Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:23:42.025Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Immunity and metabolic rate: the course of notoedric scabies in rats with different metabolic rates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

F. B. Leech  and
T. Spence
F. B. Leech*
Affiliation:
Veterinary Laboratory, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Weybridge, Surrey
T. Spence*
Affiliation:
Veterinary Laboratory, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Weybridge, Surrey
*
*Statistical and physiological work.
†Parasitological work.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Two experiments are described investigating the effects of level of metabolism on (a) resistance to, and (b) recovery from, Notoedric scabies of rats. The progress and severity of the disease was measured by weekly counts of the number of lesions; the metabolic rate in some rats was raised by administration of iodinated casein and in others was depressed by methyl thiouracil.

2. In normal rats, the initial severe phase of the disease was followed by a partial recovery with survival of a smaller population of parasites.

3. This recovery process in established infestations was hastened by elevation and retarded by depression of the metabolic rate.

4. Resistance to the development of severe disease was enhanced by elevation and reduced by depression of the basal metabolic rate.

5. The level of the residual infestation, after the severe phase of the disease had passed, was also affected by the treatment, being decreased by the higher but increased by the lower metabolic rate.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 41 , Issue 3-4 , December 1951 , pp. 224 - 228
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1951

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

Astwood, E. B., Bissell, A. & Hughes, A. M. (1945). Endocrinology, 37, 456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, G. L., Bartlett, S. & Folley, S. J. (1949). Nature, Lond., 163, 800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deanesly, R. & Parkes, A. S. (1945 a). J. Endocrinology, 4, 324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deanesly, R. & Parkes, A. S. (1945 b). J. Endocrinology, 4, 356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, R. M., Unsworth, K. & Seaton, D. R. (1943). Ann. Trop. Med. Parasit. 37, 174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallós, P. & Müller, W. (1932). Klin. Wschr. 11, 504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kartman, L. (1943). J. Econ. Ent. 36, 372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsh, J. E. (1947). J. Parasit. 33, 24.Google Scholar
Ludwig, W. & von Mutzenbecher, P. (1939). Z. Physiol. Chem. 258, 195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellanby, K. (1944). Parasitology, 35, 197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reineke, E. P., Mixner, J. P. & Turner, C. W. (1945). Endocrinology, 37, 456.Google Scholar
Reineke, E. P., Williamson, M. B. & Turner, C. W. (1943). J. Biol. Chem. 147, 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reitler, R. (1947). Nature, Lond., 159, no. 4041, p. 505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todd, A. C., Culton, T. G., Kelly, G. W. & Hansen, M. F.(1949). Poultry Sci. 28, 549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar