Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:10:17.402Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Immunity to Eimeria tenella and Eimeria necatrix infections in the fowl

I. Influence of the site of infection and the stage of the parasite. II. Cross-protection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

M. Elaine Rose
M. Elaine Rose
Affiliation:
Houghton Poultry Research Station, Houghton, Huntingdon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Resistance to E. necatrix induced by complete life-cycle infections was transferable from duodenum to caeca and vice versa.

Complete life-cycle infections with E. tenella protected against subsequent attempts to infect with 2nd-generation merozoites. A similar experiment using E. necatrix showed a partial effect.

E. necatrix gametogony-only infections did not protect against subsequent gametogony-only infections and did not protect against schizogony in the duodenum. They did suppress oocyst production resulting from entire life-cycle infections.

Satisfactory oocyst production from the intra-caecal inoculation of second generation E. necatrix merozoites was not obtained.

Repeated oral infections with E. tenella or E. necatrix reduced subsequent cross-infections with E. necatrix or E. tenella respectively by approximately half. Both schizogony and gametogony stages were affected.

A similar result was obtained with E. tenella oocyst inoculation when previous infections were initiated by the intra-caecal injection of E. necatrix sporozoites.

Oocyst production from the oral administration of E. tenella oocysts to birds previously infected with gametogony stages only of E. necatrix was much reduced but the schizogony stages of the challenge infection were not appreciably affected. Previous repeated caecal inoculation of E. necatrix merozoites did not reduce oocyst production from subsequent inoculations of E. tenella merozoites or of E. necatrix merozoites.

Thanks are due to Mr P. L. Long for his interest and advice. The excellent technical assistance of Mr Brian Millard and other members of the Parasitology Department is also gratefully acknowledged.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , August 1967 , pp. 567 - 583
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1967

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

Burns, W. C. & Challey, J. P. (1959). Resistance of birds to challenge with Eimeria tenella. Expl Parasit. 8, 515–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farr, M. M. & Doran, D. J. (1962). Comparative excystation of four species of poultry coccidia. J. Protozool. 9, 403–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horton-Smith, C., Beattie, J. & Long, P. L. (1961). Resistance to Eimeria tenella and its transference from one caecum to the other in individual fowls. Immunology 4, 111–21.Google Scholar
Horton-Smith, C. & Long, P. L. (1959). The effects of different anti-coccidial agents on the intestinal coccidioses of the fowl. J. comp. Path. 69, 192–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horton-Smith, C. & Long, P. L. (1965). The development of Eimeria necatrix, Johnson, 1930 and Eimeria brunetti, Levine, 1942 in the caeca of the domestic fowl (Gallus domesticus). Parasitology 55, 401–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horton-Smith, C., Long, P. L. & Pierce, A. E. (1963). Behaviour of the invasive stages of Eimeria tenella in the immune fowl (Gallus domesticus). Expl Parasit. 14, 66–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horton-Smith, C., Long, P. L., Pierce, A. E. & Rose, M. E. (1963). In Immunity to coccidia in domestic animals, pp. 273–93. (ed. Garnham, P. C. C. and Pierce, A. E..) Oxford: Black-well Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Horton-Smith, C. & Taylor, E. L. (1945). Sulphamezathine in the drinking water as a treatment for caecal coccidiosis in chickens. Vet. Rec. 57, 35–6.Google Scholar
Kendall, S. B. & McCullough, F. S. (1952). Relationships between sulphamezathine therapy and the acquisition of immunity to Eimeria tenella. J. comp. Path. 62, 116–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, P. L. (1965). Development of Eimeria tenella in avian embryos. Nature, Lond. 208, 509–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, P. L. (1966). The growth of some species of Eimeria in avian embryos. Parasitology 56, 575–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, P. L., Rose, M. E. & Pierce, A. E. (1963). Effect of fowl sera on some stages in the life cycle of Eimeria tenella. Expl Parasit. 14, 210–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, P. L. & Rowell, J. G. (1958). Counting oocysts of chicken coccidia. Lab. Pract. 7, 515–19.Google Scholar
Rose, M. E. (1965). Immunity in the fowl to some species of Eimeria. Progr. Protozool. p. 169. (Abstr.)Google Scholar
Rose, M. E. & Long, P. L. (1962). Immunity to four species of Eimeria in fowls. Immunology 5, 79–92.Google ScholarPubMed