Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T18:17:56.580Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Secondary infections of Hymenolepis diminuta in mice: effects of varying worm burdens in primary and secondary infections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

A. D. Befus
A. D. Befus
Affiliation:
Wellcome Laboratories for Experimental Parasitology University of Glasgow, Bearsden, Glasgow G61 1QH, Scotland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In one (1c) and six (6c) cysticercoid primary infections of Hymenolepis diminuta in NIH (inbred) and CFLP (outbred) male mice 6±1 weeks old > 85% of the worms established but were rejected (destrobilated or expelled) subsequently. Rejection occurs more quickly in 6c infections than in 1c infections. Considerable worm growth occurs in 1c and 6c primary infections but worms from 6c infections weighed less than worms from 1c infections on all days studied.

Expulsion of H. diminuta does not occur more rapidly in secondary infections than in primary infections; loss of 6c secondary worms occurs at the same rate as 6c primary worms but 1c secondary worms survive longer than 1c primary worms. Although worms are not lost more quickly in secondary than in primary infections, they are affected at an early age by the immune response which stunts their growth. Increasing the intensity of primary and secondary infections increases the severity of stunting of secondary worms.

The results are discussed and it is suggested that immune responses to Hymenolepis spp. in rodents are common but that thresholds of worm numbers exist below which appreciable worm loss does not occur. Stunting due to crowding, which generally is attributed to inter-worm competition, may be in part immunologically mediated. For future immunological studies attempting to induce secondary responses to H. diminuta in mice, worm growth, not survival, is the criterion to evaluate.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 71 , Issue 1 , August 1975 , pp. 61 - 75
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

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

Andreassen, J., Hindsbo, O. & Hesselberg, C. A. (1974). Immunity to Hymenolepis diminuta in rats: destrobilation and expulsion in primary infections, its suppression by cortisone treatment and increased resistance to secondary infections. Proceedings, Third International Congress of Parasitology 2, 1056–7; personal communication.Google Scholar
Befus, A. D. (1974). The immunoglobulin coat on Hymenolepis spp. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 68, 273.Google ScholarPubMed
Befus, A. D. & Featherston, D. W. (1974). Delayed rejection of single Hymenolepis diminuta in primary infections of young mice. Parasitology 69, 77–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chandler, A. C. (1939). The effects of number and age of worms on development of primary and secondary infection with Hymenolepis diminuta in rats, and an investigation into the true nature of premunition in tapeworm infections. American Journal of Hygiene 29, 105–14.Google Scholar
Connan, R. M. (1974). The distribution of Nippostrongylus brasiliensis in prolonged infections in lactating and neonatally infected rats. Parasitology 68, 347–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dvorak, J. A., Jones, A. W. & Kuhlman, H. H. (1961). Studies on the biology of Hymenolepis microstoma (Dujardin, 1845). The Journal of Parasitology 47, 833–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodall, R. I. (1973). Studies on the growth, location specificity and immunobiology of some hymenolepid tapeworms. Ph.D. thesis, University of Glasgow, Scotland.Google Scholar
Gray, J. S. (1973). Studies on host resistance to secondary infections of Raillietina cesticillus Molin, 1858 in the fowl. Parasitology 67, 375–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanna, M. G. Jr & Peters, L. C. (1971). Requirement for continuous antigenic stimulation in the development and differentiation of antibody-forming cells: effect of antigen dose. Immunology 20, 707–18.Google ScholarPubMed
Harris, W. G. & Turton, J. A. (1973). Antibody response to tapeworm (Hymenolepis diminuta) in the rat. Nature, London 246, 521–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hopkins, C. A. & Stallard, H. E. (1974). Immunity to intestinal tapeworms: the rejection of Hymenolepis citelli by mice. Parasitology 69, 63–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hopkins, C. A., Grant, P. M. & Stallard, H. (1973). The effect of oxyclozanide on Hymenolepis microstoma and H. diminuta. Parasitology 66, 355–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hopkins, C. A., Subramanian, G. & Stallard, H. (1972 a). The development of Hymenolepis diminuta in primary and secondary infections of mice. Parasitology 64, 401–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, C. A., Subramanian, G. & Stallard, H. (1972 b). The effect of immunosuppressants on the development of Hymenolepis diminuta in mice. Parasitology 65, 111–2O.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jarrett, E. E. E. & Urquhart, G. M. (1971). The immune response to nematode infections. In International Review of Tropical Medicine, vol. 4 (ed. Woodruff, A. W. and Lincicome, D. R.), pp. 53–96. New York, London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jenkins, D. C. (1973). Observations on the distribution of an immune-adapted population of Nippostrongylus brasiliensis within the small intestine of rats given repeated small challenge infections. Zeitschrift für Parasitenkunde 44, 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, D. C. (1974). Nippostrongylus brasiliensis: the distribution of primary worm populations within the small intestine of neonatal rats. Parasitology 68, 339–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, A. W. & Tan, B. D. (1971). Effect of crowding upon growth and fecundity in the mouse bile duct tapeworm, Hymenolepis microstoma. The Journal of Parasitology 57, 88–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, J. P., Dineen, J. K. & Love, R. J. (1973). Expulsion of Nippostrongylus brasiliensis from the intestine of rats: evidence for a third component in the rejection mechanism. International Archives of Allergy and Applied Immunology 45, 767–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moss, G. D. (1971). The nature of the immune response of the mouse to the bile duct cestode, Hymenolepis microstoma. Parasitology 62, 285–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, G. D. (1972). The effect of cortisone acetate treatment on the growth of Hymenolepis microstoma in mice. Parasitology 64, 311–2O.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ogilvie, B. M. & Jones, V. E. (1973). Immunity in the parasitic relationship between helminths and hosts. In Progress in Allergy, vol. 17 (ed. Kallos, P., Waksman, B. H. and Weck, A. de), pp. 93–444. Basel, Munchen, Paris, London, New York, Sydney: S. Karger.Google Scholar
Read, C. P. & Simmons, J. E. Jr, (1963). Biochemistry and physiology of tapeworms. Physiological Reviews 43, 263–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, L. S. & Mong, F. H. (1968). Developmental physiology of cestodes. III. Development of Hymenolepis diminuta in superinfections. The Journal of Parasitology 54, 55–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tan, B. D. & Jones, A.W. (1967). Autoelimination 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Turton, J. A. (1971). Distribution and growth of Hymenolepis diminuta in the rat, hamster and mouse. Zeitschrift für Parasitenkunde 37, 315–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wakelin, D. (1974). Genetic control of the immune response of mice to the nematode Trichuris muris. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 68, 277.Google Scholar
Wassom, D. L., DeWitt, C. W. & Grundmann, A. W. (1974). Immunity to Hymenolepis citelli by Peromyscus maniculatus: genetic control and ecological implications. The Journal of Parasitology 60, 47–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed