Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T23:15:16.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Population dynamics of Angiostrongylus cantonensis during primary infections in rats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Yong Weng Kwong  and
Colin Dobson
Yong Weng Kwong
Affiliation:
Department of Parasitology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4067, Australia
Colin Dobson
Affiliation:
Department of Parasitology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4067, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

About 35 of Angiostrongylus cantonensis larvae became patent adults irrespective of the dose used to establish primary infections in laboratory rats. Worm growth and fecundity was depressed in infections from high compared with low doses of infective larvae. Rats infected with up to 50 A. cantonensis larvae survived infection better than rats given greater numbers of larvae. The biology of A. cantonensis surviving in laboratory rats from single infections with 50 larvae for over a year was studied. Stable worm numbers and fecundity were established 90 days after infection but the worms continued to grow until the experiment was terminated.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 85 , Issue 2 , October 1982 , pp. 399 - 409
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

Africa, C. M. (1931). Studies on the host relations of Nippostrongylus muris, with special reference to age resistance and acquired immunity. Journal of Parasitology 18, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alicata, J. E. & Jindrak, K. (1970). In Angioslrongylosis in the Pacific and Southeast Asia. Illinois, USA: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. M. (1978). The regulation of host population growth by parasite species. Parasitology 76, 119–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Au, A. C. S. & Ko, R. C. (1979). Changes in worm burden, haematological and serological response in rats after single and multiple Angiostrongylus cantonensis infections. Zeitschrift für Parasitenkunde 58, 233–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bhaibulaya, M. (1975). Comparative studies on the life history of Angiostrongylus mackerrasae Bhaibulaya, 1968 and Angiostrongylus cantonensis (Chen, 1925). International Journal for Parasitology 5, 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chappell, L. H. & Pike, A. W. (1976). Loss of Hymenolepis diminuta from the rat. International Journal for Parasitology 6, 333–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dobson, C. (1965). The relationship between worm population density, host-survival and the growth of the third-stage larvae of Amplicaecum robertsi Sprent & Mines, 1960, in the mouse. Parasitology 55, 183–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dobson, C. (1974). Studies on the immunity of sheep to Oesophagostomum columbianum: effects of different and successive doses of larvae on worm burdens, worm growth and fecundity. Parasitology 68, 313–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dobson, C. (1982). Passive transfer of immunity with serum in mice infected with Nemato- spiroides dubius: influence of quality and quantity of immune serum. International Journal for Parasitology 12, 207–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, T. E. & Parfitt, J. W. (1975). Egg output by Trichostrongylus axei in sheep given a single infection. Journal of Comparative Pathology 85, 335–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harness, E., Sellwood, S. A. & Young, E. R. (1971). Experimental Haemonchus placei infection in calves: influence of anaemia and numbers of larvae on worm development. Journal of Comparative Pathology 81, 129–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hurley, F. J. (1959). Immunisation threshold in laboratory rats given a small initial infection of Nippostrongylus muris. Proceedings of the Helminthological Society of Washington 26, 91–6.Google Scholar
Lim, B. L., Ow-Yano, C. K. & Lie, K. J. (1965). Natural infection of Angiostrongylus cantonensis in Malayan rodents and intermediate hosts, and preliminary observations on acquired resistance. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 14, 610–17.Google Scholar
Mackerras, M. J. & Sandars, D. F. (1955). The life-history of the rat lungworm, Angiostrongylus cantonensis (Chen) (Nematoda: Metastrongylidae). Australian Journal of Zoology 3, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michel, J. F. (1968). Faecal egg counts in infections of gastro-intestinal nematodes in cows. Veterinary Record 82, 132–3.Google Scholar
Michel, J. F. (1969 a). The regulation of egg output by Ostertagia ostertagi in calves infected once only. Parasitology 59, 767–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Michel, J. F. (1969 b). The epidemiology and control of some nematode infections of grazing animals. Advances in Parasitology 7, 211–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mines, J. J. (1967). A technique for counting and differentiating microfilariae in the blood of dogs in Australia. Australian Veterinary Journal 43, 599.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neilson, J. T. M. & Ngheim, N. D. (1974). The dynamics of Strongyloides papillosus primary infections in neonatal and adult rabbits. Journal of Parasitology 60, 786–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smithers, S. R. & Terry, R. J. (1976). The immunology of schistosomiasis. Advances in Parasitology 14, 399–422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1967). Statistical Methods, pp. 593. Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Wasson, D. L., Guss, V. M. & Grundmann, A. W. (1973). Host resistance in a natural host–parasite system. Resistance to Hymenolepis citelli by Peromyscus maniculatus. Journal of Parasitology 59, 117–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinstein, P. P., Rosen, L., Laqueur, G. L. & Sawyer, T. K. (1963). Angiostrongylus cantonensis infection in rats and rhesus monkeys, and observations on the survival of the parasite in vitro. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 12, 358–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed