Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:09:51.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Morphological and adhesive changes to cultured chick kidney cells following parasitization with Eimeria tenella (Protozoa: Coccidia)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Catriona Urquhart
Catriona Urquhart
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology and Applied Entomology, Imperial College, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Cultured adult chick kidney (CK) cells inoculated with sporozoites of Eimeria tenella showed progressive alterations in their morphological and adhesive characteristics. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) showed that during a 3-day period following the inoculation of parasites there was a gradual loss of contact between the cells. Initially, the cells remained connected by long cytoplasmic bridges but with the breakdown of these, the cells began to round up, losing complete contact with each other and remaining attached to the substratum by means of retraction fibres. By 3 days many cells had completely detached. The factors inducing these alterations were transmissable via the medium as the alterations were mimicked by non-parasitized cells in co-culture with parasitized cells. Studies with the reflection interference microscope (RIM) showed that the changes were accompanied by an increase in the cell-substrate separation distance and the loss of focal contacts. These changes were not effected by substances transmissable via the medium. Parasitized cells showed enhanced agglutination with Concanavalin A (Con A) which could be eliminated by pre-fixation. The possibility that changes to the host cell indicate a rearrangement of cytoskeletal apparatus is discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 82 , Issue 2 , April 1981 , pp. 175 - 187
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

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

Abercrombie, M. & Dunn, G. A. (1975). Adhesions of fibroblasts to substratum during contact inhibition observed by interference reflection microscopy. Experimental Cell Research 92, 57–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ali, I. U., Mautner, V., Lanza, R. & Hynes, R. O. (1977). Restoration of normal morphology, adhesion and cytoskeleton in transformed cells by addition of a transformation-sensitive surface protein. Cell 11, 115–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Badley, R. A., Lloyd, C. W., Woods, A., Carruthers, L., Allcock, C. & Rees, D. A. (1978). Mechanisms of cellular adhesion. III. Preparation and preliminary characterisation of adhesions. Experimental Cell Research 117, 231–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bedrník, P. (1969). Some results and problems of cultivation of Eimeria tenella in tissue cultures. Acta Veterinaria (Brno) 38, 31–5.Google Scholar
Burger, M. M. (1969). A difference in the architecture of the surface membrane of normal and virally transformed cells. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 62, 994–1001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, J. I. & Albertini, D. F. (1976). Filaments, microtubules and colchicine receptors in capped ovarian granulosa cells. In Cell Motility. Cold Spring Harbor Conferences on Cell Proliferation, vol. 3 (ed. Goldman, R., Pollard, T. and Rosenbaum, J.), pp. 323–331. Cold Spring Harbor, New York.Google Scholar
Clark, W. N. & Hammond, D. M. (1969). Development of Eimeria auburnensis in cell cultures. Journal of Protozoology 16, 646–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Curtis, A. S. G. (1964). The mechanism of adhesion of cells to glass. A study by interference reflection microscopy. Journal of Cell Biology 20, 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damsky, C. H., Wylie, D. E. & Buck, C. A. (1979). Studies on the function of cell surface glycoproteins. II. Possible role of surface glycoproteins in the control of cytoskeletal organisation and surface morphology. Journal of Cell Biology 80, 403–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doran, D. J. (1970). Eimeria tenella: from sporozoites to oocysts in cell culture. Proceedings of the Helminthological Society of Washington 37, 84–92.Google Scholar
Doran, D. J. (1973). Cultivation of coccidia in avian embryos and cell culture. In The Coccidia, (ed. Hammond, D. M. and Long, P. L.), pp. 183–252. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Doran, D. J. & Vetterling, J. M. (1967). Comparative cultivation of poultry coccidia in mammalian cell cultures. Journal of Protozoology 14, 657–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doran, D. J. & Vetterling, J. M. (1968). Survival and development of Eimeria meleagrimitis Tyzzer, 1929, in bovine kidney and turkey intestine cell cultures. Journal of Protozoology 15, 796–802.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edelman, G. M., Wang, J. L. & Yahara, I. (1976). Surface-modulating assemblies in mammalian cells. In Cell Motility. Cold Spring Harbor Conferences on Cell Proliferation, vol. 3, (ed. Goldman, R., Pollard, T. and Rosenbaum, J.), pp. 305–321. Cold Spring Harbor, New York.Google Scholar
Furcht, L. T. & Wendelschafer-Crabb, G. (1978). Trypsin-induced coordinate alterations in cell shape, cytoskeleton and intrinsic membrane structure of contact-inhibited cells. Experimental Cell Research 114, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guerin, C., Zachowski, A., Prigent, B., Paraf, A., Dunia, I., Diawara, M.-A. & Benedetti, E. L. (1974). Correlation between the mobility of inner plasma membrane structure and agglutination by concanavalin A in two cell lines of MOPC 173 plastocytoma cells. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 71, 114–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatten, M. E., Scandella, C. J., Horwitz, A. F. & Burger, M. M. (1978). Similarities in the membrane fluidity of 3T3 and SV101–3T3 cells and its relation to Con A and WGA-induced agglutination. Journal of Biological Chemistry 253, 1972–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, J. P. & Dunn, G. A. (1978). Cell to substratum contacts of chick fibroblasts and their relation to the microfilament system. A correlated interference-reflexion and high-voltage electron-microscope study. Journal of Cell Science 29, 197–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hynes, R. O. (1973). Alteration of cell-surface proteins by viral transformation and by proteolysis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 70, 3170–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hynes, R. O. & Destree, A. T. (1978). Relationship between fibronectin (LETS protein) and actin. Cell 15, 875–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Inbar, M., Huet, C., Oseroff, A. R., Ben-Bassat, H. & Sachs, L. (1976). Inhibition of lectin agglutinability by fixation of the cell surface membrane. Biochimica et biophysica acta 311, 594–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itagaki, K., Hirayama, N., Tsubokura, M., Otsuki, K. & Taira, Y. (1974). Development of Eimeria tenella, E. brunetti and E. acervulina in cell cultures. Japanese Journal of veterinary Science 36, 467–82.Google Scholar
Izzard, C. S. & Lochner, L. R. (1976). Cell-to-substrate contacts in living fibroblasts: an interference reflexion study with an evaluation of the technique. Journal of Cell Science 21, 129–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
King, C. A., Heaysman, J. E. M. & Preston, T. M. (1979). Experimental evidence for the role of long range forces in fibroblast–substrate interaction. Experimental Cell Research 119, 406–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kurkinen, M., Wartiovaara, J. & Vaheri, A. (1978). Cytochalasin B releases a major surface-associated glycoprotein, fibronectin, from cultured fibroblasts. Experimental Cell Research 111, 127–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, C. W. (1979). Fibronectin: a function at the junction. Nature, London 279, 473–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lloyd, C. W., Smith, C. G., Woods, A. & Rees, D. A. (1977). Mechanisms of cellular adhesion. III. The interplay between adhesion, the cytoskeleton and morphology in substrate-attached cells. Experimental Cell Research 110, 427–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, P. L. (1970). Some factors affecting the seventy of infection with Eimeria tenella in chick embryos. Parasitology 60, 435–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, P. L. (1973). Pathology and pathogenicity of coccidial infections. In The Coccidia (ed. Hammond, D. M. and Long, P. L.), pp. 253–294. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Loor, F. (1976). Cell surface design. Nature, London 264, 272–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mallucci, L. & Wells, V. (1976). Determination of cell shape by a cell surface protein component. Nature, London 262, 138–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDougald, L. R. (1978). The growth of avian Eimeria in vitro. In Proceedings of 13th Poultry Science Symposium,14–16 September, 1977. (ed. Long, P. L., Boorman, K. N. and Freeman, B. M.), pp. 185–223. British Poultry Science Ltd.Google Scholar
Millard, B. J. & Long, P. L. (1974). The viability and survival of sporozoites of Eimeria in vitro. International Journal for Parasitology 4, 423–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicolson, G. L. (1974). Interactions of lectins with animal cell surfaces. International reviews of Cytology 39, 89–190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicolson, G. L. (1976). Transmembrane control of the receptor on normal and tumour cells. I. Cytoplasmic influence over cell surface components. Biochimica et biophysica acta 457, 57–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pastan, I. & Willingham, M. (1978). Cellular transformation and the ‘morphologic pheno-type’ of transformed cells. Nature, London 274, 645–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollack, R. & Rifkin, D. (1975). Actin-containing cables within anchorage dependent rat embryo cells are dissociated by plasmin and trypsin. Cell 6, 495–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollack, R. & Rifkin, D. B. (1976). Modification of mammalian cell shape: redistribution of intracellular actin by SV40 virus, cytochalasin B, and dimethylsulfoxide. In Cell Motility. Cold Spring Harbor Conferences on Cell Proliferation, vol 3 (ed. Goldman, R., Pollard, T. and Rosenbaum, J.), pp. 389–401. Cold Spring Harbor, New York.Google Scholar
Rees, D. A., Lloyd, C. W. & Thom, D. (1977). Control of grip and stick in cell adhesion through lateral relationships of membrane glycoproteins. Nature, London 267, 124–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Revel, J. P., Hoch, P. & Ho, D. (1974). Adhesion of cultured cells to their substratum. Experimental Cell Research 84, 207–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenblith, J. Z., Ukena, T. E., Yin, H. H., Berlin, R. D. & Karnovsky, M. J. (1973). A comparative evaluation of the distribution of concanavalin A-binding sites on the surfaces of normal, virally transformed, and protease-treated fibroblasts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 70, 1625–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schnebli, H. P. (1976). Survey of agglutination techniques. In Concanavalin A as a Tool (ed. Bittiger, H. and Schnebli, H. P.), pp. 249–255. London: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Urquhart, C. M. (1979). Membrane changes in chick kidney cells cultured with Eimeria tenella. Journal of Protozoology 26, 74A.Google Scholar
Wagenbach, G. E. (1969). Purification of Eimeria tenella sporozoites with glass bead columns. Journal of Parasitology 55, 833–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walther, B. T. (1976). Mechanisms of cell agglutination by Concanavalin A. In Concanavalin A as a Tool (ed. Bittiger, H. and Schnebli, H. P.), pp. 231–248. London: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Wehland, J., Osborn, M. & Weber, K. (1979). Cell-to-substratum contacts in living cells: a direct correlation between interference-reflexion and indirect-immunofluorescence microscopy using antibodies against actin and α-actinin. Journal of Cell Science 37, 257–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willingham, M. C., Yamada, K. M., Yamada, S. S., Pouysségur, J. & Pastan, I. (1977). Microfilament bundles and cell shape are related to adhesiveness to substratum and are dissociable from growth control in cultured fibroblasts. Cell 10, 375–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yamada, K. M. & Olden, K. (1978). Fibronectins – adhesive glycoproteins of cell surface and blood. Nature, London 275, 179–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed