Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T11:13:12.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Parasite–host relationships during the development of Eimeria dispersa Tyzzer 1929, in the turkey (Meleagris gallopavo gallopavo) with a description of intestinal intra-epithelial leucocytes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

B. J. Millard  and
A. M. Lawn
B. J. Millard
Affiliation:
Houghton Poultry Research Station, Houghton, Huntingdon, Cambs. PE17 2DA
A. M. Lawn
Affiliation:
Houghton Poultry Research Station, Houghton, Huntingdon, Cambs. PE17 2DA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

An electron microscopical study was made on the development of Eimeria dispersa in the small intestine of the domestic turkey. Turkey poults, 10–14 days of age, were inoculated with oocysts and pieces of intestinal tissue were fixed at intervals between 3·5 and 114 h after inoculation. Sporozoites were occasionally seen in enterocytes but more often in ‘pale’ cells closely resembling lymphocytes. These cells were insinuated between enterocytes and in this study are referred to as intestinal intra-epithelial leucocytes (IEL). Maturation of the first-generation of schizogony occurred in this type of cell. Other generations of schizonts and gametogony occurred in epithelial cells and were characterized by the presence of ‘spines’ arranged around the parasitophorous vacuole extending into the cytoplasm of the host cell. A limited study of the parasite in the Bobwhite quail, Colinis virginianus, showed that development occurred in similar cells to those of the turkey. The ‘spines’, which were characteristic of later stages of E. dispersa in the turkey, were also present in this host and seemed to be a characteristic of E. dispersa, not of the host species.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 84 , Issue 1 , February 1982 , pp. 13 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

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

Challey, J. R. & Burns, W. C. (1959). The invasion of the cecal mucosa by Eimeria tenella and their transport macrophages. Journal of Protozoology 6, 238–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darlington, D. & Rogers, A. W. (1966). Epithelial lymphocytes in the small intestine of the mouse. Journal of Anatomy 100, 813–30.Google ScholarPubMed
Doran, D. J. (1978). The life cycle of Eimeria dispersa (Tyzzer 1929) in turkeys. Journal of Protozoology 25, 293–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferguson, A. (1977). Intraepithelial lymphocytes of the small intestine. Gut 18, 921–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fichtelius, K. E. (1967). The mammalian equivalent to bursa Fabricii of birds. Experimental Cell Research 46, 231–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hammond, D. M., Scholtyseck, E. & Chobotar, B. (1967). Fine structures associated with nutrition of the intracellular parasite Eimeria auburnensis. Journal of Protozoology 14, 678–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawkins, P. A. (1952). Coccidiosis in turkeys. Technical Bulletin Michigan State College No. 226.Google Scholar
Horton-Smith, C. & Long, P. L. (1959). The effects of different anticoccidial agents on the intestinal coccidioses of the fowl. Journal of Comparative Pathology and Therapeutics 69, 192–207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Janossy, G., Tidman, N., Selby, W. S., Thomas, J. A., Granger, S., Kung, P. C. & Goldstein, G. (1980). Human T lymphocytes of inducer and suppressor type occupy different microenvironments. Nature, London 288, 81–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, P. L. (1973). Pathology and pathogenicity of coccidial infections. In The Coccidia (ed. Hammond, D. M. and Long, P. L.), pp. 253–94. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Long, P. L., Joyner, L. P., Millard, B. J. & Norton, C. C. (1976). A guide to laboratory techniques used in the study and diagnosis of avian coccidiosis. Folia Veterinaria Latina 6, 201–17.Google Scholar
Long, P. L. & Millard, B. J. (1979). Studies on Eimeria dispersa Tyzzer 1929, in turkeys. Parasitology 78, 41–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, P. L., Millard, B. J. & Lawn, A. M. (1979). An unusual local reaction to an intracellular protozoon parasite Eimeria dispersa. Zeitschrift für Parasitenkunde 60, 193–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otto, H. F. (1973). The interepithelial lymphocytes of the intestine. Morphological observations and immunological aspects of intestinal enteropathy. Current Topics in Pathology 57, 81–121.Google ScholarPubMed
Patillo, W. H. (1959). Invasion of the cecal mucosa of the chicken by sporozoites of Eimeria tenella. Journal of Parasitology 45, 253–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudzik, O. & Bienenstock, J. (1974). Isolation and characteristics of gut mucosal lymphocytes. Laboratory Investigation 30, 260–6.Google ScholarPubMed
Toner, P. G. (1965). The fine structure of the globule leukocyte in the fowl intestine. Acta Anatomica 61, 321–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyzzer, E. E. (1929). Coccidiosis in gallinaceous birds. American Journal of Hygiene 10, 269–384.Google Scholar
Van Doorninck, W. M. & Becker, E. R. (1957). Transport of sporozoites of Eimeria necatrix in macrophages. Journal of Parasitology 43, 40–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed