Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T15:26:51.223Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of the surface and secertions of Trichinella pseudospiralis and T. spiralis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

N. M. Almond ,
Diane J. McLaren  and
R. M. E. Parkhouse
N. M. Almond
Affiliation:
Division of Immunology, National Institute for Medical Research, The Ridgeway, Mill Hill, London NW7 1AA
Diane J. McLaren
Affiliation:
Parasitology, National Institute for Medical Research, The Ridgeway, Mill Hill, London NW7 1AA
R. M. E. Parkhouse
Affiliation:
Division of Immunology, National Institute for Medical Research, The Ridgeway, Mill Hill, London NW7 1AA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Intact, viable adults, infective and newborn larvae of Trichinella pseudospiralis were surface labelled with 125I by the chloramine T method and labelled proteins were compared with those obtained from equivalent stages of T. spiralis. Electron-microscope autoradiography determined that labelled proteins were restricted to the cuticle for all stages of both isolates. Comparative polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis in the presence of sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS–PAGE), using thin gradient gel slabs, of proteins obtained from each stage, demonstrated that the profile of surface-labelled proteins of T. pseudospiralis were restricted in number, stage specific, and similar to equivalent proteins of T. spiralis both in size and in their organization into aggregates. The stage-specific profiles of surface-labelled proteins derived from newborn larvae were indistinguishable, but differences were noted between adults and infective larvae of the two isolates. These differences in protein structure were confirmed by two dimensional mapping of tryptic peptides. Stage-specific profiles were also obtained when [35S]methionine biosynthetically labelled secretions of the 3 stages of T. pseudospiralis were compared by SDS–PAGE. Comparison of the profiles obtained with secretions for respective stages of T. spiralis again failed to distinguish newborn larvae, but adults and infective larvae of T. spiralis and T. pseudospiralis displayed a mixture of common and species-specific proteins. These findings are discussed in relation to the different pathology associated with infection with two isolates.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 93 , Issue 1 , August 1986 , pp. 163 - 176
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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

Almond, H. M. & Parkhouse, R. M. E. (1985). Nematode Antigens. In Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology, vol. 120, (ed. Parkhouse, R. M. E.), pp. 173–203. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Anderson, J., Fuglsang, H., Hamilton, P. J. S. & de C. Marshall, T. F. (1974). Studies on onchocerciasis in the United Cameroon Republic. II. Comparison of onchocerciasis in rain forest and Sudan savannah. Transactions of the Royal Society for Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 68, 209–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baschong, W., Tanner, M., Betschart, B., Rudin, W. & Weiss, N. (1982). Dipetalonema viteae: Extraction and immunogenicity of cuticular antigens from female worms. Experimental Parasitology 53, 262–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boev, S. N., Britov, V. A. & Orlov, I. V. (1979). Species composition of Trichinellae. Wiadomosci Parazytologiczne 25, 495–503.Google ScholarPubMed
Britov, V. A. (1975). Cross immunity in rats infected with different Trichinella species. Wiadomosci Parazytologiczne 60, 223–7.Google Scholar
Bruce, R. G. (1970). The structure and composition of the capsule of Trichinella spiralis in host muscle. Parasitology 60, 223–7.Google Scholar
Bryceson, H. M., van Veen, K. S., Oduloju, A. J. & Duke, B. O. L. (1976). Antigenic diversity among Onchocerca volvulus in Nigeria, and immunological differences between onchocerciasis in the savannah and forest of Cameroon. Clinical and Experimental Immunology 24, 168–76.Google Scholar
Budden, F. H. (1963). Comparative study of onchocerciasis in savannah and rain forest. Transactions of the Royal Society for Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 57, 64–78.Google Scholar
Clark, N. W. T., Philipp, M. & Parkhouse, R. M. E. (1982). Non-covalent interactions result in aggregation of surface antigens of the parasitic nematode Trichinella spiralis. Biochemical Journal 206, 27–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dennis, D. T., Despommier, D. & Davis, N. (1970). Infectivity of newborn larva of Trichinella spiralis in the rat. Journal of Parasitology 56, 974–7.Google Scholar
Despommier, D. D. (1975). Adaptive changes in muscle fibres infected with Trichinella spiralis. American Journal of Pathology 78, 477–96.Google ScholarPubMed
Garkhavi, B. L. (1972). Procyon lotor Trichinella. Proceedings of All Union Conference Problems of Man and Animals. Moscow: Vilnius. pp. 53–55. (In Russian.)Google Scholar
Gustowka, L., Ruitenberg, E. J. & Elgersma, A. (1980). Cellular reactions in tongue and gut in murine trichinellosis and their thymus dependence. Parasite Immunology 2, 133–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, W. M. & Greenwood, F. C. (1962). Preparation of Iodine-131 labelled human growth hormone of high specific activity. Nature, London 194, 495–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karnovsky, M. L. (1965). A formaldehyde–gluteraldehyde fixative of high molarity for use in electron microscopy. Journal of Cell Biology 27, 137A.Google Scholar
Kramar, M., Stewart, G. L. & Charniga, L. (1981). A comparative study of Trichinella spiralis (Owen, 1835) and Trichinella pseudospiralis (Garkavi, 1972). Journal of Parasitology 67, 911–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lichtenfels, J. R., Murrell, K. D. & Pilitt, P. A. (1983). Comparison of three subspecies of Trichinella spiralis by scanning electron microscopy. Parasitology 69, 1131–40.Google Scholar
Maizels, R. M., Meghji, M., Ogilvie, B. M. (1983). Restricted sets of parasite antigens for the surface of different stages and sexes of the nematode parasite Nippostrongylus brasiliensis. Immunology 48, 107–21.Google ScholarPubMed
McLaren, D. J. (1974). The anterior glands of adult Necator americanus (Nematoda: Strongyloidea) I. Ultrastructural Studies. International Journal for Parasitology 4, 25–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martinez-Fernandez, A. R. & Sanmartin-Duran, K. L. (1981). Some differences in the biological behaviour of various sibling species of Trichinella. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of Trichinellosis, (ed. Kim, C. W., Ruitenberg, E. J. and Teppera, J. S.), pp. 35–39. Chertsey: Reedbook.Google Scholar
Ortega-Pierres, G., Chayen, A., Clark, N. W. T., Parkhouse, R. M. E. (1984). The occurrence of antibodies to hidden and exposed determinants of surface antigens of Trichinella spiralis. Parasitology 88, 359–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ortega-Pierres, G., Clark, N. W. T. & Parkhouse, R. M. E. (1986). Regional specialisation of the surface of a parasitic nematode. Parasite Immunology (in the Press).Google Scholar
Palmas, C., Wakelin, D. & Cabaj, W. (1985). Immune responses to Trichinella pseudospiralis and Trichinella spiralis in mice. International Journal for Parasitology 15, 321–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parkhouse, R. M. E. & Clark, N. W. T. (1983). Stage-specific secreted and somatic antigens of Trichinella spiralis. Molecular and Biochemical Parasitology 9, 319–27.Google ScholarPubMed
Parkhouse, R. M. E., Philipp, M. & Ogilvie, B. M. (1981). Characterisation of surface antigens of Trichinella spiralis infective larvae. Parasite Immunology 3, 339–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Philipp, M., Parkhouse, R. M. E. & Ogilvie, B. M. (1980). Changing proteins on the surface of a parasitic nematode. Nature, London 287, 538–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Purkerson, M. & Despommier, D. D. (1974). In Trichinellosis, (ed. Kim, C. W.), pp. 7–23. New York: Intext Educational Publishers.Google Scholar
Ritterson, A. L. (1966). Nature of the cyst of Trichinella spiralis. Journal of Parasitology 52, 157–61.Google Scholar
Silberstein, D. S. & Despommier, D. D. (1984). Antigens from Trichinella spiralis that induce a protective response in the mouse. Journal of Immunology 132, 898–904.Google Scholar
Teppema, J. S., Robinson, J. E. & Ruitenberg, E. J. (1973). Ultrastructural aspects of capsule formation in Trichinella spiralis infection in the rat. Journal of Parasitology 66, 291–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, M. A. (1977). Autoradiography and Immunochemistry, (ed. Glauert, A. M.). Amsterdam: Elsevier, North Holland.Google Scholar