leete at slack.med.upenn.edu (Tom Leete) writes:
> I was referring to the fact that during human infection, P. vivax
>maintains a synchronous life cycle: the progression from ring to
>trophozoite
>to schizont occurs at roughly the same time, leading to waves of RBC lysis
>and resulting fever, etc. P. falciparum, on the other hand, does not
>maintain
>this synchronous growth; rather, RBC lysis is fairly continuous. This is
>part of what makes P. falciparum so pathogenic. It seems to
>me that vivax must have some sort of method or signal to maintain
>synchronous
>growth, while falciparum does not. Of course, P. falciparum can be
>synchronized
>in culture, but after only a few generations that synchrony is lost.
Falciparum infections are synchronous -- at least as much so as vivax --
with the additional complication that trophozoites and schizonts are
largely sequestered. It is true that in vitro the cultures lose
synchrony .. but that is a problem of the culture system, no the malaria.
If you are interested in a malaria parasite with axynchronous growth,
you might try the mouse malaria, P. berghei.
Good luck on you project!
-- Steve
