Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T03:50:10.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Immunity to coccidiosis: effect of serum antibodies on cell invasion by sporozoites of Eimeria in vitro

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

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

Extract

A method for detecting antibody activity in vitro against the invasive stages of E. tenella and E. maxima is described. Treatment of cultured chick kidney monolayers with serum (or a globulin fraction thereof) from immunized birds caused a reduction in the numbers of intracellular stages 24 or 48 h after inoculation of sporozoites. This reduction was seen when serum was incorporated in the culture medium at the time of sporozoite inoculation and also, but to a lesser extent, when the monolayers had been pretreated with the antibody-containing medium which was washed off prior to infection. The results correlated reasonably well with those obtained when the sera were tested in embryo (E. tenella) or in vivo (E. maxima). Similar treatment of cultured CAM monolayers in which infection with E. tenella was well established (101 h), did not greatly affect the development of the parasite. This suggests that the anti-coccidial activity is either effective against the sporozoite stages only, or is unable to affect parasites within cells.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 65 , Issue 3 , December 1972 , pp. 437 - 445
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1972

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

Andersen, F. L., Lowder, L. J., Hammond, D. M. & Carter, P. B. (1965). Antibody production in experimental Eimeria bovis infections in calves. Experimental Parasitology 16, 23–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Augustin, R. & Ridges, A. P., (1963). Immunity mechanisms in Eimeria meleagrimitis. In Immunity to Protozoa (ed. Garnham, P. C. C., Pierce, A. E., and Roitt, I.), pp. 296–335. Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Burns, W. C. & Challey, J. R. (1965). Serum lysins in chickens infected with Eimeria tenella. Journal of Parasitology 51, 660–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doran, D. J. (1970). Eimeria tenella: from sporozoites to oocysts in cell culture. Proceedings of the Helminthological Society of Washington, 70, 84–92.Google Scholar
Fayer, R. & Baron, S. (1971). Activity of interferon and an inducer against development of Eimeria tenella in cell culture. Journal of Protozoology 18 (Suppl.), Abstract no. 21, p. 12.Google Scholar
Herlich, H. (1965). Effect of chicken antiserum and tissue extracts on the oocysts, sporozoites and merozoites of Eimeria tenella and Eimeria acervulina. Journal of Parasitology 51, 847–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leathem, W. D. & Burns, W. C. (1968). Duration of acquired immunity of the chicken to Eimeria tenella infection. Journal of Parasitology 54, 227–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, P. L. (1966). The growth of some species of Eimeria in avian embryos. Parasitology 56, 575–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, P. L. (1969). Observations on the growth of Eimeria tenella in cultured cells from the parasitized chorioallantoic membrane of the developing chick embryo. Parasitology 59, 757–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, P. L. (1970). Some factors affecting the severity of infection with Eimeria tenella in chicken embryos. Parasitology 60, 435–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, P. L. & Milne, B. S. (1971). The effect of an interferon inducer on Eimeria maxima in the chicken. Parasitology 62, 295–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 cycle of Eimeria tenella. Experimental Parasitology 14, 210–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marrack, J. R., Hoch, H. & Johns, R. G. S. (1951). The valency of antibodies. British Journal of Experimental Pathology 32, 212–29.Google ScholarPubMed
Rose, M. E. (1971). Immunity to coccidiosis: protective effect of transferred serum in Eimeria maxima infections. Parasitology 62, 11–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, M. E. (1972). Immunity to coccidiosis: maternal transfer in Eimeria maxima infections. Parasitology (in the Press).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. (1971). Immunity to coccidiosis: protective effects of transferred serum and cells investigated in chick embryos infected with Eimeria tenella. Parasitology 63, 299–313.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seed, J. R. & Gam, A. A. (1966). The properties of antigens from Trypanosoma gambiense. Journal of Parasitology 52, 395–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wernet, P., Brett, M., Knop, J. & Rowley, D. (1971). Antibacterial action of specific IgA and transport of IgM, IgA and IgG from serum into the small intestine. Journal of Infectious Diseases 124, 223–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagenbach, G. E. (1969). Purification of Eimeria tenella sporozoites with glass bead columns. Journal of Parasitology 55, 833–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed