Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T14:01:31.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Attenuation of Eimeria mivati ( = mitis) by selection for precocious development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

V. McDonald  and
S. Ballingall
V. McDonald
Affiliation:
Houghton Poultry Research Station, Houghton, Huntingdon, Cambs. PE17 2DA
S. Ballingall
Affiliation:
Houghton Poultry Research Station, Houghton, Huntingdon, Cambs. PE17 2DA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

By selection for early development of oocysts during serial passage through chickens the pre-patent period of the Houghton (H) strain of Eimeria mivati ( = mitis) was reduced by over 20 h. The precocious parasite is less pathogenic than the H strain and has a reduced reproductive potential. Chicks inoculated with the precocious parasite were protected against challenge with the H strain. The pathogenicity, immunogenicity and reproduction of precocious E. mivati and an attenuated egg-adapted line of E. mivati were compared. Although the precocious parasite produced more oocysts than the egg-adapted parasite in chickens, neither parasite induced loss of weight and both were immunogenic.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 86 , Issue 3 , June 1983 , pp. 371 - 379
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

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

Cooper, D. M. & Timms, J. R. (1972). The rearing and maintenance of breeding chickens in isolators. 1. Glassfibre isolators. Avian Pathology 1, 45–57.Google Scholar
Edgar, S. A. & Seibold, C. T. (1964). A new coccidium of chickens, Eimeria mivati sp.n. (Protozoa: Eimeriidae) with details of its life history. Journal of Parasitology 50, 193–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harriss, A. A., Waton, A. H. G., Clarke, P. L. & Crompton, D. W. T. (1978). Faecal collection cage for domestic birds. Laboratory practice 27, 28.Google Scholar
Jeffers, T. K. (1975). Attenuation of Eimeria tenella through selection for precociousness. Journal of Parasitology 61, 1083–90.Google Scholar
Jeffers, T. K. (1976). Genetic recombination of precociousness and anticoccidial drug resistance in Eimeria tenella. Zeitschrift für Parasitenkunde 50, 251–5.Google Scholar
Long, P. L. (1972 a). Eimeria tenella: reproduction, pathogenicity and immunogenicity of a strain maintained in chick embryos by serial passage. Journal of Comparative Pathology and Therapeutics 82, 429–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, P. L. (1972 b). Eimeria mivati: reproduction, pathogenicity and immunogenicity of a strain maintained in chick embryos by serial passage. Journal of Comparative Pathology and Therapeutics 82, 439–45.Google Scholar
Long, P. L. & Rowell, J. G. (1958). Counting oocysts of chicken coccidia. Laboratory Practice 7, 515–19.Google Scholar
McDonald, V. & Ballingall, S. (1983). Further investigation of pathogenicity, immunogenicity and stability of precocious Eimeria acervulina. Parasitology 86, 361–369.Google Scholar
McDonald, V., Ballingall, S. & Shirley, M. W. (1982). A preliminary study of the nature of infection and immunity in chickens given an attenuated line of E. acervulina. Parasitology 84, 21–30.Google Scholar
McDougald, L. R. & Jeffers, T. K. (1976). Eimeria tenella (Sporozoa: Coccidia): gametogony following a single asexual generation. Science, 192, 258–9.Google Scholar
Shirley, M. W. (1979). A reappraisal of the taxonomic status of Eimeria mivati, Edgar & Seibold, 1964, by enzyme electrophoresis and cross-immunity tests. Parasitology 78, 221–37.Google Scholar
Shirley, M. W. (1980). Eimeria necatrix: the development and characteristics of an egg-adapted (attenuated) line. Parasitology 81, 525–35.Google Scholar
Tyzzer, E. E. (1929). Coccidiosis in gallinaceous birds. American Journal of Hygiene 10, 269–83.Google Scholar