Hostname: page-component-669899f699-g7b4s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-24T12:32:35.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In vitro oncospheral agglutination given by immune sera from mice infected, and rabbits injected, with eggs of Hymenolepis nana*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Akira Ito
Akira Ito
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Biology, School of Medicine, Showa University, Hatanodai, Shinagawaku, Tokyo, Japan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Oncospheral agglutination given by sera immunized with Hymenolepisnana eggs is described as a new way of assessing H. nana infection. All sera of mice which possessed acquired protective immunity against reinfection by H. nana eggs had the potency to induce oncospheral agglutination in vitro. Only oncospheres, which had been hatched, agglutinated, no agglutination occurred in sera from uninfected mice. Oncospheral agglutination was carried out by mixing 0·1 ml of serial two-fold dilutions of serum and 0·1 ml of Hanks' balanced salt solution containing about 600 hatched oncospheres. Titre of agglutinins was indicated as a reciprocal of the final dilution capable of giving agglutination clusters made of three or more oncospheres. Agglutinins developed within 14 days after a primary infection with 500 shell-free eggs. There was no rapid increase of agglutinins within 4 days following a secondary infection. The titre increase coincided with the increase in dosages of eggs. Agglutinins were thought to be immunoglobulins, because the potency of the serum to agglutinate oncospheres was extinguished after absorption of globulins with rabbit anti-mouse globulin serum.

Agglutinins were produced in rabbits by intravenous injections of shell-free eggs. The titres of the rabbit sera were much higher than those of mouse sera.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 71 , Issue 3 , December 1975 , pp. 465 - 473
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Berntzen, A. K. & Voge, M. (1965). In vitro hatching of oncospheres of four Hymenolepidid cestodes. Journal of Parasitology 51, 235–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Di Conza, J. J. (1969). Protective action of passively transferred immune serum and immunoglobulin fractions against tissue invasive stages of the dwarf tapeworm, Hymenolepis nana. Experimental Parasitology 25, 368–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hearin, J. T. (1941). Studies on the acquired immunity to the dwarf tapeworm Hymenolepis nana var. fraterna, in the mouse host. American Journal of Hygiene 33, 71–87.Google Scholar
Heyneman, D. (1962). Studies on helminth immunity. IV. Rapid onset of resistance by the white mouse against a challenging infection with eggs of Hymenolepis nana (Cestoda: Hymenolepididae). Journal of Immunology 88, 210–20.Google ScholarPubMed
Heyneman, D. (1963). Host parasite resistance patterns – Some implications from experimental studies with helminths. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 113, 114–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heyneman, D. & Welsh, J. F. (1959). Action of homologous antiserum in vitro against life cycle stages of Hymenolepis nana. Experimental Parasitology 8, 119–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunninen, A. V. (1935 a). Studies on the life history and host-parasite relations of Hymenolepis fraterna (H. nana var. fraterna Stiles) in white mice. American Journal of Hygiene 22, 414–43.Google Scholar
Hunninen, A. V. (1935 b). A method of demonstrating cysticercoids of Hymenolepis fraterna (H. nana var. fraterna Stiles) in the intestinal villi of mice. Journal of Parasitology 21, 124–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsh, J. E. Jr. (1943). Serological studies on the mouse strains of the dwarf tapeworm, Hymenolepis nana var. fraterna. American Journal of Hygiene 37, 289–93.Google Scholar
Labsh, J. E. Jr. (1951). Host-parasite relationships in cestode infections, with emphasis on host resistance. Journal of Parasitology 37, 343–52.Google Scholar
Silverman, P. H. (1955). A technique for studying the in vitro effect of serum on activated taeniid hexacanth embryos. Nature, London 176, 598–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soulsby, E. J. L. (1973). Immunological methods in helminthology. In Handbook of Experimental Immunology (ed. Weir, D. M.), vol. 3, pp. 40.1–40.21. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Voge, M. & Heyneman, D. (1957). Development of Hymenolepis nana and Hymenolepis diminuta (Cestoda: Hymenolepididae) in the intermediate host Tribolium confusum. University of California Publication in Zoology 59, 545–79.Google Scholar
Weinmann, C. J. (1966). Immunity mechanisms in cestode infection. In Biology of Parasites (ed. Soulsby, E. J. L.), pp. 301–20. New York and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Weinmann, C. J. (1970). Immunity in mammalian hosts. In Immunity to Parasitic Animals (eds. Jackson, G. J., Herman, R. and Singer, I.), vol. 2, pp. 1021–59. New York: Appleton.Google Scholar