Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:22:13.349Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The migration and development of Filaroides hirthi larvae in dogs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Jay R. Georgi
Affiliation:
New York State College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. 14853
Glenn R. Fahnestock
Affiliation:
New York State College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. 14853
Marguerite F. K. Bohm
Affiliation:
New York State College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. 14853
Jane C. Adsit
Affiliation:
New York State College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. 14853

Summary

The development of Filaroides hirthi has been shown to proceed through all 5 stages in the lungs of experimental dogs and the attendant morphological changes are described and illustrated. These observations are interpreted as proof that the unhatched larva of F. hirthi is the 1st stage and that the 1st stage is infective. Moults occurred at approximately 1, 2, 6 and 9 days after infection in the lung tissue. Larvae also developed in vitro to the doubly ensheathed 3rd stage which is the stage achieved by heteroxenous metastrongyloids in their molluscan intermediate hosts. The arrival of 1st-stage larvae in the lungs as early as 6h after oral administration and the anatomical distribution of larvae during the first 24 h indicates that larvae are transported from the alimentary tract to the lungs by way of the hepatic portal circulation, the mesenteric lymphatic drainage, or both. First-stage larvae and eggs containing 1st-stage larvae, when injected into the jugular vein, developed into adult F. hirthi lung- worms in the usual 5 week pre-patent period. This was interpreted as demonstrating that the canine alimentary canal, although undoubtedly the normal portal of entry, is not a site of reactions indispensable to the activation or development of the larvae. Eggs containing 1st-stage larvae, when introduced by jugular and portal venous and mesenteric lymphatic routes, yielded equivalent numbers of adult lungworms indicating that neither the hepatic capillary bed nor the mesenteric lymph nodes presented quantitatively significant impediments to their passage. The question is raised whether the mesenteric lymphatics really are the exclusive migration pathways of certain other species of metastrongyloid larvae. The suggestion is made that conventional studies based on the anatomical/time distribution of larvae be supplemented by intravascular experiments like those described in this report, to provide an independent line of evidence.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

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

Anderson, R. C. (1962). The systematics and transmission of new and previously described metastrongyles (Nematoda: Metastrongylidae) from Mustela vision. Canadian Journal of Zoology 40, 893920.Google Scholar
Croll, N. A. (1977). The location of parasites within their hosts: the behavioural component in the larval migrations of Nippostrongylus brasiliensis in the tissues of the rat. International Journal for Parasitology 7, 201–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorrington, J. E. (1968). Studies on Filaroides osleri infestation in dogs. Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research 35, 225–86.Google Scholar
Georgi, J. R. (1976). Filaroides hirthi: experimental transmission among Beagle dogs through ingestion of first-stage larvae. Science 194, 735.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Georgi, J. R., Georgi, M. E. & Cleveland, D. J. (1977). Patency and transmission of Filaroides hirthi infection. Parasitology 75, 251–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polley, L. & Creighton, S. R. (1977). Experimental direct transmission of the lungworm Filaroides osleri in dogs. Veterinary Record 100, 136–7.Google Scholar