Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T12:10:42.244Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hymenolepis murissylvatici: humoral response in intestinal lavages of the mouse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2009

E. Van Der Vorst ,
H. Dhont ,
C. Van Haeren ,
R. Deceunynck  and
P. H. De Rycke
E. Van Der Vorst
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Zoophysiology, State University of Gent, K.L. Ledeganckstraat 35, B–9000 Gent, Belgium
H. Dhont
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Zoophysiology, State University of Gent, K.L. Ledeganckstraat 35, B–9000 Gent, Belgium
C. Van Haeren
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Zoophysiology, State University of Gent, K.L. Ledeganckstraat 35, B–9000 Gent, Belgium
R. Deceunynck
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Zoophysiology, State University of Gent, K.L. Ledeganckstraat 35, B–9000 Gent, Belgium
P. H. De Rycke
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Zoophysiology, State University of Gent, K.L. Ledeganckstraat 35, B–9000 Gent, Belgium
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hymenolepis murissylvatici elicits a humoral response in serum and in the intestine of the mouse from which it is immunologically rejected. In serum, significant differences were recorded 3 days after reinfection, while in intestinal lavages it takes place from day 9 after reinfection. In serum the response is largely the result of IgG and IgM antibodies whereas in the intestine, IgA is the most abundant antibody. Although specific IgE could not be demonstrated in serum, it was present in intestinal lavages, although rather late (i.e. day 14 after reinfection). Treatment of young worms in vitro both with immune serum or intestinal lavages had no apparent effect on their viability. Immune serum produced a complement independent precipitation on the surface of the worms in vitro. This reaction did not affect viability or infectivity of the parasite, as demonstrated by the successful implantation of treated worms in recipient mice. The above-mentioned results, together with the knowledge that the Hymenolepis model has no tissue stages and causes no tissue damage, make it probable that further study of this model will reveal some specific intestinal immunological reactions.

Keywords

Hymenolepis murissylvaticiimmunoglobulinshumoral responsemouseintestine
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 63 , Issue 1 , March 1989 , pp. 25 - 31
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

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

Craig, P. S. & Rickard, M. D. (1980) Evaluation of “crude” antigen prepared from Taenia saginata for the serological diagnosis of T. saginata cystycercosis in cattle using the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Zeitschrift für Parasitenkunde, 61, 287–297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grzych, J. M., Capron, M., Bazin, H. & Capron, A. (1982) In vitro and in vivo effector function of rat IgG2a monoclonal anti-S. mansoni antibodies. Journal of Immunology, 129, 2739–2743.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heyneman, D. & Welsh, J. H. (1959) Action of homologous antiserum in vitro against life cycle stages of Hymenolepis nana, the dwarf mouse tapeworm. Experimental Parasitology, 8, 119–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hopkins, C. A., Subramanian, G. & Stallard, H. (1972) The effect of immunosuppressants on the development of Hymenolepis diminuta in mice. Parasitology, 65, 111–120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hopkins, C. A. & Zajac, A. (1976) Transplantation of Hymenolepis diminuta into naive, immune and irradiated mice. Parasitology, 73, 73–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hopkins, C. A. (1980) Immunity and Hymenolepis diminuta. In: Biology of the tapeworm Hymenolepis diminuta (editor, Arai, H. P.). pp. 551–614. Academic Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, R. J. (1977) Hymenolepis microstoma: a change in susceptibility to resistance with increasing age of the parasite. Parasitology, 75, 241–249.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leid, R. W. (1977) Immunity to the metacestode of Taenia taeniaeformis in the laboratory rat. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 26, 54–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radermecker, M., Bekhti, A., Poncelot, E. & Salmon, J. (1974) Serum IgE levels in protozoal and helminthic infections. International Archives of Allergy and Applied Immunology, 47, 285–295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, M. A., Clegg, J. A., Snary, D. & Trejdosiewicz, A. J. (1982) Passive immunization of mice against Schistosoma mansoni with an IgM monoclonal antibody. Parasitology, 84, 83–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van der vorst, E., Spitaels, R., Dhont, H., Van Haeren, C. & De rycke, P. H. (1985) The humoral response against Hymenolepis muris-sylvaticae in serum of Mus musculus. Biologisch Jaarboek Dodonaea, 53, 162–168.Google Scholar
Van Haeren, C. & De Rycke, P. H. (1984) Hymenolepis muris-sylvaticae in laboratory rodents. Journal of Helminthology, 58, 31–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Haeren, C. & De Rycke, P. H. (1986) Immunological aspects in the rejection process of Hymenolepis muris-sylvaticae from CFLP and NMRI mice. Journal of Helminthology, 60, 179–186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, J. F., Picone, J. & Engelkirk, P. (1980) Evasion of immunity by cestodes. In: “The Host-invader Interplay“ (editor, Van den Bosshe, H.) pp. 205–216. Elsevier North Holland Biomedical Press, Amsterdam.Google Scholar