Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T08:19:53.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Protective antibodies in infections with Eimeria maxima: the reduction of pathogenic effects in vivo and a comparison between oral and subcutaneous administration of antiserum

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

Crude globulin fractions were prepared from the pooled serum of chickens 14 days after their inoculation with oocysts of Eimeria maxima (‘immune’ globulin) and from the pooled serum of similar but coccidia-free chickens (‘normal’ globulin). The fractions were injected subcutaneously into young chicks which were challenged with large numbers of oocysts and whose weight gains over the next 7 days were measured. The weight gains in all infected groups of chicks were lower than in uninfected and uninjected controls, but the gains in groups of chicks injected with ‘immune’ globulin preparations were higher than in groups given ‘normal’ globulin. Oocyst production in the groups given ‘immune’ globulin was very much lower than in the control groups, untreated or given ‘normal’ globulin.

The reduction of oocyst production by antisera given by the subcutaneous and oral routes was compared. The weaker of two antisera had no effect when given orally but caused some reduction in oocyst numbers when given subcutaneously. A stronger antiserum produced some effect when given orally but was considerably more protective when given subcutaneously. The findings are discussed in relation to the mode of action of antibodies in protecting against infection.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 68 , Issue 3 , June 1974 , pp. 285 - 292
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

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

Beyer, T. V., (1963). Immunity in experimental coccidiosis of rabbit caused by heavy infective doses of Eimeria intestinatis. In Progress in Protozoology (eds. Ludvík, J., Lom, J., and Váura, J.,), p. 448. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hammond, D. M., Andersen, F. L., & Miner, M. L., (1963). The site of the immune reaction against Eimeria bovis in calves. Journal of Parasitology 49, 415–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hobton-Smith, C., & Long, P. Lc., (1959). The effects of different anti-coccidial agents on the intestinal coccidioses of the fowl. Journal of Comparative Pathology and Therapeutics 69, 192–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyner, L. P., & Norton, C. C., (1973). The immunity arising from continuous low-level infection with Eimeria tenella. Parasitology 67, 333–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kohler, E. M., (1967). Studies of Escherichia coli in gnotobiotic pigs. V. Evaluation of the effects of oral and parenteral administration of immune serum. Canadian Journal of Comparative Medicine and Veterinary Science 31, 283–9.Google Scholar
Long, P. L., (1973). Pathology and pathogenicity of coccidial infections. In The Coccidia (ed. Hammond, D. M., with Long, P. L.,), pp. 253–94. Baltimore: University Park Press, and London: Butterworth and Co.Google ScholarPubMed
Long, P. L., & Rose, M. E., (1972). Immunity to coccidiosis: effect of serum antibodies on cell invasion by sporozoites of Eimeria in vitro. Parasitology 65, 437–45.Google Scholar
Long, P. L., & Rowell, J., (1958). Counting oocysts of chicken coccidia. Laboratory Practice 7, 515–8, 534.Google Scholar
Rose, M. E., (1971). Immunity to coccidiosis: protective effect of transferred serum in Eimeria maxima infections. Parasitology 62, 11–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, M. E., (1974). The early development of immunity to Eimeria maxima in comparison with that to Eimeria tenella. Parasitology 68, 35–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, M. E., & LONG, P. L., (1969). Immunity to coccidiosis: gut permeability changes in response to sporozoite invasion. Experientia 25, 183–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, M. E., & Long, P. L., (1971). Immunity to coccidiosis: protective effects of transferred serum and cells investigated in chick embryos infected with Eimeria tenella. Parasitology 63, 299–313.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ryley, J. F., & Betts, M. J., (1973). Chemotherapy of chicken coccidiosis. Advances in Pharmacology and Chemotherapy 11, 221–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, H. W., (1954). Food as a vehicle of infection: the effect of variations in the diet on the induction of Salmonella gallinarum infection. British Journal of Experimental Pathology 35, 447–58.Google Scholar
Smith, H. W., (1972). The nature of the protective effect of antisera against Escherichia coli diarrhoea in piglets. Journal of Medical Microbiology 5, 345–53.Google Scholar
Tojo, H., & KOGA, O., (1972). Studies on the immunity to Eimeria tenella in chickens. II. Passive transfer of immunity to Eimeria tenella by immune sera and spleen cells. Japanese Poultry Science 9, 225–9.Google Scholar
Wittchow, W., (1972). Vergleichende Untersuchungenzur passiven und adoptiven Übertragung der Immunität gegen Eimeria nieschulzi. Inaugural Dissertation Fachbereich Veterinärmedizin, Freie Universität, Berlin.Google Scholar