Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T03:58:56.294Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The growth of secondary infections of Hymenolepis microstoma in mice: the effect of various primary infection regimes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

R. J. Howard
R. J. Howard
Affiliation:
Wellcome Laboratories for Experimental Parasitology, University of Glasgow, Bearsden, Glasgow, G61 1QH
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Groups of mice were infected with 1,5 or 10 cysticercoids of Hymenolepis microstoma. Infections were terminated with the anthelmintic ‘Zanil’ after 5, 15 or 30 days and the mice challenged with 6 cysticercoids. The growth of the worms in the secondary infections decreased as either the intensity (number of cysticercoids administered) or duration of the primary infections increased. It is postulated that the results have an immunological basis.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 72 , Issue 3 , June 1976 , pp. 317 - 323
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

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

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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Black, S. J., & Inchley, C. J., (1974). Characteristics of immunological memory in mice. I. Separate early generation of cells mediating IgM and IgG memory to sheep erythrocytes. The Journal of Experimental Medicine 140, 333–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Denham, D. A., (1966). Immunity to Trichinella spiralis, I. The immunity produced by mice to the first four days of the intestinal phase of the infection. Parasitology 56, 323–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallily, B., & Garvey, J. S., (1968). Primary stimulation of rats and mice with hemocyanin in solution and absorbed on bentonite. The Journal of Immunology 101, 924–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodall, R. I., (1973). Studies on the growth, location specificity and immunobiology, of some hymenolepid tapeworms. Ph.D. thesis, Glasgow University.Google Scholar
Hopkins, C. A., & Stallard, H. E., (1974). Immunity to intestinal tapeworms: the rejection of Hymenolepis citelli by mice. Parasitology 69, 63–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hopkins, C. A., Grant, P. M., & Stallard, H., (1973). The effect of oxyclozanide on Hymenolepis microstoma and Hymenolepis diminuta. Parasitology 66, 355–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, G. D., (1971). The nature of the immune response of the mouse to the bile duct cestode, Hymenolepis microstoma. Parasitology 62, 285–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogilvie, B. M., & Jones, V. E., (1971). Parasitological Review. Nippostrongylus brasiliensis: A review of immunity and the host/parasite relationship in the rat. Experimental Parasitology 29, 138–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Read, C. P., (1959). The role of carbohydrates in the biology of cestodes. VIII. Some conclusions and hypotheses. Experimental Parasitology 8, 365–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Remington, R. D., & Schork, M. A., (1970). Statistics with applications to the Biological and Health Sciences, pp. 313–5. Prentice-Hall, Inc.: Englewood Cliffs, N.J.Google Scholar
Tan, B. D., & Jones, A. W., (1967). Autoelimination by means of X-rays. Distinguishing the crowding factor from others in premunition caused by the mouse bile duct cestode, Hymenolepis microstoma. Experimental Parasitology 20, 147–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tan, B. D., & Jones, A. W., (1968). Resistance of mice to reinfection with the bile duct cestode Hymenolepis microstoma. Experimental Parasitology 22, 250–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed