Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T01:37:39.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Susceptibility to coccidiosis: effect of strain of mouse on reproduction of Eimeria vermiformis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

M. Elaine Rose ,
Dawn G. Owen  and
Patricia Hesketh
M. Elaine Rose
Affiliation:
1 Houghton Poultry Research Station, Houghton, Huntingdon, Cambs. PE17 2DA
Dawn G. Owen
Affiliation:
2 M.R.C. Laboratory Animals Centre, Carshalton, Surrey SM5 4EF
Patricia Hesketh
Affiliation:
1 Houghton Poultry Research Station, Houghton, Huntingdon, Cambs. PE17 2DA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The reproduction of Eimeria vermiformis in different strains of phenotypically normal mice and in mice with various immunological characteristics or defects was compared. In some strains of phenotypically normal mice there were marked differences in oocyst production, both in terms of numbers and in the duration of patency, allowing the strains to be classified as resistant or susceptible to infection with E. vermiformis. These differences were apparent only in primary infections; both types of strain were equally resistant to reinfection. Amongst the strains of mice with immunological deficiencies, reproduction of the parasite was greatest in the athymic (nu/nu) mutants and these mice were completely susceptible to reinfection. Strains of mice with lowered or defective antibody production, or with defective neutrophils and low NK cell activity (bg/bg) were more susceptible than the relevant controls to primary infection but all developed substantial immunity to reinfection. Asplenic (Dh/+) mutants were remarkably resistant to infection.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 88 , Issue 1 , February 1984 , pp. 45 - 54
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

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

Bennet, J. M., Blume, R. S. & Wolff, S. M. (1969). Characterization and significance of abnormal leukocyte granules in the beige mouse: a possible homologue for Chediak-Higashi Aleutian trait. Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine 73, 235–43.Google Scholar
Ernst, J. V., Chobotar, B. & Hammond, D. M. (1971). The oocysts of Eimeria vermiformis sp.n. and E. papillata sp.n. (Protozoa: Eimeriidae) from the mouse Mus musculus. Journal of Protozoology 18, 221–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernando, M. A. (1982). Pathology and pathogenicity. In The Biology of the Coccidia (ed. Long, P. L.), pp. 287–327. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Festing, M. F. W. (1980). Inherited immunological defects in laboratory animals. In Immunodeficient Animals in Cancer Research (ed. Sparrow, Stephen), pp. 5–23. London: MacMillan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irwin, A. D., Young, E. R., Osborn, G. D. & Francis, L. M. A. (1981). A comparison of Babesia infections in intact, surgically splenectomised and congenitally asplenic (Dh/+) mice. International Journal for Parasitology 11, 251–5.Google Scholar
Jeffers, J. K. & Shirley, M. W. (1982). Genetics, specific and infraspecific variation. In The Biology of the Coccidia (ed. Long, P. L.), pp. 64–120. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, L. W. & Edgar, S. A. (1982). Responses to prolonged selection for resistance and susceptibility to acute cecal coccidiosis in the Auburn Strain Single Comb White Leghorn. Poultry Science 61, 2344–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klesius, P. M., Elstron, A. L., Chambers, W. H. & Fudenberg, H. N. (1979). Resistance to coccidiosis (Eimeria ferrisi) in C57BL/6 mice: effects of immunization and transfer factor. Clinical Immunology and Immunopathology 12, 143–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klesius, P. H. & Hinds, S. E. (1979). Strain-dependent differences in murine susceptibility to coccidia. Infection and Immunity 26, 1111–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lane, P. N. & Murphy, E. D. (1972). Susceptibility to spontaneous pneumonitis in an inbred strain of beige and satin mice. Genetics 72, 451–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, P. L., Millard, B. J., Joyner, L. P. & Norton, C. C. (1976). A guide to laboratory techniques used in the study and diagnosis of avian coccidiosis. Folia Veterinaria Latina 6, 201–17.Google Scholar
Long, P. L. & Rose, M. E. (1970). Extended schizogony of Eimeria mivati in betamethasone treated chickens. Parasitology 60, 147–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayberry, L. F., Marquardt, W. C., Nash, D. J. & Plan, B. (1982). Genetic dependent transmission of Eimeria separata from Rattus to three strains of Mus musculus, an abnormal host. Journal of Parasitology 66, 1124–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mesfin, G. M. & Bellamy, J. E. C. (1979). Thymic dependence of immunity to Eimeria falciformis var. pragensis in mice. Infection and Immunity 23, 460–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitchell, G. F. (1979). Responses to infection with metazoan and protozoan parasites in mice. Advances in Immunology 28, 451–511.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Padgett, G. A., Holland, J. M., Davis, W. C. & Henson, J. B. (1969). The Chediak-Higashi syndrome: a comparative review. Current Topics in Pathology 51, 175–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, L. T., Johnson, L. W. & Edgar, S. A. (1961). The comparative resistance of several inbred lines of S.C. White Leghorns to certain infectious diseases. Poultry Science 40, 1442 (Abstract).Google Scholar
Rose, M. E. (1968). The effect of splenectomy upon infection with Eimeria tenella. Parasitology 58, 481–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, M. E. (1970). Immunity to coccidiosis: effect of betamethasone treatment of fowls on Eimeria mivati infection. Parasitology 60, 137–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, M. E. & Hesketh, P. (1979). Immunity to coccidiosis: T-lymphocyte- or B-lymphocyte-deficient animals. Infection and Immunity 26, 630–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, M. E. & Hesketh, P. (1982). Coccidiosis: T-lymphocyte dependent effects of infection with Eimeria nieschulzi in rats. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology 3, 499–508.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, M. E., Hesketh, P. & Ogilvie, B. M. (1979). Peripheral blood leucocyte response to coccidial infection: a comparison of the response in rats and chickens and its correlation with resistance to reinfection. Immunology 36, 71–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Rose, M. E. & Lee, D. L. (1977). Interactions in vitro between sporozoites of Eimeria tenella and host peritoneal exudate cells: electron microscopal observations. Zeitschrift für Parasitenkunde 54, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, M. E., Ogilvie, B. M., Hesketh, P. & Festing, M. F. W. (1979). Failure of nude (athymic) rats to become resistant to reinfection with the intestinal coccidian parasite Eimeria nieschulzi or the nematode Nippostrongylus brasiliensis. Parasite Immunology 1, 125–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spicer, S. S., Sato, A., Vincent, R., Eguchi, M. & Poon, K. C. (1981). Lysosome enlargement in the Chediak-Higashi syndrome. Federation Proceedings 40, 1451–5.Google ScholarPubMed
Todd, K. S. & Lepp, D. L. (1971). The life cycle of Eimeria vermiformis Ernst, Chobotar and Hammond, 1971 in the mouse Mus musculus. Journal of Protozoology 18, 332–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wakelin, D. (1978). Genetic control of susceptibility and resistance to parasitic infection. Advances in Parasitology 16, 219–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed