Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:34:00.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

In vitro cultivation of Echinococcus granulosus, Taenia hydatigena, T. ovis, T. pisiformis and T. serialis from oncosphere to cystic larva

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

D. D. Heath
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia, 2600
J. D. Smyth
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia, 2600

Extract

A technique for the hatching and subsequent in vitro cultivation of the oncospheres of Echinococcus granulosus, Taenia hydatigena, T. ovis, T. pisiformis and T. serialis to cystic larvae is described. The cytology and histology of developing larvae were also studied.

The basic culture medium consisted of medium 858 containing additional glucose and K+ supplemented with the appropriate host sera. Fresh sera from young animals was generally more successful in promoting growth than sera from commercial sources. Cultivation was carried out at 37°C in roller tubes with a gas phase of 10% O2+5% CO2 in N2.

The most successful results were obtained with T. pisiformis, oncospheres of which were grown to the cystic stage with development of hooks and suckers. During the later culture period, the bladder, although morphologically normal, ‘collapsed’ and did not retain its cystic shape.

In culture, larvae of T. pisiformis became motile at 3 days and at 5 days began secreting droplets from a glandular apical region; this region stained differentially in alcian blue.

Some larvae of T. pisiformis showed a tendency to undergo transverse or longitudinal fission, an effect possibly associated with the centrifugation applied during the early cultivation procedures.

Early cystic development was obtained with the other species studied, but experiments carried out were only of a preliminary nature. However, the development rate in these experiments approximated that recorded in vivo.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1970

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

Berntzen, A. K. (1967). Monoxenic cultivation of Hymenolepis nana cysticercoids with rat fibroblast cells. Unpublished. (Appeared in abstracts from American Society of Parasitologists 42nd Annual Meeting.)Google Scholar
Bilqees, F. M. & Freeman, R. S. (1969). Histogenesis of the rostellum of Taenia crassiceps (Zeder, 1800) (Cestoda), with special reference to hook development. Canadian Journal of Zoology 47, 251–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clegg, J. A. & Smyth, J. D. (1968). Growth, development and culture methods: parasitic platyhelminths. In Chemical Zoology, vol. 2, ch. 5, pp. 395466. New York: Academic Press Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crusz, H. (1948 a). On the transverse fission of Cysticercus pisiformis in experimentally infested rabbits, and the phylogenetic significance of asexual phenomena in cysticerci. Journal of Helminthology 22, 165–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crusz, H. (1948 b). Further studies on the development of Cysticercus fasciolaris and Cysticercus pisiformis, with special reference to the growth and sclerotization of the rostellar hooks. Journal of Helminthology 22, 179–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dévé, F. (1916). L'histogenese du kyste hydatique. Archives de médecine expérimentale et d'anatomie pathologique 28, 113–39.Google Scholar
Esch, G. W. (1967). Some effects of cortisone and sex on the biology of coenuriasis in laboratory mice and jackrabbits. Parasitology 57, 175–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fankhauser, R. von, Hintermann, J. & Valette, H. (1959). Coenurosis bei Schafen. Schweizer Archiv für Tierheilkunde 10, 1532.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. S. (1962). Studies on the biology of Taenia crassiceps (Zeder, 1800) Rudolphi, 1810 (Cestoda). Canadian Journal of Zoology 40, 969–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healy, G. M., Fisher, D. C. & Parker, R. C. (1955). Nutrition of animal cells in tissue culture. X. Synthetic medium no. 858. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 89, 71–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larsh, J. E. Jr, Race, G. J. & Esch, G. W. (1965). A histopathologic study of mice infected with the larval stage of Multiceps serialis. Journal of Parasitology 51, 4552.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewert, R. M. & Lee, C. L. (1954). Studies on the passage of helminth larvae through host tissues. I. Histochemical studies on the extracellular changes caused by penetrating larvae. II. Enzymatic activity of larvae in vitro and in vivo. Journal of Infectious Diseases 95, 1351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewert, R. M. & Lee, C. L. (1955). Studies on the passage of helminth larvae through host tissues. III. The effects of Taenia taeniaeformis on the rat liver as shown by histochemical techniques. Journal of Infectious Diseases 97, 117–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nörr, J. (1938). Die Härte der nur sechswöchigen Klagefrist bei der Drehkrankheit der Rinder und Schafe. Berliner und Münchener tierärztliche Wochenschrift 8, 109–10.Google Scholar
Ogren, R. E. (1968 a). Characteristics for two classes of embryonic cells in oncospheres of Hymenolepis diminuta stained for cytoplasmic substances. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society 87, 8297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogren, R. E. (1968 b). The basic cellular pattern for undifferentiated oncospheres of Hymenolepis diminuta. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society 87, 448–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potselueva, V. A. (1953). (The development of Cysticercus pisiformis in the body of rabbits.) Papers on Helminthology presented to Academician K. I. Skryabin on his 75th birthday. Moscow: Izdatelstvo Akademii Nauk SSSR., pp. 564–66. (In Russian.)Google Scholar
Silverman, P. H. (1954). Studies on the biology of some tapeworms of the genus Taenia. I. Factors affecting hatching and activation of taeniid ova, and some criteria of their viability. Annals of Tropical Medicine and Parasitology 48, 207–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverman, P. H. (1956). The infectivity of the hexacanth embryo of Taenia pisiformis. (Demonstration.) Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 50, 7.Google Scholar
Smyth, J. D. (1969). The Physiology of Cestodes. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Specht, D. & Voge, M. (1965). Asexual multiplication of Mesocestoides tetrathyridia in laboratory animals. Journal of Parasitology 51, 268–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stirewalt, M. A. (1963). Chemical biology of secretions of larval helminths. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 113, 3653.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sweatman, G. K. & Henshall, T. C. (1962). The comparative biology and morphology of Taenia ovis and Taenia krabbei with observations on the development of T. ovis in domestic sheep. Canadian Journal of Zoology 40, 1287–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweatman, G. K. & Plummer, P. J. G. (1957). The biology and pathology of the tapeworm Taenia hydatigena in domestic and wild hosts. Canadian Journal of Zoology 35, 93109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, A. E. R. & Baker, J. R. (1968). The cultivation of parasites in vitro. Oxford and Edinburgh: Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Voge, M. (1967). Development in vitro of Mesocestoides (Cestoda) from oncosphere to young tetrathyridium. Journal of Parasitology 53, 7882.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Voge, M. & Heyneman, D. (1957). Development of Hymenolepis nana and Hymenolepis diminuta (Cestoda: Hymenolepididae) in the intermediate host Tribolium confusum. University of California Publications in Zoology 59, 549–80.Google Scholar
Voge, M. & Seidel, J. S. (1968). Continuous growth in vitro of Mesocestoides (Cestoda) from oncosphere to fully developed tetrathyridium. Journal of Parasitology 54, 269–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Webster, G. A. & Cameron, T. W. M. (1963). Some preliminary observations on the development of Echinococcus in vitro. Canadian Journal of Zoology 41, 185–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar