Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:38:57.161Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Humoral and cellular response to infection with Echinostoma revolutum in the golden hamster, Mesocricetus auratus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2009

J. Mabus ,
J. E. Huffman  and
B. Fried
J. Mabus
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology and Physiology, Parasitology Laboratory, Rutgers-The State University, Newark, New Jersey 07102, USA Department of Biology, Lafayette College, Easton, Pennsylvania 18042, USA
J. E. Huffman*
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology and Physiology, Parasitology Laboratory, Rutgers-The State University, Newark, New Jersey 07102, USA Department of Biology, Lafayette College, Easton, Pennsylvania 18042, USA
B. Fried
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology and Physiology, Parasitology Laboratory, Rutgers-The State University, Newark, New Jersey 07102, USA Department of Biology, Lafayette College, Easton, Pennsylvania 18042, USA
*
*Author for correspondence.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Laboratory hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus) were infected with Echinostoma revolutum (Trematoda). Immunoelectrophoretic studies of hamster serum showed no demonstrable antibody response to E. revolutum. Histopathologic examination of intestinal tissue of infected hamsters showed erosion of intestinal villi and lymphocytic infiltration as the primary host response. Spleens from infected hamsters were hyperplastic during the first 3 weeks of infection and atrophic from 4 to 8 weeks postinfection. Hamsters were unable to acquire a resistance to E. revolutum infection. Lack of resistance was demonstrated in hamsters where the parasite infection was no longer detected based on the absence of eggs in the faeces; these hamsters were then reinfected. Hamsters treated with the anthelmintic oxyclozanide were also reinfected with E. revolutum.

Keywords

Echinostoma revolutumMesocricetus auratusimmune response
Type
Research Papers
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 62 , Issue 2 , June 1988 , pp. 127 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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

Befus, A. D. (1975) Secondary infections of Hymenolepis diminuta in mice: effects of varying worm burdens in primary and secondary infections. Parasitology, 71, 61–75.Google Scholar
Befus, A. D. & Bienenstock, J. (1982a) Factors involved in symbiosis and host resistance at the mucosa-parasite interface. Progresses in Allergy, 31, 76.Google ScholarPubMed
Befus, A. D. & Bienenstock, J. (1982b) The mucosa-associated immune system of the rabbit. In: Animal Models of Immunological Processes (editor, Hay, J. B.) pp. 167–220. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Befus, A. D. & Bienenstock, J. (1984) Induction and expression of mucosal immune responses and inflammation to parasitic infections. In: Immunobiology of Parasites and Parasitic Infections (editor, Marchalonis, J. J.) pp. 71–108. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bienenstock, J. & Befus, A. D. (1980) Mucosal immunology. Immunology, 41, 249.Google Scholar
Bindseil, E. & Christensen, N. Ø. (1984) Thymus-independent crypt hyperplasia and villous atrophy in the small intestine of mice infected with the trematode Echinostoma revolutum. Parasitology, 88, 431–438.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Franco, J., Huffman, J. E. & Fried, B. (1986) Infectivity, growth and development of Echinostoma revolutum (Digenea: Echinostomatidae) in the golden hamster, Mesocricetus auratus. Journal of Parasitology, 72, 142–147.Google Scholar
Fried, B. & Weaver, L. J. (1969) Exposure of chicks to the metacercaria of Echinostoma revolutum (Trematoda). Proceedings of the Helminthological Society of Washington, 36, 153–155.Google Scholar
Ismail, M. M. & Tanner, C. E. (1972) Trichinella spiralis: Peripheral blood, intestinal, and bone-marrow eosinophilia in rats and its relationship to the inoculating dose of larvae, antibody response and parasitism. Experimental Parasitology, 31, 262–272.Google Scholar
Kishore, N. & Sinha, D. P. (1982) Observations on Echinostoma revolotum infection in the rectum of domestic ducks (Anas platyrhynchos domesticus). Agricultural Science Digest, 2, 57–60.Google Scholar
Larsh, J. E. Jr & Race, G. J. (1975) Allergic inflammation as a hypothesis for the expulsion of worms from tissues: A review. Experimental Parasitology, 37, 251–266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lowry, O. H., Rosebrough, N. N., Farr, A. L. & Randall, R. J. (1951) Protein measurement with Folin phenol reagent. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 193, 265–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mcdermott, M. R., Befus, A. D. & Bienenstock, J. (1982) The structural basis for immunity in the respiratory tract. International Review of Experimental Pathology, 23, 47–72.Google Scholar
Sirag, S. B., Christensen, N. Ø., Frandsen, F., Monrad, J. & Nansen, P. (1980) Homologous and heterologous resistance in Echinostoma revolutum infections in mice. Parasitology, 80, 479–486.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soulsby, E. J. L. (1968) Helminths, Arthropods and Protozoa of Domesticated Animals. The Williams and Wilkins Company, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Tizard, I. R. (1984) Immunology: An Introduction. Saunders College Publishing, New York.Google Scholar
Wakelin, D. (1976) Host responses. In: Ecological Aspects of Parasitology (editor, Kennedy, C. R.) North Holland Pub. Co., Oxford, pp. 115–141.Google Scholar