large sponsors. We are striving to keep our operation as lean and efficient as possible since we are not trying to make careers out of running BIOSCI. We are trying if at all possible to avoid the administrative overhead entailed with processing lots of small payments to reach our fundraising goals. I'd like to thank all of you for your help in advance. In helping us, you are also helping yourselves, not only in keeping this resource available for all of the both large and small research communities that we serve, but also by alleviating the need for us to go back and compete with researchers for tight grant dollars! We promised NSF when we were awarded the BIOSCI grant that we would carry out this mission to make the service self-supporting. With your help, we will succeed in continuing BIOSCI's work into its second decade. Thank you very much! Sincerely, Dave Kristofferson BIOSCI/bionet Manager biosci-help@net.bio.net A list of our prime WWW sponsorship locations follow. Please contact us for further details. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The overall BIOSCI WWW pages are currently visited by users from close to 5500 unique computer hosts per week. Web servers only log the Internet computer/host name and frequently more than one individual can connect to us from a particular host. Main home page, http://www.bio.net, visited recently by about 2100 unique hosts per week Main Newsgroups archives page, http://www.bio.net/archives.html, visited recently by about 1200 Unique hosts per week BIO-JOURNALS archive page, http://www.bio.net/BIO-JOURNALS.html, visited recently by about 1000 unique hosts per week. EMPLOYMENT archive pages: http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/EMPLOYMENT/ and monthly header pages, visited recently by about 800 unique hosts per week. Address database search page, http://www.bio.net/addrsearch.html, visited recently by about 450 unique hosts per week. Methods newsgroup archive pages, http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/METHDS- REAGNTS/ and monthly header pages, visited recently by about 350 unique hosts per week. Ads can also be displayed on various combinations of other BIOSCI/bionet newsgroups. Please contact us at biosci-help@net.bio.net for details. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-schistosoma@net.bio.net Tue Jun 18 23:00:00 1996 Path: biosci!daresbury!not-for-mail From: "A.G.M. Tielens" Newsgroups: bionet.organisms.schistosoma Subject: schisto discussion reply Date: 19 Jun 1996 12:32:28 +0100 Lines: 101 Sender: lpddist@mserv1.dl.ac.uk Distribution: bionet Message-ID: <4q8ogc$1dr@mserv1.dl.ac.uk> X-Sender: tielens@dgkm.diva.dgk.ruu.nl Original-To: schisto@dl.ac.uk Dear colleagues, The initiative of Patrick Skelly and Charles Shoemaker is very good, to start scientific Schistonet dialogues on selected aspects of schistosome research and I will gladly add some comments and additional discussion topics. *************** Regarding Issue 1-A: Do females need males to obtain much of their glucose? I don't think there is enough evidence to state that males transfer glucose to females. Our experiments on paired and unpaired worms showed that females do not need males for the synthesis of glycogen [Tielens et al. Pararasitol. 98 (1889) 67-73]. Unpaired females were well able to consume glucose without the assistance of males, and unpaired females synthesized glycogen at the same rate as paired females. Apparently the capacity for glucose uptake of unpaired females is not only sufficient for the amount required for immediate use, it is even large enough for the replenishment of depleted glycogen stores. Our results do not exclude the possibility that, in vivo, males stimulate the intake of host erythrocytes by the female [Gupta and Basch, J.Par. 73(1987) 481]. However, an essential role of the male in the uptake of glucose by the female is very unlikely now it is known that female S. mansoni worms do not require any help for the uptake of glucose. ************** Regarding issue 2: What happens to the host glucose after absorption from the host? What is the function of glycogen in adult schistosomes? Relatively large glycogen stores are present in all stages of schistosomes. The function of glycogen in free-living stadia is obvious as they have no access to external food resources, and glycogen is their indispensible energy reserve for the time they need to reach and penetrate a new host. However, adult schistosomes also have large glycogen reserves throughout their body, and these are metabolically active. We showed that these stores are continuously replenished in vivo [MBP 39(1990)195-202]. Energy reserves seem not necessary as these adult worms are surrounded by blood of the host which provides a continuous supply of glucose. We suggested that glycogen is used intermittently, for instance, for the muscle contractions necessary for crawling, and that the glycogen stores are then (almost) instantaneously replenished. Are there any other reasonable alternatives? Additional question: If these glycogen reserves are to be used in other cells than the ones the glycogen is stored in, the gluconeogenic enzyme glucose 6-phosphatase will have to be present in S. mansoni. We showed that this enzyme is indeed present in adult schistosomes [Tielens et al., Parasitol. 102 (1991) 267-276]. In that same article we demonstrated that the other gluconeogenic enzymes (Pyruvate carboxylase, FBPase and PEPCK) are also present in adult schistosomes. What can be the function of these enzymes in adult schistosomes? Gluconeogenesis could not be demonstrated in that and other studies and, indeed, it is difficult to conceive of this process in adults, as they never encounter circumstances in which glucose is scarce or absent, and in which at the same time gluconeogenic substrates are available. As long as the host is alive, its glucostatic mechanisms will provide ample glucose for the parasite in the bloodstream. However, no other function, for example catabolic, could be assigned for the observed gluconeogenic enzymes. So, why are they present? What is their function? Maybe PEPCK, which is remarkably active in schistosomes, has a catabolic function also in this parasite? In other parasitic helminths PEPCK is known to be a catabolic enzyme, necessary for malate