Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:49:21.604Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interactions between infections with Eimeria spp. and Trichinella spiralis in inbred mice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

M. E. Roses ,
D. Wakelin  and
P. Hesketh
M. E. Roses
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Animal Health, Compton Laboratory, Compton, Nr Newbury, Berks. RG16 0NN
D. Wakelin
Affiliation:
Department of Life Science, School of Biological Sciences, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD
P. Hesketh
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Animal Health, Compton Laboratory, Compton, Nr Newbury, Berks. RG16 0NN
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Parasitological and immunological interactions between Eimeria vermiformis or E. pragensis and Trichinella spiralis were investigated during concurrent infections in NIH, BALB/c and B10.G inbred mice. The establishment of T. spiralis was unaffected by the presence of either coccidium, but expulsion of adult worms was delayed significantly in mice infected with E. vermiformis; E. pragensis did not have this effect. Replication of E. vermiformis was enhanced in concurrent infections with T. spiralis, but that of E. pragensis was reduced. Specific immune responses to each parasite were unaffected in mice infected with T. spiralis and E. pragensis, but levels of some responses were reduced when T. spiralis and E. vermiformis were combined. Thus both in vitro antigen-induced proliferation of mesenteric lymph node cells (MLNC) and intestinal mastocytosis were lower than in singly infected mice. Mitogen (Con A) responsiveness of MLNC was not affected in mice infected with T. spiralis and E. vermiformis, and cells from these mice were capable of transferring protective immunity to the nematode in naive recipients. Injection of monoclonal antibody to interferon gamma, a major component of the cytokine response to E. vermiformis, did not prevent delay of worm expulsion in concurrent infections. The results are discussed in terms of possible interactions between the T helper cell subsets or the inflammatory components of the responses induced by each parasite.

Keywords

Eimeria vermiformisEimeria pragensisTrichinella spiralisconcurrent infectionscoccidia/nematode interactionsimmune responsesintestinal mastocytosis
Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 108 , Issue 1 , January 1994 , pp. 69 - 75
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

Bristol, J. R., Pinon, A. J. & Mayberry, L. F. (1983). Interspecific interactions between Nippostrongylus brasiliensis and Eimeria nieschulzi in the rat. Journal of Parasitology 69, 372–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broaddus, R. R., Mayberry, L. F., Bristol, J. R. & Upton, S. J. (1987). Suppression of Nippostrongylus brasiliensis (Nematode)-induced lysophospholipase activity and peripheral eosinophilia by Eimeria nieschulzi (Apicomplexa). Journal of Parasitology 73, 739–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Castro, G. A. & Duszynski, D. W. (1984). Local and systemic effects on inflammation during Eimeria nieschulzi infection. Journal of Protozoology 31, 283–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Catchpole, J. & Harris, T. J. (1989). Interaction between coccidia and Nematodirus battus in lambs on pasture. Veterinary Record 124, 603–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duszynski, D. W., Russell, D., Roy, S. A. & Castro, G. (1978 a). Suppressed rejection of Trichinella spiralis in immunized rats concurrently infected with Eimeria nieschulzi. Journal of Parasitology 64, 83–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duszynski, D. W., Roy, S. A. & Castro, G. A. (1978 b). Intestinal disaccharidase and peroxidase deficiencies during Eimeria nieschulzi infections in rats. Journal of Protozoology 25, 226–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grencis, R. K., Riedlinger, J. & Wakelin, D. (1985). L3T4-positive T lymphoblasts are responsible for transfer of immunity to Trichinella spiralis in mice. Immunology 56, 213–18.Google ScholarPubMed
Grencis, R. K., Hültner, L. & Else, K. J. (1991). Host protective immunity to Trichinella spiralis in mice: activation of Th cell subsets and lymphokine secretion in mice expressing different response phenotypes. Immunology 74, 329–32.Google ScholarPubMed
Lee, T. D. G., Grencis, R. K. & Wakelin, D. (1982). Specific cross-immunity between Trichinella spiralis and Trichuris muris: immunization with heterologous infections and antigens, and transfer of immunity with heterologous immune mesenteric lymph node cells. Parasitology 84, 381–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayberry, L. F., Bristol, J. R. & Villalobos, V. M. (1985). Intergeneric interactions between Eimeria separata (Apicomplexa) and Nippostrongylus brasiliensis (Nematoda) in the rat. Experientia 41, 689–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, M. E. & Hesketh, P. (1982). Coccidiosis: T-lymphocyte dependent effects of infection with Eimeria nieschulzi in rats. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology 3, 499–508.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, M. E. & Hesketh, P. (1986). Eimerian life cycles: the patency of Eimeria vermiformis but not E. pragensis is subject to host (Mus musculus) influence. Journal of Parasitology 72, 949–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, M. E. & Mockett, A. P. A. (1983). Antibodies to coccidia: detection by the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Parasite Immunology 5, 479–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, M. E., Wakelin, D. & Hesketh, P. (1990). Eimeria vermiformis: differences in the course of primary infection can be correlated with lymphocyte responsiveness in the BALB/c and C57BL/6 mouse, Mus musculus. Experimental Parasitology 71, 276–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, M. E., Wakelin, D. & Hesketh, P. (1991). Interferon-gamma-mediated effects upon immunity to coccidial infections in the mouse. Parasite Immunology 13, 63–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stewart, G. L., Reddington, J. J. & Hamilton, A. M. (1980). Eimeria nieschulzi and Trichinella spiralis: analysis of concurrent infection in the rat. Experimental Parasitology 50, 115–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Terry, R. J. & Hudson, K. M. (1982). Immunodepression in parasitic infections. Fortschritte der Zoologie 27, 125–39.Google Scholar
Upton, S. J., Mayberry, L. P., Bristol, J. R., Favela, S. H. & Sambrano, G. R. (1987). Suppression of peripheral eosinophilia by the coccidium Eimeria nieschulzi (Apicomplexa: Eimeriidae) in experimentally infected rats. Journal of Parasitology 73, 300–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wakelin, D. & Grencis, R. K. (1992). T Cell and genetic control of inflammatory cells. In Allergy and Immunity to Helminths (ed. Moqbel, R.), pp. 108–36. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Wakelin, D. & Lloyd, M. (1976). Immunity to primary and challenge infections of Trichinella spiralis in mice: a re-examination of conventional parameters. Parasitology 72, 173–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wakelin, D. & Rose, M. E. (1990). Immunity to coccidiosis. In Coccidiosis of Man and Domestic Animals (ed. Long, P. L.), pp. 281–306. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Wakelin, D., Rose, M. E., Hesketh, P., Else, K. J. & Grencis, R. K. (1993). Immunity to coccidiosis: genetic influences on lymphocyte and cytokine responses to infection with Eimeria vermiformis in inbred mice. Parasite Immunology 15, 11–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed