Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T19:15:15.591Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Differentiation between Trichinella spiralis and T. pseudospiralis infective larvae by a monoclonal antibody

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2009

J. Rodriguez-Perez
Affiliation:
Instituto “López-Neyra” de Parasitología, Unidad de Inmunología, C/ Ventanilla, 11, 18001-Granada, Spain
V. Gomez-Garcia
Affiliation:
Instituto “López-Neyra” de Parasitología, Unidad de Inmunología, C/ Ventanilla, 11, 18001-Granada, Spain
M. Rodriguez-Osorio
Affiliation:
Instituto “López-Neyra” de Parasitología, Unidad de Inmunología, C/ Ventanilla, 11, 18001-Granada, Spain
J. Rojas-Gonzalez
Affiliation:
Instituto “López-Neyra” de Parasitología, Unidad de Inmunología, C/ Ventanilla, 11, 18001-Granada, Spain
M. A. Gomez-Morales
Affiliation:
Instituto “López-Neyra” de Parasitología, Unidad de Inmunología, C/ Ventanilla, 11, 18001-Granada, Spain

Abstract

Crude saline extracts of Trichinella spiralis and T. pseudospiralis infective larvae were studied by Western blot analysis using a monoclonal antibody, named ES/TA2 and produced against T. spiralis larvae. This monoclonal antibody recognized seven major antigenic components in T. spiralis larvae with apparent Mr: 45, 48, 50, 68, 70, 92 and 105 kDa and five in T. pseudospiralis larvae: 38, 50, 70, 72 and 92 kDa. SDS-PAGE of both extracts did not reveal appreciable differences in the range of molecular weights recognized by ES/TA2. These facts show the existence of immunological differences among proteins with apparently identical molecular weights.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

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

Alkarmi, T. O. & Faubert, G. M. (1985) Studies on the antigenic differences between the larvae of Trichinella pseudospiralis and Trichinella spiralis by gel diffusion and immunoelectrophoretic techniques. In: Trichinellosis (editor, Kim, C. W.) pp. 140145. State University New York Press: New York.Google Scholar
Almond, N. M., Mclaren, D. J. & Parkhouse, R. M. E. (1985) A comparison of the surface and secretion of Trichinella spiralis and T. pseudospiralis. In: Trichinellosis (editor, Kim, C. W.) pp. 151156. State University New York Press: New York.Google Scholar
Efremov, E. E. & Ermolin, G. A. (1981) Bio- and immunochemical analysis of specific differences between Trichinella spiralis and Trichinella pseudospiralis. In: Trichinellosis (editors, Kim, C. W., Ruitenberg, E. J. & Teppema, J. S.) pp. 4750. Reedbooks Ltd: Chertsey.Google Scholar
Flockhart, H. A., Harrison, S. E., Dobinson, A. R. & James, E. R. (1982) Enzyme polymorphism in Trichinella. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 76, 541545.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fukumoto, S., Takechi, M., Kamo, H. & Yamaguchi, T. (1987) Comparative studies on soluble protein profiles and isozyme patterns of seven Trichinella isolates. Parasitology Research, 73, 352357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gamble, H. R. & Graham, C. E. (1984) Monoclonal antibody-purified antigen for the immunodiagnosis of trichinosis. American Journal of Veterinary Research, 45, 6774.Google ScholarPubMed
Gamble, H. R. & Murrell, K. D. (1986) Conservation of diagnostic antigen epitopes among biologically diverse isolates of Trichinella spiralis. Journal of Parasitology, 72, 921925.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garate, T. & Rivas, L. (1987) Comparative study on polypeptide patterns of larvae of Trichinella isolates by two-dimensional electrophoresis. Journal of Helminthology, 61, 225228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gomez-Garcia, V., Rodriguez-Osorio, M. & Gonzalez-Castro, J. (1979) Aplicacíon de la técnica micro-ELISA de dobles anticuerpos en la investigación de antígenos en la triquinosis experimental de la rata. Revista lbérica de Parasitología, 39, 5563.Google Scholar
Gomez-Garcia, V., Rodriguez-Perez, J., Rodriguez-Osorio, M., Gomez-Morales, M. A., Peinado-Pelaez, M. & Rojas-Gonzalez, J. (in press). Use of monoclonal antibodies for detection of Trichinella spp circulating antigens. In: Trichinellosis (editor, Tanner, C. E. & Martinez, A. R.). C.S.I.C.: Madrid.Google Scholar
Kawaoi, A. & Nakane, P. I. (1973) An improved method of conjugation of peroxidase with proteins. Federation Proceedings, 32, 840.Google Scholar
Laemmli, U. K. (1970) Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4. Nature, 277, 680685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mclaren, D. J., Ortega-Pierres, G. & Parkhouse, R. M. E. (1987) Trichinella spiralis: Immunocytochemical localization of surface and intracellular antigens using monoclonal antibody probes. Parasitology, 94, 101114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mydynski, L. J. & Dick, T. A. (1985) The use of enzyme polymorphisms to identify genetic differences in the genus Trichinella. Journal of Parasitology, 71, 671677.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parkhouse, R. M. E., Philipp, M. & Ogilvie, B. M. (1981) Characterization of surface antigens of Trichinella spiralis infective larvae. Parasite Immunology, 3, 339352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shulman, M., Wilde, C. D. & Kohler, G. (1978) A better cell line for making hybridomas secreting specific antibodies. Nature, 276, 269.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed