Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T18:17:16.904Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimation of relative fecundity in Eimeria tenella strains by a mixed infection method

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

T. Nakamura ,
T. Konishi ,
H. Kawaguchi  and
J. Imose
T. Nakamura
Affiliation:
Aburahi Laboratories, Shionogi Research Laboratories, Shionogi and Co. Ltd, Koka-cho, Shiga 520–34, Japan
T. Konishi
Affiliation:
Shionogi Research Laboratories, Shionogi and Co. Ltd, Fukushima-ku, Osaka 553, Japan
H. Kawaguchi
Affiliation:
Aburahi Laboratories, Shionogi Research Laboratories, Shionogi and Co. Ltd, Koka-cho, Shiga 520–34, Japan
J. Imose
Affiliation:
Aburahi Laboratories, Shionogi Research Laboratories, Shionogi and Co. Ltd, Koka-cho, Shiga 520–34, Japan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The relative fecundity of populations of Eimeria tenella was estimated by means of mixed infection using electrophoretic variation of glucose-phosphate isomerases (GPIs) as a genetic marker. A decoquinate-resistant strain with GPI-9 isozyme (DR-NIAH), a decoquinate-sensitive one with GPI-1 (DS-Iwate), and three decoquinate-resistant lines (No. 3, 4, and 5) derived from cross-fertilization between DR-NIAH and DS-Iwate, were used. The GPI phenotypes of the No. 3 and No. 4 lines are GPI-9, and that of No. 5 is GPI-1. Mixed infection experiments were performed between DR-NIAH and DS-Iwate, No. 3 and No. 5, and No. 4 and No. 5. DR-NIAH was predominant over DS-Iwate in the mixed infection, whereas, in single infections, the total oocyst output of DR-NIAH was similar to or less than that of DS-Iwate. Among three lines, No. 4 was predominant over No. 5, and No. 5 was predominant over No. 3 in the mixed infection. Relative fecundity between No. 3 and No. 5 and their patterns of oocyst output in single infections were similar to those in the mixed infection. In contrast, No. 5 produced more oocysts than No. 4 in single infections, suggesting that the oocyst production in the mixed infection may be influenced by the mutual interference or competition between the populations of E. tenella in the chicken caeca.

Keywords

Eimeria tenellaglucose-phosphateisomerase isozymesmixed infection
Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 104 , Issue 1 , February 1992 , pp. 11 - 17
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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

Augustine, P. C., Vetterling, J. M. & Doran, D. J. (1977). Eimeria tenella: Growth characteristics of drug-resistant strains in chick and cell culture. Proceedings of the Helminthological Society of Washington 44, 147–9.Google Scholar
Brackett, S. & Bliznick, A. (1952). The reproductive potential of five species of coccidia of the chicken as demonstrated by oocyst production. Journal of Parasitology 38, 133–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bumstead, N. & Millard, B. (1987). Genetics of resistance to coccidiosis: Response of inbred chicken lines to infection by Eimeria tenella and Eimeria maxima. British Poultry Science 28, 705–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapman, H. D. (1978). Drug resistance in coccidia. In Avian Coccidiosis, (ed. Boorman, K. N. & Freeman, B. M.), pp. 387–412. Thirteenth Poultry Science Symposium, Edinburgh: British Poultry Science Ltd.Google Scholar
Chapman, H. D. (1982). The use of enzyme electrophoresis for the identification of the species of Eimeria present in the field isolates of coccidia. Parasitology 85, 437–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jeffers, T. K. (1976). Reduction of anticoccidial drug resistance by massive introduction of drug sensitive coccidia. Avian Diseases 20, 640–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, L. W. & Edgar, S. A. (1984). Ea-A and Ea-E cellular antigen genes in Leghorn lines resistant and susceptible to acute cecal coccidiosis. Poultry Science 63, 1695–704.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joyner, L. P. & Norton, C. C. (1969). A comparison of two laboratory strains of Eimeria tenella. Parasitology 59, 907–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kawaguchi, H., Konishi, T. & Nakamura, T. (1988). Characteristics of a precocious line of Eimeria tenella: Pathogenicity and endogenous development. Japanese Journal of Veterinary Science 50, 445–52.Google ScholarPubMed
Long, P. L. (1973). Pathology and pathogenicity of coccidial infection. In The Coccidia: Eimeria, Isospora, Toxoplasma and Related Genera (ed. Hammond, D. M. & Long, P. L.), pp. 253–94. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Long, P. L., Johnson, J. & Baxter, S. (1985). Eimeria tenella: Relative survival of drug-resistant and drug-sensitive populations in floor pen chickens. Poultry Science 64, 2403–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, A., Gross, W. B. & Dunnington, E. A. (1986). Resistance to natural and controlled exposures to Eimeria tenella: Genetic variation and alloantigen systems. Poultry Science 65, 1847–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mathis, G. F., Washburn, K. W. & Mcdougald, L. R. (1984). Genetic variability of resistance to Eimeria acervulina and E. tenella in chickens. Theoretical Applied Genetics 68, 385–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mcdougald, L. R. & Jeffers, T. K. (1976). Eimeria tenella (Sporozoa, Coccidia): Gametogony following a single asexual generation. Science 192, 258–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nakamura, T., Konishi, T. & Kawaguchi, H. (1986). Isozymes of chicken coccidia in Japan. Japanese Journal of Veterinary Science 48, 587–90.Google ScholarPubMed
Nakamura, T., Konishi, T., Kawaguchi, H. & Hayashi, Y. (1988). Glucose-phosphate isomerase isozymes as genetic markers for lines of Eimeria tenella. Parasitology 96, 281–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosario, V. E., Hall, R., Walliker, D. & Beale, G. H. (1976). Competition between drug-resistant and drug-sensitive malaria parasites. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 70, 287.Google Scholar
Shirley, M. W. (1986). New methods for the identification of species and strains of Eimeria. In Research in Avian Coccidiosis (ed. McDougald, L. R. et al. ), pp. 13–35. Proceedings of the Georgia Coccidiosis Conference, Athens, University of Georgia, USA.Google Scholar
Shirley, M. W. (1989). Enzyme characterization of the Eimeriidae. In Coccidia and Intestinal Coccidiomorphs, pp. 111–24. Vth International Coccidiosis Conference, Tours, France. IRNA Publications.Google Scholar
Shirley, M. W., Chapman, H. D., Kucera, J., Jeffers, T. K. & Bedrnic, P. (1989). Enzyme variation and pathogenicity of recent field isolates of Eimeria tenella. Research in Veterinary Science 46, 79–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shirley, M. W. & Rollinson, D. (1979). Coccidia: the recognition and characterization of populations of Eimeria. In Problem in the Identification of Parasites and Their Vectors, Vol. 17 (ed. Taylor, A. E. R. & Muller, R.), pp. 7–30. Symposia of the British Society for Parasitology. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar