Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T00:13:27.993Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The nature of the immune response of the mouse to the bile duct cestode, Hymenolepis microstoma

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

G. D. Moss
Affiliation:
Wellcome Laboratories for Experimental Parasitology, The University of Glasgow, Bearsden, Glasgow

Extract

The immune reaction of the mouse to the cestode, Hymenolepis microstoma, has been investigated. The mouse can carry a worm burden of up to 500 mg wet wt and there is no evidence either of rejection of the parasite by the mouse or a slowing down of growth rate of the mouse as a result of the parasite.

The nature of the antibody response has been investigated with regard to the type of antibody, onset of production, and titre.

The nature of the antibody is discussed together with the fact that there is no rejection of the parasite. The possibility that a cellular immune response might be necessary for rejection is also discussed.

I should like to express my thanks to Dr T. S. C. Orr of Fisons Research Laboratories, Loughborough, for many helpful comments and suggestions during the course of this work.

My thanks are due also to Professor C. A. Hopkins who put the facilities of the Wellcome Laboratory at my disposal at all times. My thanks, too, to Miss Gillian Moore whose technical assistance was invaluable.

The work was in part supported by a Grant from Fisons Ltd.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1971

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

Coleman, R. M., Carty, J. M. & Graziodei, W. D. (1968). Immunogenicity and phylogenetic relationships of tapeworm antigens produced by Hymenolepis nana and Hymenolepis diminuta. Immunology 15, 297304.Google Scholar
Di Conza, J. J. (1969). Protective action of passively transferred immune serum and immunoglobulin fractions against tissue invasive stages of the dwarf tapeworm, Hymenolepis nana. Experimental Parasitology 25, 368–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friedberg, W., Neas, B. R., Faulkner, D. N. & Friedberg, M. H. (1967). Immunity to Hymenolepis nana: transfer of spleen cells. Journal of Parasitology 53, 895–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herbert, W. J. (1967). Passive haemagglutination. In Handbook of Experimental Immunology, 720–44, ed. Weir, D. M.. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heyneman, D. (1962 a). Studies on helminth immunity. I. Comparison between lumenal and tissue phases of infection in the white mouse by Hymenolepis nana (Cestoda: Hymenolepididae). American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 11, 4663.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heyneman, D. (1962 b). Studies on helminth immunity. IV. Rapid onset of resistance by the white mouse against a challenging infection with eggs of Hymenolepis nana (Cestoda: Hymenolepididae). Journal of Immunology 88, 217–20.Google Scholar
Humphrey, J. H. & White, R. G. (1970). Immunology for Students of Medicine. 3rd edition, p. 757. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hutchins, C. P. (1961). Immunological studies on Hymenolepis microstoma. Dujardin. Association of South Eastern Biologists Bulletin 8, 21.Google Scholar
Kagan, I. G. (1966). Mechanisms of immunity in trematode infections. In Biology of Parasites, 277300, ed. Soulsby, E. J. L.. New York, London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Levine, L. (1967). Microcomplement fixation. In Handbook of Experimental Immunology, 707719. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Michel, J. F. (1968). Immunity to helminths associated with the tissues. British Society for Parasitology Symposium VI, 667–89, ed. Taylor, A.. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mota, I. & Peixoto, J. M. (1966). A skin sensitising and thermolabile antibody in the mouse. Life Science 5, 1723–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mota, I., Wong, D. & Sadun, E. H. (1968). Mouse homocytotropic antibodies. I. Specific differentiation between mouse 7Sγ1 and mouse reagin-like antibodies. Life Science 7, 1289–93.Google Scholar
Nussenzweig, R. S., Merryman, C. & Benacerraf, B. (1964). Electrophoretic separation and properties of mouse antihapten antibodies involved in passive cutaneous anaphylaxis and passive haemolysis. Journal of Experimental Medicine 120, 315–28.Google Scholar
Ogilvie, B. M. (1967). Reagin-like antibodies in rats infected with the nematode parasite, Nippostronglyus brasiliensis. Immunology 12, 113–31.Google Scholar
Ogilvie, B. M. (1969). Immunity to Nippostrongylus brasiliensis. British Society for Parasitology Symposium VII, 3142, ed. Taylor, A.. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Smithers, S. R. (1968). Immunity to Blood Helminths. British Society for Parasitology Symposium VI, 5566, ed. Taylor, A.. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tan, B. D. & Jones, A. W. (1966). X-ray induced abnormalities and recovery in Hymenolepis microstoma. Experimental Parasitology 18, 355–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tan, B. D. & Jones, A. W. (1967). Auto-elimination by means of X-rays: distinguishing the crowding factor from others in premunition caused by the mouse bile duct cestode, Hymenolepis microstoma. Experimental Parasitology 20, 147–55.Google Scholar
Tan, B. D. & Jones, A. W. (1968). Resistance of mice to reinfection with the bile duct cestode Hymenolepis microstoma. Experimental Parasitology 22, 250–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waddell, W. J. (1956). A simple ultra violet spectrophotometric method for determination of protein. Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine 48, 311–14.Google Scholar
Weinmann, C. J. (1966). Immunity mechanisms in cestode infections. In Biology of Parasites, 301320, ed. Soulsby, E. J. L.. New York, London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. J. M. & Bloch, K. J. (1968). Homocytotropic antibody response in the rat infected with the nematode, Nippostrongylus brasiliensis. II. Characteristics of the immune reponse. Journal of Immunology 100, 622–36.Google Scholar