Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:16:50.120Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of immune responses in inbred lines of chickens to Eimeria maxima and Eimeria tenella

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

J. M. Bumstead ,
N. Bumstead ,
L. Rothwell  and
F. M. Tomley
J. M. Bumstead
Affiliation:
Institute for Animal Health, Compton, Newbury, Berkshire RG16 0NN
N. Bumstead
Affiliation:
Institute for Animal Health, Compton, Newbury, Berkshire RG16 0NN
L. Rothwell
Affiliation:
Institute for Animal Health, Compton, Newbury, Berkshire RG16 0NN
F. M. Tomley
Affiliation:
Institute for Animal Health, Compton, Newbury, Berkshire RG16 0NN
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Immune responses of 4 inbred lines of chickens, that differ in resistance to Eimeria maxima and E. tenella, were examined. Significant differences were found in in vitro proliferation of peripheral blood lymphocytes to E. maxima sporozoite antigen, the more resistant lines C and 72 having higher responses than the more susceptible line 151. These differences existed pre-infection and were enhanced following both primary and a second infection. The proportions of lymphocyte subsets in the peripheral blood following primary infection also differed between lines, with significantly higher percentages of CD8 + and TCR1 + lymphocytes circulating in the more resistant birds. In contrast, there were few differences between lines in either resistance or in in vitro proliferation of peripheral blood lymphocytes to E. tenella sporozoite antigen either pre-infection or following a primary infection. However, after a second infection when there were significant differences in resistance between lines, as measured by oocyst excretion, there were also significant differences in lymphoproliferation with the more resistant lines 151 and 62 having higher responses than the more susceptible line C. Thus for E. maxima there is a direct relationship between resistance to infection and lymphoproliferation in response to parasite antigen. This implies that differences in cellular immunity may account for differences in resistance between lines, and since these specific responses are enhanced by infection they may also reflect important immune mechanisms. For the rather less immunogenic E. tenella, the correlation between resistance and lymphoproliferation is not so clear. However, where there were significant differences between lines, i.e. after a second infection, the direct relationship between resistance and lymphoproliferation was upheld.

Keywords

Eimeriachickensimmune responsegenetic variation
Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 111 , Issue 2 , August 1995 , pp. 143 - 151
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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

Akuffo, H. O. & Britton, F. F. (1992). Contribution of non-specific immunity to resistance to Leishmania infection in humans. Clinical and Experimental Immunology 87, 58–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bumstead, J. M., Bumstead, N. & Tomley, F. M. (1995). Comparison of cellular immune responses in different inbred lines of chickens infected with Eimeria tenella. In Progress in Avian Immunology: Proceedings of the Avian Immunology Research Group (ed. Davison, T. F.) (in the Press).Google Scholar
Bumstead, N. & Millard, B. J. (1987). Genetics of resistance to coccidiosis: response of inbred lines to infection to E. tenella and E. maxima. British Poultry Science 28, 705–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bumstead, N. & Millard, B. J. (1992). Variation in susceptibility in inbred lines of chickens to seven species of Eimeria. Parasitology 104, 407–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carrof, B., Levacher-Clergeot, M., Chau, F., Pocadilo, J. J. & Derouin, F. (1994). Toxoplasma gondii: kinetics of lymphocyte subsets in blood and spleen of perorally infected mice. Experimental Parasitology 78, 410–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clare, R. A. & Danforth, H. D. (1989). Major histocompatibility complex control of immunity elicited by a genetically engineered E. tenella (Apicomplexa) antigen in chickens. Infection and Immunity 57, 701–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goerlich, R., Hacker, G., Pfeffer, K., Heeg, K. & Wagner, H. (1991). Plasmodium falciparum merozoites primarily stimulate the V9 subset of human γδ T cells. European Journal of Immunology 21, 2613–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Good, M. F. (1991). The implications for malaria vaccine programs if memory T-cells from non-exposed donors can respond to malaria antigens. Current Opinion in Immunology 3, 496–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, L. W. & Edgar, S. A. (1986). Ea-B and Ea-C cellular antigen genes in leghorn lines resistant and susceptible to acute cecal coccidiosis. Poultry Science 65, 241–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kawazoe, U., Tomley, F. M. & Frazier, J. (1992). Fractionation and antigenic characterisation of organelles of E. tenella sporozoites. Parasitology 104, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khyseanderson, J. (1984). Electroblotting of multiple gels: a simple apparatus without buffer tank for rapid transfer of proteins from polyacrylamide to nitrocellulose. Biochemical and Biophysical Methods 10, 203–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langhorne, J., Goodier, M., Behr, C. & Dubois, P. (1992). Is there a role for γσ T cells in malaria? Immunology Today 13, 298–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lillehoj, H. S. (1986). Immune response during coccidiosis in SC and FP chickens. In vitro assessment of T-cell proliferation responses to stage-specific parasite antigens. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology 13, 321–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lillehoj, H. S. (1988). Influence of inoculation, dose, inoculation schedule, chicken age and host genetics on disease susceptibility and development of resistance to coccidiosis. Avian Diseases 32, 437–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lillehoj, H. S. (1994). Analysis of Eimeria acervulina-induced changes in the T-lymphocyte subpopulations in two chicken strains showing different levels of susceptibility to coccidiosis. Research in Veterinary Science 56, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lillehoj, H. S. & Bacon, L. D. (1991). Increase of intestinal intraepithelial cells expressing CDS antigen following challenge with E. acervulina. Avian Diseases 35, 294–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lillehoj, H. S., Bacon, L. D., Lamont, S. J. & Jeffers, T. K. (1989). Genetic control of immunity to E. tenella. Interaction of MHC genes and non MHC-linked genes influences levels of disease susceptibility in chickens. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology 20, 135–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lillehoj, H. S., Jenkins, M. C. & Bacon, M. D. (1990). Effects of major histocompatibility genes and antigen delivery on induction of protective mucosal immunity to E. acervulina following immunisation with a recombinant merozoite antigen. Immunology 71, 127–32.Google Scholar
Lillehoj, H. S., Jenkins, M. C., Bacon, L. D., Fetterer, R. H. & Briles, W. E. (1988). Eimeria acervulina: evaluation of the cellular and antibody responses to the recombinant coccidial antigens in B-congenic chickens. Experimental Parasitology 67, 147–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lillehoj, H. S. & Ruff, M. D. (1987). Comparison of disease susceptibility and subclass-specific antibody in SC and FP chickens experimentally inoculated with E. tenella, E. acervulina or E. maxima. Avian Diseases 31, 112–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lillehoj, H. S. & Trout, J. M. (1993). Coccidia: a review of recent advances in immunity and vaccine development. Avian Pathology 22, 3–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, P. L., Joyner, L. P., Millard, B. J. & Norton, C. C. (1976). A guide to the laboratory techniques used in the study and diagnosis of avian coccidiosis. Folia Veterinaria Latino 6, 201–17.Google Scholar
Martin, A., Gross, W. B. & Dunnington, E. A. (1986). Resistance to natural and controlled exposure to Eimeria tenella: genetic variation and alloantigens systems. Poultry Science 65, 1847–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, A. & Lillehoj, H. S. (1993). Antigen specific T-cell proliferation following coccidia infection. Poultry Science 72, 2084–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Padoba, J. E. & Stevenson, M. M. (1991). CD4 + and CD8 +-T lymphocytes both contribute to acquired immunity to blood stage Plasmodium chabaudi AS. Infection and Immunity 59, 51–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, M. E. & Hesketh, P. (1982). Immunity to coccidia in chickens: adoptive transfer with peripheral blood lymphocytes and spleen cells. Parasite Immunology 54, 171–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, M. E. & Hesketh, P. (1984). Infection with E. tenella: modulation of lymphocyte blastogenesis by specific antigen and evidence for immunodepression. Journal of Protozoology 31, 549–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, M. E., Hesketh, P. & Wakelin, D. (1992). Immune control of murine coccidiosis: CD4 + and CD8 + lymphocytes contribute differentially in resistance to primary and secondary infections. Parasitology 105, 349–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmatz, D. M., Crane, M. St J. & Murray, P. K. (1984). Purification of Eimeria sporozoites by DE-52 anion exchange chromatography. Journal of Protozoology 31, 181–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wakelin, D. & Rose, M. E. (1990). Immunity to coccidiosis. In Coccidiosis of Man and Domestic Animals (ed. Long, P. L.), pp. 281–306. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.Google Scholar