Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T22:05:20.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Observations on the Effect of Digestive Juices on Scolices of Echinococcus granulosus (Batsch).*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2009

D. A. Berberian
D. A. Berberian
Affiliation:
(From the Dept. of Parasitology, American University of Beirut.)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Experiments in vivo and in vitro are reported on the action of digestive juices of various animals on the scolices of E. granulosus. In in vitro studies, scolices of E. granulosus were placed in the digestive juices of different animals, incubated at 37°C., and the digestive action of the fluids was studied by examining portions of the material under the microscope. In vivo experiments were carried out on kittens, rats and rabbits. These animals were fed large quantities of scolices of hydatid cyst membranes and they were killed at definite time intervals and their intestinal tract was carefully examined for scolices.

Gastric juice of rats, dogs, cats, sheep and cattle did not digest scolices. The action of the gastric juice of rabbits begins late and proceeds slowly. Human gastric juice causes incomplete digestion and acts only on the evaginated scolices.

The intestinal juices of man, rats, rabbits, sheep and cattle are able to digest scolices completely, whereas the intestinal juice of dogs and cats is inactive. In spite of the fact that cat intestinal juice is inactive, kittens are found to be slightly susceptible. Since they suffer only relatively light infestation and the rate of development is retarded, we would classify the cat as an “abnormal” host to E. granulosus.

Time of evagination of scolices from a single cyst or from cysts from different animals is variable. Some scolices evaginate readily, others more slowly and still others fail to evaginate completely.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , March 1936 , pp. 21 - 40
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1936

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

Ackert, J. E., 1924.—“Effect of parasitism on fowl thymi.” Anat. Rec., xxix, 120. (W.L. 763.)Google Scholar
Ackert, J. E., 1925.—“Effect of repeated bleeding upon the resistance of chickens to parasitism.” J. Parasit., xii, 163 (abstracts). (W.L. 11428.)Google Scholar
Ackert, J. E. & Beach, T. D., 1933.—“Resistance of chickens to the nematode Ascaridia lineata, affected by dietary supplements.” Trans. Amer. micr. Soc., lii, 51–58. (W.L. 21400a.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackert, J. E., Fisher, M. L. & Zimmerman, N. B., 1927.—“Resistance to parasitism affected by the fat-soluble vitamin” A. J. Parasit., xiii, 219. (W.L. 11428.)Google Scholar
Ackert, J. E., Mcilvaine, M. F. & Crawford, N. Z., 1981.—“Resistance of chickens to parasitism affected by vitamin A.” Amer. J. Hyg., xiii, 320–336, (W.L. 600a.)Google Scholar
Ackert, J. E. & Nolf, L. O., 1931.—“Resistance of chickens to parasitism affected by vitamin B.” Ibid., in, 337–344.Google Scholar
Ackert, J. E., Porter, D. A. & Beach, T. D., 1935.—“Age resistance of chickens to the nematode Ascaridia lineata (Schneider).” J. Parasit., xxi, 205–213. (W.L. 11428.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackert, J. E. & Spindler, Lloy. A., 1929.—“Vitamin D and resistance of chickens to parasitism.” Amer. J. Hyg., ix, 292–307. (W.L. 600a.)Google Scholar
Andrews, J. M., 1927.—“Host-parasite specificity in the Coccidia of mammals.” J. Parasit., xiii, 183–194. (W.L. 11428.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, T. W. M., 1927.—“Some modern biological conceptions of Hydatid.” Proc. R. Soc. Med., xx, 272–283. (W.L. 16916.)Google Scholar
Carrel, A. & Ebeling, A. H., 1921.—“Age and multiplication of Fibroblasts.” J. exp. Med., xxxiv, 599–623. (W.L.11189.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandler, A. C., 1932.—“Susceptibility and resistance to helminthic infections.” J. Parasit., xviii, 135–152. (W.L. 11428.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dévé, F., 1904.—“Le chat doméstique hôte éventuel du taenia échinocoque.” C. R. Soc. Biol. Paris, lvii, 262–264. (W.L. 6630.)Google Scholar
Dew, H., 1928.—Hydatid Disease, Sydney, p. 18.Google Scholar
Hall, M. C., 1919.—“The adult taenioid Cestodes of dogs and cats and related carnivores in North America.” Proc. U. S. nat. Mus. Lv, 1–94. (W.L. 16944.)Google Scholar
Herrick, C. A., 1925.—“Studies on the resistance of the chicken to the nematode Ascaridia perspicillum.” Amer. J. Hyg., vi, 153–172. (W.L. 600a.)Google Scholar
Hiraishi, T., 1926.—“Experimental ascariasis of the young pigs with special reference to A-avitaminosis.” Summary in Japan. med. World, vii, 79–80. Cited by Taliaferro, W. H. 1928. The Immunology of Parasitic Infections, New York, p. 244.Google Scholar
Hosemann, G., Schwarz, E., Lehmann, J. C. & Posselt, A., 1928.—Die Echinokokken Krankheit, Stuttgart, p. 2.Google Scholar
Koidzumi, M., 1927.—“A résumé of works on Ascaris recently published from the Parasitology Laboratory.” Japan med. World, VII, 12–16. Cited by Taliaferro, W. H. 1928. The Immunology of Parasitic Infections, New York, p. 244.Google Scholar
McCoy, O. R., 1931.—“Immunity reactions of the dog against hookworm (Ancy lostoina caninum) under conditions of repeated infection.” Amer. J. Hyg., xiv 268303. (W.L. 600a.)Google Scholar
Porter, D. A. & Ackert, J. E., 1933.—“The effect of blood loss upon the resistance of chickens to variable degrees of parasitism.” lbid., xvii 252–261.Google Scholar
Random, B. H. & Foster, W. D., 1920.—“ Observations on the life history of Ascaris lumbricoides.” Bull. U. S. Dept. Agric., No. 817, 147. (W.L. 252261.)Google Scholar
Ross, I. C., 1925.—“ A survey of infection with Echinococcus granulosus (Batsch) in New South Wales.” Med. J. Aust., i, 253–258. (W. L. 13034.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandground, J. H., 1929.—“ A consideration of the relation of host-specificity of helminths and other metazoan parasites to the phenomena of age resistance and acquired immunity.” Parasitology, xxi, 227–255. (W.L. 16035.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarles, M. P., 1929.—“ Quantitative studies on the dog and cat hookworm, Ancy lostoma braziliense, with special emphasis on age resistance.” Amer. J. Hyg., x, 453475. (W.L. 600a.)Google Scholar
Scott, J. A., 1928.—“An experimental study of the development of Ancylostoma caninum in normal and abnormal hosts.” Ibid., viii, 158204.Google Scholar
Southwell, T., 1927.—“Experimental infection of the Cat and the Fox with the adult Echinococcus.” Ann. trop. Med. Parasit., xxl 155163. (W.L. 1063.)Google Scholar
Steiner, G., 1925.—“The problem of host selection and host specialization of certain plant-infesting nemas and its application in the study of nemic pests.” Phytopathology, xv, 499534. (W.L. 16273.)Google Scholar
Taylor, E. L., 1928.—“Syngamus trachea from the starling transferred to the chicken and some physiological variation observed.” Ann. trop. Med. Parasit., xxii, 307318. (W.L. 1063.)Google Scholar
Thomson, J. G. & Robertson, A., 1926.—“Experimental passage of oöcysts of fish coccidia through human intestine.” Brit. med. J., i, 42021. (W.L. 3579.)Google Scholar
Wittenberg, G., 1933.—“Zur Kenntnis der Verbreitung von Echinohohhus und Trichinen in Palestine.” Arch. Schiffs-u. Tropenhyg., xxxvll 3741. (W.L. 1804.)Google Scholar
Yenikomoshian, H. A. & Berberian, D. A., 1934.—“The occurrence and distribution of human helminthiasis in Syria and Lebanon.” Trans. R. Soc. irop. Med. Hyg., xxviii, 425435. (W.L. 21671.)Google Scholar