dismutation. Adult schistosomes are known, however, to degrade glucose mainly to lactate, but to rely also on Krebs cycle activity for energy generation. Malate dismutation had never been demonstrated in schistosomes. Recently, however, we showed that the sporocysts (in this case in vitro transformed miracidia) produce a large amount of succinate via PEPCK under anaerobic conditions [Tielens et al. MBP (1992) 49-58] This succinate production does not occur in the preceding stage, the miracidia, nor in cercariae or adults. Or does it occur and is the succinate further metabolized or used for anabolic functions?, which would explain the presence of the large PEPCK activity in adults that I mentioned above. All the questions raised by Skelly and Shoemaker clearly demonstrate that the metabolism of schistosomes is still far from being resolved, but I do hope this discussion on internet will help to get a better picture of our worm. Best regards, Louis Tielens **************************************************************** Dr. A.G.M. Tielens Laboratory of Veterinary Biochemistry Utrecht University P.O.Box 80176 3508 TD Utrecht The Netherlands tel: (+31 30) 2535380 fax: (+31 30) 2535492 e-mail: tielens@biochem.dgk.ruu.nl *************************************************************** From owner-schistosoma@net.bio.net Tue Jun 18 23:00:00 1996 Path: biosci!rutgers!sgigate.sgi.com!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsrelay.netins.net!news.mtcnet.net!mahaffy From: mahaffy@dordt.edu (James Mahaffy) Newsgroups: bionet.organisms.schistosoma Subject: Bird Schistosoma problem Date: 19 Jun 1996 16:08:08 GMT Organization: Dordt College, Sioux Center, IA Lines: 28 Distribution: world Message-ID: <4q98l8$8q@mtc1.mtcnet.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: cc.dordt.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Folks, Apologies if this is too practical a question, but I would like to help my town lick a problem with Schistosoma. We have a small (1.3 million gallons) 2 « acres 19 foot deep swimming hole (old sand quarry) here in North West Iowa. This year, for the first time, about 10 kids have come down with classic symptoms of swimmers itch. Although this is a very small percentage of the swimmers, I would appreciate suggestions on some ways to solve the problem and let campers let their kids swim. There were a few more waterfowl (mallards and a few Canadian Geese) than normal that visited earlier in the Spring. There are no water fowl resident right now. Is there a way to cut down on the snail carriers? How far do the cercaria swim? I suggested removing algae from the sandy area. Will copper sulphate solve the problem? I suspect being sure to shower and towel afterwards helps but that does not solve the problem. Appreciate any feedback. -- : James F. Mahaffy e-mail: mahaffy@dordt.edu Biology Department phone: 712 722-6279 Dordt College FAX 712 722-1198 Sioux Center, Iowa 51250 From owner-schistosoma@net.bio.net Wed Jun 19 23:00:00 1996 Path: biosci!rz.uni-duesseldorf.de!greveld From: greveld@rz.uni-duesseldorf.de ("Dr. Christoph Grevelding") Newsgroups: bionet.organisms.schistosoma Subject: Re: Bird Schistosoma problem Date: 20 Jun 1996 01:16:05 -0700 Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology Lines: 60 Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: world Message-ID: <199606200812.BAA01193@net.bio.net> Reply-To: "Dr. Christoph Grevelding" NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net James Mahaffy wrote: > Folks, > > Apologies if this is too practical a question, but I would like > to help my town lick a problem with Schistosoma. We have a > small (1.3 million gallons) 2 « acres 19 foot deep swimming hole > (old sand quarry) here in North West Iowa. This year, for the > first time, about 10 kids have come down with classic symptoms of > swimmers itch. Although this is a very small percentage of the > swimmers, I would appreciate suggestions on some ways to solve > the problem and let campers let their kids swim. There were a > few more waterfowl (mallards and a few Canadian Geese) than > normal that visited earlier in the Spring. There are no water > fowl resident right now. > > Is there a way to cut down on the snail carriers? How far do the > cercaria swim? I suggested removing algae from the sandy area. > Will copper sulphate solve the problem? I suspect being sure to > shower and towel afterwards helps but that does not solve the > problem. > > Appreciate any feedback. > > -- > : > James F. Mahaffy e-mail: mahaffy@dordt.edu > Biology Department phone: 712 722-6279 > Dordt College FAX 712 722-1198 > Sioux Center, Iowa 51250 Dear James, there is no reason to apologize concerning your question. This kind of questions was one of the reasons for us to establish this newsgroup and I would appreciate if more members of this newsgroup would participate in this way. Recently, Ken Mott from the WHO has send a message to this newsgroup concerning a new WEB PAGE that has been installed on cercarial dermatitis at: http://www.aquatica.com at which he wrote a section concerning your problem. I cannot remember details of this page but perhaps it could be of interest to you. Sincerely Christoph Dr.Christoph G.Grevelding Genetische Parasitologie des Instituts fuer Genetik der Heinrich-Heine-Universitaet 40225 Duesseldorf Germany Tel.: 49-211-81-13070 Fax : 49-211-81-12333 Fax : 49-211-81-12279 e-mail: Christoph.Grevelding@uni-duesseldorf.de From owner-schistosoma@net.bio.net Wed Jun 19 23:00:00 1996 Path: biosci!bcm.tmc.edu!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsrelay.netins.net!news.mtcnet.net!mahaffy From: mahaffy@dordt.edu (James Mahaffy) Newsgroups: bionet.organisms.schistosoma Subject: Chiggers now not itch Date: 20 Jun 1996 14:40:40 GMT Organization: Dordt College, Sioux Center, IA Lines: 14 Distribution: world Message-ID: <4qbnt8$hqn@mtc1.mtcnet.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: cc.dordt.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Folks, Thanks for all of you who responded to my post about swimmers itch. The local dermatologist says it is a bad case of chiggers not swimmers itch. Thanks for your help. -- : James F. Mahaffy e-mail: mahaffy@dordt.edu Biology Department phone: 712 722-6279 Dordt College FAX 712 722-1198 Sioux Center, Iowa 51250