Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:07:08.800Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transfer of Eimeria apionodes from wood mice (Apodemus sylvaticus) to laboratory mice (Mus musculus)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

S. A. M. Ibrahim  and
F. Nowell
S. A. M. Ibrahim
Affiliation:
Department of Pure and Applied Zoology, School of Animal and Microbial Sciences, University of Reading, Whiteknights, P.O.Box 228, Reading, Berkshire RG6 2AJ
F. Nowell
Affiliation:
Department of Pure and Applied Zoology, School of Animal and Microbial Sciences, University of Reading, Whiteknights, P.O.Box 228, Reading, Berkshire RG6 2AJ
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Transfer of Eimeria apionodes from wood mice directly into untreated laboratory mice was unsuccessful but transfer into corticosteroid-treated animals produced an oocyst output, about 1000 times less than that observed from wood mice after a similar inoculum. Repeated passage through corticosteroid-treated laboratory mice resulted in a line adapted to survival in untreated animals. This line was compared with the parent strain maintained in wood mice and some features of the oocyst output patterns, notably the pre-patent period, appeared to be controlled by the host species. The oocyst production of each population was higher in the host species to which it was adapted than in the other host species (P > 0·001). Once adapted to laboratory mice, the line produced insignificantly different levels of oocysts in corticosteroid-treated and untreated animals (P > 0·05).

Keywords

Eimeria apionodesApodemus sylvaticushost specificityhydrocortisone
Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 103 , Issue 2 , October 1991 , pp. 179 - 183
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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

Gabrielsen, A. E. & Good, R. A. (1967). Chemical suppression of adaptive immunity. Advances in Immunology 6, 92–229.Google ScholarPubMed
Green, M. C. (1981). Catalog of mutant genes and polymorphic loci. In Genetic Variants and Strains of the Laboratory Mouse (ed. Green, M. C.), pp. 8–278. Stuttgart, New York: Gustav Fischer Verlag.Google Scholar
Higgs, S. & Nowell, F. (1988). Laboratory studies with clones of Eimeria hungaryensis, a parasite of the wood mouse Apodemus sylvaticus. Parasitology 97, 213–20.Google ScholarPubMed
Higgs, S., Nowell, F. & Ibrahim, S. A. M. (1988). The initiation and maintenance of a colony of coccidia-free wood mice (Apodemus sylvaticus). Laboratory Animals 22, 54–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jeffers, T. K. (1975). Attenuation of Eimeria tenella through selection for precociousness. Journal of Parasitology 61, 1083–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keen, P. M. (1987). Uses and abuses of corticosteroids. In The Veterinary Annual (27th issue) (ed. Grunsell, C. S. G., Hill, F. W. G. & Raw, M.-E.), pp. 45–62. Bristol: Scientechnica.Google Scholar
Klesius, P. H. & Hinds, S. E. (1979). Strain dependent differences in murine susceptibility to coccidia. Infection and Immunity 26, 1111–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levine, N. D. & Ivens, V. (1988). Cross-transmission of Eimeria spp. (Protozoa, Apicomplexa) of rodents – a review. Journal of Protozoology 35, 434–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahrt, J. L. & Shi, Y. (1988). Murine major histocompatibility complex and immune response to Eimeria falciformis. Infection and Immunity 56, 270–1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLoughlin, D. K. (1969). The influence of dexamethasone on attempts to transmit Eimeria meleagrimitis to chickens and E. tenella to turkeys. Journal of Protozoology 16, 145–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowell, F. & Higgs, S. (1989). Eimeria species infecting wood mice (genus Apodemus) and the transfer of two species to Mus musculus. Parasitology 98, 329–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, M. E. (1982). Immunodepressed animals as models for intestinal protozoan infections. In Animal Models in Parasitology (ed. Owen, D. G) pp. 133–146. London, Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, M. E. & Hesketh, P. (1986). Eimerian life-cycles: the patency of Eimeria vermiformis, but not Eimeria pragensis, is subject to host (Mus musculus) influence. Journal of Parasitology 72, 949–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, M. E. & Millard, B. J. (1985 a). Eimeria vermiformis: host strains and the developmental cycle. Experimental Parasitology 60, 285–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, M. E. & Millard, B. J. (1985 b). Host specificity in eimerian coccidia: development of Eimeria vermiformis of the mouse, Mus musculus, in Rattus norvegicus. Parasitology 90, 557–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, M. E., Owen, D. G. & Hesketh, P. (1984). Susceptibility to coccidiosis: effect of strain of mouse on reproduction of Eimeria vermiformis. Parasitology 88, 45–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shire, J. G. M. (1981). Genes and hormones in mice. Symposium of the Zoological Society of London 47, 547–74.Google Scholar
Stockdale, P. G. H., Stockdale, M. J., Rickard, M. D. & Mitchell, G. F. (1985). Mouse strain variation and effects of oocyst dose in infection of mice with Eimeria falciformis, a coccidian parasite of the large intestine. International Journal for Parasitology 15, 447–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Todd, K. S. & Lepp, D. L. (1972). Completion of the lifecycle of Eimeria vermiformis Ernst, Chobotar & Hammond, 1971 from the mouse Mus musculus in dexamethasone treated rats Rattus norvegicus. Journal of Parasitology 58, 400–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar