Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:03:38.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The response of hamsters to primary and secondary infection with Trichinella spiralis and to vaccination with parasite antigens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2009

J.M. Behnke ,
M.S. Dehlawi ,
R. Rose ,
P.N. Spyropoulos  and
D. Wakelin
J.M. Behnke
Affiliation:
Experimental Parasitology Research Group, Department of Life Science, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK
M.S. Dehlawi
Affiliation:
Experimental Parasitology Research Group, Department of Life Science, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK
R. Rose
Affiliation:
Experimental Parasitology Research Group, Department of Life Science, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK
P.N. Spyropoulos
Affiliation:
Experimental Parasitology Research Group, Department of Life Science, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK
D. Wakelin
Affiliation:
Experimental Parasitology Research Group, Department of Life Science, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The duration of primary infections with T. spiralis was dose-dependent with greater proportional loss of worms from heavily infected hamsters and longer persistence of worms in syngeneic DSN hamsters carrying initially low intensity infections. Intestinal worms were lost more rapidly from challenged immunized animals with over 80% loss of established worms by day 6 post infection, but survival of residual worms for a further 2 weeks. Hamsters carrying initially more than 140 intestinal worms began to lose weight during the second week indicating severe pathology at this stage of infection. Mucosal mast cell numbers increased from 50 cells/20 villus crypt units in uninfected animals to a peak in excess of 150 during week 4 pi, although intestinal mastocytosis persisted long after the loss of the majority of adult worms. Serum antibody responses to muscle stage larval antigen were detected in week 3 and increased subsequently. Both mastocytosis and antibody responses were more intense on secondary exposure to infection. Hamsters vaccinated with muscle stage larval antigen showed only a moderately accelerated loss of the intestinal phase but the fecundity of worms was severely suppressed. Overall it was concluded that the hamster host provided a model of trichinellosis that, in many respects was closer than mice and rats to the pattern of infection seen in economically and clinically important host species.

Type
Research Papers
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 68 , Issue 4 , December 1994 , pp. 287 - 294
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

Alizadeh, H. & Wakelin, D. (1982) Comparison of rapid expulsion of Trichinella spiralis in mice and rats. International Journal for Parasitology 12, 65–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Almond, N.M. & Parkhouse, R.M.E. (1986) Immunoglobulin class specific responses to biochemically defined antigens of Trichinella spiralis. Parasite Immunology 8, 391–406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bell, R.G., McGregor, D.D., Woan, M.C. & Adams, L.S. (1983) Trichinella spiralis: selective intestinal immune deviation in the rat. Experimental Parasitology 56, 129–142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boyd, E.M. & Huston, E.J. (1954) The distribution, longevity and sex ratio of Trichinella spiralis in hamsters following an initial infection. Journal of Parasitology 40, 686–690.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Concannon, J. & Ritterson, A.L. (1965) Comparative recoveries of adult worms from Chinese and golden hamsters fed known doses of Trichinella spiralis. Journal of Parasitology 51, 938–941.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gamble, H.R., Murrell, K.D. & Marti, H.P. (1986) Immunization of pigs against Trichinella spiralis using excretory-secretory antigen. American Journal of Veterinary Research 47, 2396–2399.Google Scholar
Goyal, P. & Wakelin, D. (1993) Influence of variation in host strain and parasite isolate on inflammatory and antibody responses to Trichinella spiralis in mice. Parasitology 106, 371–378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jungery, M. & Ogilvie, B.M. (1982) Antibody response to stage-specific Trichinella spiralis surface antigens in strong and weak responder mouse strains. Journal of Immunology 129, 839–843.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, M.W. (1980) Effects of the host immune response on the longevity, fecundity and position in the intestine of Trichinella spiralis in mice. Parasitology 80, 49–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lowry, O., Rosenbrough, N., Farr, A. & Randall, R. (1951) Protein measurement with folin-phenol reagent. Journal of Biological Chemistry 193, 265–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marti, H.P. & Murrell, K.D. (1986) Trichinella spiralis: antifecundity and antinewborn larvae immunity in swine. Experimental Parasitology 62, 370–375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meddis, R. (1984) Statistics using ranks. A unified approach. New York, Basil Blackwell Publishers Ltd.Google Scholar
Murrell, K.D. (1985) Trichinella spiralis: acquired immunity in swine. Experimental Parasitology 59, 347–354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ozeretskovskaya, N.N. & Tumolskaya, N.I. (1974) Clinical pattern and pathogenesis of the abdominal syndrome in trichinellosis. pp. 389–398. in Kim, C.W. (Ed.) Trichinellosis. Proceedings of the third international conference on trichinellosis.New York,Intext Educational Publishers.Google Scholar
Ritterson, A.L. (1959) Innate resistance of species of hamsters to Trichinella spiralis and its reversal by cortisone. Journal of Infectious Diseases 105, 253–266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sadun, E.H. & Norman, L. (1956) Effect of single inocula, of varied size, on the resistance of hamsters to Trichinella spiralis. Journal of Parasitology 42, 608–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takada, N. & Tada, T. (1987) Evaluation on natural resistance of Chinese hamster against trichina infection. II. Intestinal distribution and fecundity of adult worms associated with the course of expulsion. Japanese Journal of Parasitology 36, 322–327.Google Scholar
Wakelin, D. (1980) Genetic control of immunity to parasites. Infection with Trichinella spiralis in inbred and congenic mice showing rapid and slow responses to infection. Parasite Immunology 2, 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wakelin, D. & Denham, D.A. (1983) The immune response. pp. 265–308in Campbell, W.C. (Ed.) Trichinella and trichinosis. New York, Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wakelin, D. & Lloyd, M. (1976) Immunity to primary and challenge infections of Trichinella spiralis in mice: a re-examination of conventional parameters. Parasitology 72, 173–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wakelin, D. & Wilson, M.M. (1977) Transfer of immunity to Trichinella spiralis in the mouse with mesenteric lymph node cells: time of appearance of effective cells in donors and expression of immunity in recipients. Parasitology 74, 215–224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed