Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T10:44:11.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic influences upon eosinophilia and resistance in mice infected with Trichinella spiralis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

D. A. Lammas ,
D. Wakelin ,
L. A. Mitchell ,
M. Tuohy ,
K. J. Else  and
R. K. Grencis
D. A. Lammas
Affiliation:
Department of Life Science, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD
D. Wakelin
Affiliation:
Department of Life Science, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD
L. A. Mitchell
Affiliation:
Department of Life Science, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD
M. Tuohy
Affiliation:
Department of Life Science, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD
K. J. Else
Affiliation:
Immunology Group, Department of Cell and Structural Biology, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PT
R. K. Grencis
Affiliation:
Immunology Group, Department of Cell and Structural Biology, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PT
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Genetic influences upon host variation in eosinophilia and resistance to helminth infection, and the relationship between these parameters, were investigated in 7 inbred and 1 hybrid strains of mice infected with Trichinella spiralis. Clear strain-dependent variations were observed in the maximum peripheral blood, bone marrow and spleen eosinophilia attained in infected animals. SWR, NIH and SJL strains of mice all gave high responses to infection; four congenic strains sharing the B10 background (C57BL10 [B10], B10.S, B10.G and B10.BR) were low responders. Some of the genes for high responsiveness appeared to be dominant, as F1 hybrids from high- and low-response phenotype parental strains showed intermediate to high responses to infection. Intestinal eosinophilia showed no correlation with either peripheral blood or bone marrow responses (NIH and B10 strains having similar levels of eosinophil response in gut tissue) and was unrelated to the level of resistance to infection. Whereas NIH were highly resistant, with adult worm burdens at 13 days post-infection and muscle larval burdens at 35 days post-infection significantly lower than all other strains, B10 were quite susceptible, retaining substantial worm burdens at day 13 and harbouring large numbers of muscle larvae. Measurements of the level of the eosinophilopoietic cytokine IL-5 in sera during infection showed that the two strains differed in the kinetics of release but not in their absolute capacity to produce this cytokine. NIH mice released high levels during a primary infection, B10 released high levels during a secondary infection. The relationship between eosinophilia and resistance and the differences seen between responses in different body compartments are discussed in terms of genetically determined influences operating at the levels of T helper cell populations, T cell cytokines and bone-marrow precursor cell populations.

Keywords

Trichinella spiralisnematodeeosinophiliagenetic variationresistancecytokinesIL-5inbred mice.
Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 105 , Issue 1 , August 1992 , pp. 117 - 124
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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

REFERENCES

Adewusi, K. & Goven, A. J. (1987). Effect of antithymocyte serum on the eosinophil and phospholipase responses in mice infected with Trichinella spiralis. Parasitology 94, 115–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alizadeh, H. & Wakelin, D. (1982). Genetic factors controlling the intestinal mast cell response in mice infected with Trichinella spiralis. Clinical and Experimental Immunology 49, 331–5.Google ScholarPubMed
Butterworth, A. E. (1984). Cell-mediated damage to helminths. Advances in Parasitology 23, 143–235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colley, D. G. (1974). Variations in peripheral blood eosinophil levels in normal and Schistosoma mansoni infected mice. Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine 83, 871–6.Google Scholar
Dawkins, H. J. S., Windon, R. G. & Eagleson, G. K. (1989). Eosinophil responses in sheep selected for high and low responsiveness to Trichostrongylus colubriformis. International Journal for Parasitology 19, 199–207.Google Scholar
Else, K. J. & Grencis, R. K. (1991). Cellular immune responses to the murine nematode parasite Trichuris muris. 1. Differential cytokine production during acute or chronic infection. Immunology 72, 508–13.Google ScholarPubMed
Finkelman, F. D., Pearce, E. J., Urban, J. F. & Sher, A. (1991). Regulation and biological function of helminth-induced cytokine responses. In Immunoparasitology Today (ed. Ash, C. & Gallagher, R. B.), pp. 62–6. Cambridge: Elsevier Trends Journals.Google Scholar
Grove, D. I., Mahmoud, A. A. F. & Warren, K. S. (1977). Eosinophils and resistance to Trichinella spiralis. Journal of Experimental Medicine 145, 755–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Handlinger, J. H. & Rothwell, T. L. W. (1981). Studies on the responses of basophil and eosinophil leucocytes and mast cells to the nematode Trichostrongylus colubriformis: comparison of cell populations in parasite resistant and susceptible guinea-pigs. International Journal for Parasitology 11, 67–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurley, J. C. & Vadas, M. A. (1983). Eosinophilia and acquisition of resistance to Nematospiroides dubius in mice sensitized with adult worms. Australian Journal of Experimental Biology and Medical Science 61, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lammas, D. A., Mitchell, L. A. & Wakelin, D. (1987). Adoptive transfer of enhanced eosinophilia and resistance to infection by an in vitro generated T-cell line specific for Mesocestoides corti larval antigen. Parasite Immunology 9, 591–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lammas, D. A., Mitchell, L. A. & Wakelin, D. (1988). Genetic control of eosinophilia in parasitic infections: responses of mouse strains to treatment with cyclophosphamide and parasite antigen. International Journal for Parasitology 18, 1077–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lammas, D. A., Mitchell, L. A. & Wakelin, D. (1990). Genetic influences upon eosinophilia and resistance in mice infected with Mesocestoides corti. Parasitology 101, 291–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pincus, S. H., Cammarata, P. V., Delima, M. & Despommier, D. D. (1986). Eosinophilia in murine trichinellosis. Journal of Parasitology 72, 321–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Riedlinger, J., Grencis, R. K. & Wakelin, D. (1986). Antigen-specific T cell lines transfer protective immunity against Trichinella spiralis in vivo. Immunology 58, 57–61.Google ScholarPubMed
Sewell, W. A. & Vadas, M. A. (1983). Evidence for the control of eosinophilia by the major histocompatibility complex in mice. Immunogenetics 17, 167–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sugane, K. & Oshima, T. (1985). Induction of a marked eosinophilia by cyclophosphamide in Toxocara canis-infected SJL mice. Parasite Immunology 7, 255–63.Google Scholar
Tuohy, M., Lammas, D. A., Wakelin, D., Hungley, J. F., Newlands, G. F. J. & Miller, H. R. P. (1990). Functional correlations between mucosal mast cell activity and immunity to Trichinella spiralis in high and low responder mice. Parasite Immunology 12, 675–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vadas, M. A. (1980). Parasite immunity and the major histocompatibility complex. Immunogenetics 11, 215–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vadas, M. A. (1982). Genetic control of eosinophilia in mice: genes expressed in bone marrow-derived cells control high responsiveness. Journal of Immunology 128, 691–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wakelin, D. (1988). Helminth infections. In Genetics of Resistance to Bacterial and Parasitic Infection, (ed. Wakelin, D. & Blackwell, J. M.), pp. 153–224. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Wakelin, D. & Donachie, A. M. (1983). Genetic control of eosinophilia. Mouse Strain variation in response to antigens of parasite origin. Clinical and Experimental Immunology 51, 239–46.Google ScholarPubMed
Wakelin, D. & Lloyd, M. (1976). Immunity to primary and challenge infections of Trichinella spiralis in mice: a re-examination of conventional parameters. Parasitology 72, 173–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yoshimura, K. (1989). The eosinophil in parasitic infections. In Current Concepts in Parasitology (ed. Krco, C.), pp. 7–46. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar