Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T00:23:09.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of splenectomy upon infection with Eimeria tenella

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

M. Elaine Rose
M. Elaine Rose
Affiliation:
Houghton Poultry Research Station, Houghton, Huntingdon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Splenectomy, either alone or in conjunction with hormonal bursectomy, did not appreciably affect E. tenella infections as measured by oocyst output.

Operated birds became resistant to re-infection as readily as the controls and it seems unlikely that the spleen in chickens plays an essential role in the host's defence against the Eimeria.

Thanks are due to my colleague, Mr P. L. Long, for his advice and interest throughout the work. Mrs J. Simpson gave valuable technical assistance.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , May 1968 , pp. 481 - 487
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1968

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

Basslinger, J. (1858). Die Peyer'schen Inseln (plaques) der Vögel. Z. wiss. Zool. 9, 299–300.Google Scholar
Becker, E. R. (1935). The mechanism of immunity in murine coccidiosis. Am. J. Hyg. 21, 389–404.Google Scholar
Bray, R. S. & Garnham, P. C. C. (1961). Failure to infect splenectomized primates with Theileria parva. J. Parasit. 47, 538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Causey, O. R. (1939). The effect of splenectomy on the course of malarial infection in canaries. Am. J. Hyg. 30 (Section C), 93–9.Google Scholar
Cooper, M. D., Perey, D. Y., McKneally, M. F., Gabrielsen, A. E., Sutherland, D. E. R. & Good, R. A. (1966). A mammalian equivalent of the bursa of Fabricius. Lancet 1, 1388–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, M. D., Peterson, R. D. A., & Good, R. A. (1965). Delineation of the thymic and bursal lymphoid systems in the chicken. Nature, Lond. 205, 143–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Draper, L. R. & Süssdorf, D. H. (1957). The serum haemolysin response in intact and splenectomized rabbits following immunization by various routes. J. infect. Dis. 100, 147–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garnham, P. C. C. & Bray, R. S. (1959). The susceptibility of the higher primates to piroplasms. J. Protozool. 6, 352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glick, B. & Sato, K. (1964). Accessory spleens in the chicken. Poult. Sci. 43, 1610–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horton-Smith, C. & Long, P. L. (1959). The effects of different anticoccidial agents on the intestinal coccidioses of the fowl. J. comp. Path. Ther. 69, 192–207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Janković, B. C., Mitrović, K., Popeskovicć, L. & Milosevicć, D. (1966). Tonsilla caecalis: an immunologically active tissue in the chicken. Jugoslav. Physiol. Pharmacol. Acta 2, 71–5.Google Scholar
Long, P. L. & Rowell, J. G. (1958). Counting oocyts of chicken coccidia. Lab. Pract. 7, 515–19.Google Scholar
Longenecker, B. M., Breitenbach, R. P. & Farmer, J. N. (1966). The role of the bursa of Fabricius, spleen and thymus in the control of a Plasmodium lophurae infection in the chicken. J. Immun. 97, 594–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manwell, R. D., Weiss, M. L. & Spandorf, A. A. (1957). Effect of splenectomy on elongatum and circumflexum malaria in ducks. Expl Parasit. 6, 358–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pierce, A. E. & Long, P. L. (1965). Studies on acquired immunity to coccidiosis in bursaless and thymectomised fowls. Immunology 9, 427–39.Google Scholar
Raynaud, J. P. (1962). Splénectomie des bovins et parasites sanguins. Annls Parasit. hum. comp. 37, 755–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, M. E. & Long, P. L. (1962). Immunity to four species of Eimeria in fowls. Immunology 5, 79–92.Google ScholarPubMed
Rosenquist, G. L. & Wolfe, H. R. (1962). Effect of splenectomy at different ages on precipitin production in chickens. Immunology 5, 211–21.Google ScholarPubMed
Süssdorf, D. H. & Draper, L. R. (1956). The primary hemolysin response in rabbits following shielding from X-rays or X-irradiation of the spleen, appendix, liver or hind legs. J. infect. Dis. 99, 129–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutherland, D. E. R., Archer, O. K. & Good, R. A. (1964) Role of the appendix in development of immunologic capacity. Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. Med. 115, 673–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tallaferro, W. H. (1948). The role of the spleen and the lymphoid-macrophage system in the quinine treatment of gallinaceum malaria. I. Acquired immunity and phagocytosis. J. infect. Dis. 83, 164–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taliaferro, W. H. (1956). Functions of the spleen in immunity. Am. J. trop. med. Hyg. 5, 391–410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warner, N. L. & Szenberg, A. (1964). The immunological function of the bursa of Fabricius in the chicken. A. Rev. Microbiol. 18, 253–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, R. G. (1963). Functional recognition of immunologically competent cells by means of the fluorescent antibody technique. In The Immunologically Competent Cell, pp. 6–16. Ciba Foundation Study Group, no. 16. London: J. A. Churchill Ltd.Google Scholar