Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:00:20.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Eimeria tenella: localization of the sporozoites in the caecum of the domestic fowl

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

M. E. Rose  and
P. Hesketh
M. E. Rose
Affiliation:
Houghton Laboratory, Institute for Animal Health, Agricultural and Food Research Council, Houghton, Huntingdon, Cambs PE17 2DA
P. Hesketh
Affiliation:
Houghton Laboratory, Institute for Animal Health, Agricultural and Food Research Council, Houghton, Huntingdon, Cambs PE17 2DA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When sporozoites of Eimeria tenella were inoculated into an isolated horn of the bicornuate caecum of the domestic fowl, replicating infections, culminating in the production of oocysts, were found, almost exclusively, in the inoculated horn. In contrast, sporozoites of E. tenella introduced into the bloodstream via a superficial vein induced infections of equivalent intensity in both horns of the caecum. These findings are discussed with reference to (1) the detection (by tissue transfer) of infective sporozoites in samples of cardiac blood and vascular tissues taken within 3 to 18 h of the oral inoculation of oocysts, and (2) the (previously published) observation that the sporozoites of E. tenella are transported from the superficial epithelium of the caecum (site of invasion) to the crypts (site of initial development) within host intra-epithelial lymphocytes. We suggest that a local inflammatory response to the invasion of sporozoites may be responsible for their re-location in proximity to the site of entry. This could act by directing the homing (or retention) of the parasite-bearing lymphocytes, and/or by providing a stimulus for the sporozoite to leave its transporting cell.

Keywords

protozoacoccidiaEimeria tenellasporozoite locationsite-selection
Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 102 , Issue 3 , June 1991 , pp. 317 - 324
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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

Al-Attar, M. A. & Fernando, M. A. (1987). Transport of Eimeria necatrix sporozoites in the chicken: effects of irritants injected intraperitoneally. Journal of Parasitology 73, 494–502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ball, S. J., Pittilo, R. M. & Long, P. L. (1989). Intestinal and extraintestinal life cycles of eimeriid coccidia. In Advances in Parasitology, vol. 28, (ed. Baker, J. R. & Muller, R.) pp. 1–54. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Butcher, E. C. (1988). Lymphocyte migration and mucosal immunity. In Immunology of the Gastrointestinal Tract (ed. Heyworth, M. E. & Jones, A. L.), pp. 93–103. New York: Raven Press Inc.Google Scholar
Crane, M. ST. J., Norman, D. J., Gnozzio, M. J., Tate, A. C., Gammon, M. & Murray, P. K. (1986). Eimeria tenella: quantitative in vitro and in vivo studies on the effects of mouse polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies on sporozoites. Parasite Immunology 8, 467–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fernando, M. A., Rose, M. E. & Millard, B. J. (1987). Eimeria spp. of the domestic fowl: the migration of sporozoites intra – and extra-enterically. Journal of Parasitology 73, 561–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guy-Grand, D., Griscelli, C. & Vassalli, P. (1978). The mouse gut T-lymphocyte, a novel type of T-cell: nature, origin and traffic in mice in normal and graft-versus-host conditions. Journal of Experimental Medicine 148, 1146–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horton-Smith, C., Beattie, J. & Long, P. L. (1961). Resistance to Eimeria tenella and its transference from one caecum to the other in individual fowls. Immunology 4, 111–21.Google Scholar
Huntley, J. F., Newlands, G., Miller, H. R. P., McLaughlan, M., Rose, M. E. & Hesketh, P. (1985). Systemic release of mucosal mast cell protease during infection with the intestinal protozoal parasite Eimeria nieschulzi: studies in normal and nude rats. Parasite Immunology 7, 489–501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joyner, L. P. (1982). Host and site specificity. In The Biology of the Coccidia (ed. Long, P. L.), pp. 35–62, Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Kogut, M. & Long, P. L. (1984). Extraintestinal sporozoites of chicken Eimeria in chickens and turkeys. Zeitschrift für Parasitenkunde 70, 287–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kouwenhoven, B. & Van Der Horst, C. J. G. (1973). Histological observations with respect to the immune mechanisms in Eimeria acervulina infection in the domestic fowl. Zeitschrift für Parasitenkunde 42, 11–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawn, A. M. & Rose, M. E. (1982). Mucosal transport of Eimeria tenella in the cecum of the chicken. Journal of Parasitology 68, 1117–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, P. L. (1968). The pathogenic effects of Eimeria praecox and E. acervulina in the chicken. Parasitology 58, 691–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, P. L. (1970). Development (schizogony) of Eimeria tenella in the liver of chickens treated with corticosteroid. Nature, London 225, 290–1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, P. L. & Millard, B. J. (1979). Rejection of Eimeria by foreign hosts. Parasitology 78, 239–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, P. L., Millard, B. J., Joyner, L. P. & Norton, C. C. (1976). A guide to laboratory techniques used in the study and diagnosis of avian coccidiosis. Folia Veterinaria Latina 6, 201–17.Google Scholar
Long, P. L. & Rose, M. E. (1965). Active and passive immunization of chickens against intravenously induced infections of Eimeria tenella. Experimental Parasitology 16, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, P. L., Rose, M. E. & Pierce, A. E. (1963). Effects of fowl sera on some stages in the life cycle of Eimeria tenella. Experimental Parasitology 14, 210–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Love, R. J. & Ogilvie, B. M. (1977). Nippostrongylus brasiliensis and Trichinella spiralis: localization of lymphoblasts in the small intestine of parasitized rats. Experimental Parasitology 41, 124–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moore, A. R. & Hall, J. G. (1973). Non-specific entry of thoracic duct immunoblasts into intradermal foci of antigens. Cellular Immunology 8, 112–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, M. E., Hesketh, P. & Ogilvie, B. M. (1980). Coccidiosis: localisation of lymphoblasts in the infected small intestine. Parasite Immunology 2, 189–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, M. E., Lawn, A. M. & Millard, B. J. (1984). The effect of immunity on the early events in the life-cycle of Eimeria tenella in the caecal mucosa of the chicken. Parasitology 88, 199–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, M. E. & Long, P. L. (1969). Immunity to coccidiosis: gut permeability changes in response to sporozoite invasion. Experientia 25, 183–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, M. E., Long, P. L. & Bradley, J. W. A. (1975). Immune responses to infections with coccidia in chickens: gut hypersensitivity. Parasitology 71, 357–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, M. E., Ogilvie, B. M. & Bradley, J. W. A. (1980). Intestinal mast cell response in rats and chickens to coccidiosis with some properties of chicken mast cells. International Archives of Allergy and Applied Immunology 63, 21–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, M. L., Parrott, D. M. V. & Bruce, R. G. (1976). Migration of lymphoblasts to the small intestine. II. Divergent migration of mesenteric and peripheral immunoblasts to sites of inflammation in the mouse. Cellular Immunology 27, 36–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma, N. N. (1964). Response of the fowl (Gallus domesticus) to parenteral administration of seven coccidial species. Journal of Parasitology 50, 509–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed