Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T06:29:53.080Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Specific cross-immunity between Hymenolepis nana and H. diminuta: immunization with heterologous and homologous light infections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2009

F. Gabriele ,
D. Wakelin  and
C. Palmas
F. Gabriele
Affiliation:
Istituto di Parassitologia, Via della Pineta, 77 09125 Cagliari, Italy
D. Wakelin
Affiliation:
MRC Experimental Parasitology Group, Department of Zoology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, U.K.
C. Palmas
Affiliation:
Istituto di Parassitologia, Via della Pineta, 77 09125 Cagliari, Italy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The consequences of previous and concurrent infection with two related species of cestodes, Hymenolepis nana and H. diminuta, were studied in CD1 mice. A H. diminuta infection strongly affected the establishment and the survival of a secondary H. nana egg or cyst infection administered 30 days later. An infection of 20 H. nana eggs strongly protected against a 5-cyst H. diminuta challenge, whereas an infection of 10 H. nana cysts was ineffective; 20 H. nana eggs also protected against a challenge with 5 cysts of H. diminuta administered 5 days later. No effects were observed in either parasite during a concurrent infection established by administration of cysts. An H. nana egg-infection was unable to affect the establishment of a secondary H. nana cyst-infection given 1 month later; however a significant decrease in growth was found. Similar results were found when a primary H. nana egg-infection was followed 5 days later by the homologous cyst-infection. But an infection with 5 H. nana cysts was unable to protect against a homologous challenge of 5 cysts or 20 eggs. The reciprocal cross immunity between the heterologous parasites and the failure of protection of homologous challenges are discussed in relation to light infections.

Keywords

Hymenolepis nanaHymenolepis diminutaimmune responsescross immunityconcurrent infectionimmunogenicitytissue phaselumenal phase
Type
Research Papers
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 62 , Issue 2 , June 1988 , pp. 115 - 123
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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

Alghali, S. T. O. & Grencis, R. K. (1986) Immunity to tapeworms: intraspecific cross-protective interactions between Hymenolepis citelli, H. diminuta and H. microstoma in mice. Parasitology, 92, 665–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Befus, A. D. & Bienenstock, J. (1982) Factors involved in symbiosis and host resistance at the mucosa interface. Progress in Allergy, 31, 76–177.Google Scholar
Coleman, R. M., Carty, J. M. & Graziadei, W. D. (1968) Immunogenicity and phylogenetic relationship of tapeworm antigens produced by Hymenolepis nana and Hymenolepis diminuta. Immunology, 15, 297–304.Google Scholar
Ferretti, G., Gabriele, F. & Palmas, C. (1980) Methodology in experimental infections of mice with Hymenolepis nana. Bollettino di Zoologia, 47, 165–184.Google Scholar
Ferretti, G., Gabriele, F., Palmas, C. & Wakelin, D. (1984) Interactions between Trichinella spiralis and Hymenolepis nana in the intestine of the mouse. International Journal for Parasitology, 14, 29–33.Google Scholar
Gabriele, F., Bortoletti, G., Ferretti, G., Palmas, C. & Conchedda, M. (1984) Comparison of mebendazole, flubendazole and praziquantel efficacy against Hymenolepis nana in mice. Rivista di Parassitologia, 45, 77–82.Google Scholar
Gabriele, F., Ecca, A. R., Aru, B. & Palmas, C. (1985) Vaccination against the gastrointestinal helminths Trichinella spiralis and Hymenolepis nana: relationship between routes of immunization and effective protection. Bollettino dell' Istituto Sieroterapico Milanese, 64, 408–413.Google ScholarPubMed
Gabriele, F., Ecca, A. R., Wakelin, D. & Palmas, C. (1986) Blast-cell activity in mice infected with Hymenolepis nana, Hymenolepis diminuta and Trichinella spiralis: in vivo uptake of 125IUdR in lymphoid tissues and gut. Journal of Helminthology, 60, 313–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hearin, J. T. (1941) Studies on the acquired immunity to the dwarf tapeworm Hymenolepis nana var. fraterna in the mouse host. American Journal of Hygiene, 33, 71–87.Google Scholar
Heyneman, D. (1962a) Studies on helminth immunity. II. Influence of Hymenolepis nana (Cestoda: Hymenolepididae) in dual infections with H. diminuta in white mice and rats. Experimental Parasitology, 12, 7–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heyneman, D. (1962b) Studies on helminth immunity. IV. Rapid onset resistance by the white mouse against a challenging infection with Hymenolepis nana (Cestoda: Hymenolepididae). Journal of Immunology, 88, 217–220.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. C. (1961) Effects of concurrent infections on Hymenolepis diminuta (Cestoda) and Moniliformis dubius (Acanthocephala). I. General effects and comparison with crowding. Journal of Parasitology, 47, 209–216.Google Scholar
Hopkins, C. A. (1980) Immunity and Hymenolepis diminuta. In: Biology of the tapeworm Hymenolepis diminuta. (Editor Arai, H. P.), Academic Press, New York, 551–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, C. A., Goodall, R. I. & Zajac, A. (1977) The longevity of Hymenolepis microstoma in mice, and its immunological cross-reaction with Hymenolepis diminuta. Parasitology, 74, 175–183.Google Scholar
Hopkins, C. A., Subramanian, G. & Stallard, H. (1972) The development of Hymenolepis diminuta in primary and secondary infections in mice. Parasitology, 64, 401–412.Google Scholar
Hunninen, A. V. (1935) Studies on the life history and host-parasite relations of Hymenolepis fraterna (H. nana var. fraterna Stiles) in white mice. American Journal of Hygiene, 22, 414–443.Google Scholar
Ito, A., Kano, S., Hioki, A., Kasuya, S. & Ohtomo, H. (1986) Reduced fecundity of Hymenolepis nana due to thymus-dependent immunological responses in mice. International Journal for Parasitology, 16, 81–85.Google Scholar
Ito, A. & Onitake, K. (1986) Complete resistance to challenges with Hymenolepis nana cysticercoids derived from mouse, rat and beetle in mice. International Journal for Parasitology, 16, 623–628.Google Scholar
Palmas, C., Wakelin, D. & Gabriele, F. (1984) Transfer of immunity against Hymenolepis nana in mice with lymphoid cells or serum from infected donors. Parasitology, 89, 287–293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palmas, C., Wakelin, D. & Cabaj, W. (1985) Immune responses to Trichinella pseudospiralis and Trichinella spiralis in mice. International Journal for Parasitology, 15, 17–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palmas, C., Bortoletti, G., Conchedda, M. & Gabriele, F. (1986) Immunological memory and lymphoblast-migration in mice infected with Hymenolepis nana. Zeitschrift für Parasitenkunde, 72, 397–403.Google Scholar
Read, C. P. & Phifer, K. (1959) The role of carbohydrates in the biology of cestodes. VII. Interaction between individual tapeworms of the same and different species. Experimental Parasitology, 8, 46–50.Google Scholar
Urquhart, G. M. (1980) Immunity to cestodes. In: Vaccines against Parasites, pp. 107–114. Blackwell Scientific Publications: Oxford.Google Scholar
Wakelin, D. (1978) Immunity to intestinal parasites. Nature, 279, 617–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wakelin, D. (1985) Genetic control of immunity to helminth infections. Parasitology Today, 1, 17–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weinmann, C. J. (1964) Host resistance to Hymenolepis nana. II. Specificity of resistance to reinfection in the direct cycle. Experimental Parasitology, 15, 514–526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weinmann, C. J. (1966) Immunity mechanisms in cestode infections. In: Biology of Parasites. (Editor Soulsby, E. J. L.). Academic Press, New York. 301–320.Google Scholar