Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T23:50:42.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transplantation of Hymenolepis diminuta into naive, immune and irradiated mice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

C. A. Hopkins  and
A. Zajac
C. A. Hopkins
Affiliation:
Wellcome Laboratories for Experimental Parasitology, University of Glasgow, Bearsden Road, Glasgow, G61 1QH.
A. Zajac
Affiliation:
Wellcome Laboratories for Experimental Parasitology, University of Glasgow, Bearsden Road, Glasgow, G61 1QH.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Almost 100% of 7- to 10-day-old Hymenolepis diminuta became established when surgically transplanted from donor mice into the duodenum of naive recipient mice. Transplanted tapeworms survived 8–12 days, by which time they had survived much longer in total than they would have done in the donor. Mice previously immunized by a primary infection rejected transplants within 4 days. Sub-lethal irradiation (550 rad) delayed rejection by immune mice but such mice still rejected worms much more quickly than did naive mice.

Surgery was shown to delay by 2–3 days the rejection of worms by naive mice, and the importance of circumventing surgery by administering the worms per os is emphasized.

Prospects for reconstituting irradiated immune mice are considered vis-à-vis work with nematodes, and the differences which, on present knowledge, appear to exist between nematode and cestode rejection are briefly discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 73 , Issue 1 , August 1976 , pp. 73 - 81
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

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

Befus, A. D. (1975 a). Secondary infections of Hymenolepia diminuta in mice: effects of varying worm burdens in primary and secondary infections. Parasitology 71, 61–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Befus, A. D. (1975 b). Intestinal immune responses of mice to the tapeworms Hymenolepis diminuta and H. microstoma. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
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
Befus, A. D. & Threadgold, L. T. (1975). Possible immunological damage to the tegument of Hymenolepis diminuta in mice and rats. Parasitology 71, 525–34.Google Scholar
Bland, P. W. (1976). Immunity to Hymenolepis diminuta: unresponsiveness of the athymic nude mouse to infection. Parasitology 72, 93–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, A. J., Irvine, J. M. & Turnbull, A. R. (1974). Depression of immunological responses due to surgery. A model in the guinea-pig. Immunology 27, 393–9.Google Scholar
Dineen, J. K., Ogilvie, B. M. & Kelly, J. D. (1973). Expulsion of Nippostrongylus brasiliensis from the intestine of rats. Collaboration between humoral and cellular components of the immune response. Immunology 24, 467–75.Google Scholar
Hopkins, C. A., Subramanian, G. & Stallard, H. (1972 a). The development of Hymenolepis diminuta in primary and secondary infections in mice. Parasitology 64, 401–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hopkins, C. A., Subramanian, G. & Stallard, H. (1972 b). The effect of immunosuppressants on the development of Hymenolepis diminuta in mice. Parasitology 65, 111–20.Google Scholar
Howard, R. J. (1976). The growth of secondary infections of Hymenolepis microstoma in mice: the effect of various primary infection regimes. Parasitology 72, 317–23.Google Scholar
Isaak, D. D., Jacobson, R. H. & Reed, N. D. (1975). Thymus dependence of tapeworm (Hymenolepis diminuta) elimination from mice. Infection and Immunity 12, 1478–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, V. E. & Ogilvie, B. M. (1971). Protective immunity to Nippostrongylus brasiliensis: the sequence of events which expels worms from the rat intestine. Immunology 20, 549–61.Google Scholar
Love, R. J., Ogilvie, B. M. & McLaren, D. J. (1976). The immune mechanism which expels the intestinal stage of Trichinella spiralis from rats. Immunology 30, 7–15.Google Scholar
Lumsden, R. D. (1975). Surface ultrastructure and cytochemistry of parasitic helminths. Experimental Parasitology 37, 267–339.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.Google Scholar
Ogilvie, B. M. & Hockley, D. J. (1968). Effects of immunity on Nippostrongylus brasiliensis adult worms: reversible and irreversible changes in infectivity, reproduction, and morphology. Journal of Parasitology 54, 1073–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ogilvie, B. M. & Love, R. J. (1974). Co-operation between antibodies and cells in immunity to a nematode parasite. Transplantation Review 19, 147–68.Google ScholarPubMed
Pappas, P. W. & Read, C. P. (1975). Membrane transport in helminth parasites: a review. Experimental Parasitology 37, 469–530.Google Scholar
Wakelin, D. & Selby, G. R. (1976). Immune expulsion of Trichuris muris from resistant mice: suppression by irradiation and restoration by transfer of lymphoid cells. Parasitology 72, 41–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed