Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T08:18:01.618Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interactions between Moniliformis (Acanthocephala) and Nippostrongylus (Nematoda) in the small intestine of laboratory rats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Celia Holland
Celia Holland
Affiliation:
Department of Parasitology, Molteno Institute, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EE
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Rats harbouring a 35-day-old primary infection of Moniliformis dubius were inoculated with constant doses of Nippostrongylus brasiliensis and 10 days later, after post mortem examination, rats with concurrent infections harboured significantly fewer Nippostrongylus than rats with single infections. Similar infections of Moniliformis were carried out, but with post mortem taking place on days 8,9, 12 and 14 of the Nippostrongylus infections. On days 8 and 9 of infection, rats with concurrent infections did not harbour significantly fewer Nippostrongylus compared with single infections. Both single and concurrent infections of 12-and 14-day-old Nippostrongylus were found to harbour lower numbers of worms. In the single infection this corresponds to the timing of the typical immune expulsion of a primary single infection which takes place on approximately day 12 of infection. The Moniliformis population was not significantly affected, in terms of numbers, dry weight and length, although each parasite population did show a slight shift in site in the presence of the other. A significant reduction in egg production by Nippostrongylus was detected throughout concurrent infection. The possible role of non-reciprocal cross-immunity is discussed as an explanation for the apparent early expulsion of the Nippostrongylus population in the presence of Moniliformis.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 88 , Issue 2 , April 1984 , pp. 303 - 315
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

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

Andreassen, J. (1975). Immunity to the Acanthocephalan Moniliformis dubius infections in rats. Norwegian Journal of Zoology 23, 195–6.Google Scholar
Burlingame, P. L. & Chandler, A. C. (1941). Host parasite relations of Moniliformis dubius (Acanthocephala) in albino rats and the environmental nature of resistance to single and superimposed infections with this parasite. American Journal of hygiene 33, 1–21.Google Scholar
Calero, C. M., Ortiz, P. O. & De Souza, L. (1950). Helminths in rats from Panama city and suburbs. Journal of Parasitology 36, 426.Google ScholarPubMed
Christie, P. R., Wakelin, D. & Wilson, M. M. (1979). The effect of the expulsion phase of Trichinella spiralis on Hymenolepis diminuta infection in rats. Parasitology 78, 323–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crompton, D. W. T. (1973). The sites occupied by some parasitic helminths in the alimentary tract of vertebrates. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 49, 27–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crompton, D. W. T., Arnold, S. & Barnard, D. (1972). The patent period and production of eggs of Moniliformis dubius (Acanthocephala) in the small intestine of male rats. International Journal for Parasitology 2, 319–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crompton, P. W. T., Walters, D. E. & Arnold, S. (1981). Changes in the food intake and body weight of protein-malnourished rats infected with Nippostrongylus brasiliensis. Parasitology 82, 23–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dineen, J. K. (1963 a). Immunological aspects of parasitism. Nature (London) 197, 268–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dineen, J. K. (1963 b). Antigenic relationship between host and parasite. Nature (London) 197, 471–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubos, R. & Schaedler, R. W. (1964). The digestive tract as an ecosystem. American Journal of Medical Science 248, 267–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holmes, J. C. (1961). Effects of concurrent infections on Hynienolepis diminuta and Moniliformis dubius. I. General effects and comparison with crowding. Journal of Parasitology 47, 209–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holmes, J. C. (1962). Effects of concurrent infections on Hymenolepis diminuta and Moniliformis dubius. II. Effects on growth. Journal of Parasitology 48, 87–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holmes, J. C. (1973). Site selection by parasitic helminths. Interspecific interactions; site segregation and their importance to the development of helminth communities. Canadian Journal of Zoology 51, 333–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, M. W. (1980). Immunologically mediated non-specific interactions between intestinal phases of Trichinella spiralis and Nippostrongylus brasiliensis in the mouse. Parasitology 80, 61–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lackie, J. (1972). The course of infection and growth of Moniliformis dubius (Acanthocephala) in the intermediate host Periplaneta americana. Parasitology 64, 95–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mackerras, M. J. (1958). Catalogue of Australian mammals and their recorded parasites I–IV. II. Eutheria. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales 83, 126–43.Google Scholar
Mapes, C. J. & Coop, R. L. (1971). Effect of concurrent and terminated infections of Haemonchus contortus on the development and reproductive capacity of Nematodirus battus. Journal of Comparative Pathology 81, 479–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1971). Manual of Veterinary Parasitological Laboratory Techniques. Technical Bulletin 18. Her Majesty's Stationary Office.Google Scholar
Miremad-Gassman, M. (1981). Contribution a Ia connaissance de Ia Biologie de Moniliformis moniliformis, Bremser, 1811 (Acanthocephala) Influence de Ia résistance de l'hôte Rattus norvegicus Bertenhout, 1769, sur le parasite. Annales de Parasitologie (Paris) 56 (4), 407–21.Google Scholar
Moquel, R. & Wakelin, D. (1979). Trichinella spiralis and Strongyloides ratti. Immune interaction in adult rats. Experimental Parasitology 47, 65–72.Google Scholar
Nesheim, M. C., Crompton, D. W. T., Arnold, S. & Barnard, D. (1977). Dietary relations between Moniliformis (Acanthocephala) and laboratory rats. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 197, 363–83.Google ScholarPubMed
Ogilvie, B. M. & Jones, V. E. (1971). Parasitological review: Nippostrongylus brasiliensis: A review of immunity and the host'parasite relationship in the rat. Experimental Parasitology 29, 138–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paperna, I. (1964). Competitive exclusion of Dactylogyrus extensus by Dactylogyrus vastator (Trematoda, Monogenea) on the gills of reared carp. Journal of Parasitology 50, 94–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, P. W. (1980). Evolutionary biology of parasites. Monographs in Population Biology 15, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rohde, K. (1979). A critical evaluation of intrinsic and extrinsic factors responsible for niche restriction in parasites. The American Naturalist 114, 648–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schad, G. A. (1966). Immunity, competition and natural regulation of helminth populations. The American Naturalist 100, 359–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seng, T. L., Liat, L. B., Fong, Y. L. & Krishnasamy, M. (1979). Parasite fauna of the house rat Rattus rattus diardii in Kuala Lumpur and nearby villages. South East Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health 10 (1), 122–6.Google Scholar
Silver, B. B., Dick, T. A. & Welch, H. E. (1980). Concurrent infections of Hymenolepis diminuta and Trichinella spiralis in the rat intestine. Journal of Parasitology 66, 786–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singhvi, A. & Crompton, P. W. T. (1982). Increase in small intestine of rats infected with Moniliformis (Acanthocephala). International Journal for Parasitology 12, 173–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stock, R. D. (1978). Effects of concurrent infections on Moniliformis dubius and Nippostrongylus brasiliensis. Proceedings of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences 88, 62.Google Scholar