Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:20:53.132Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Some influences of population density on Hymenolepis diminuta in rats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Carl Aage Hesselberg
Affiliation:
Zoological Laboratory, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, DK 2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark
Jørn Andreassen
Affiliation:
Zoological Laboratory, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, DK 2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark

Extract

When measured 56 days postinfection the length, wet weight and dry-weight of Hymenolepis diminuta were all found to decrease with increasing number of cysticercoids given up to 20. The mean position of the worms in 10, 12 and 20 worm infections is significantly posterior to that of 1, 2 and 5 worm infections and the worms are attached over a wider area of the intestine.

Egg production by the worms was followed up to day 56 postinfection; the number of eggs produced per worm and even per rat decreased with increasing population density. Thus the best way to get most eggs and to maintain the parasite in the laboratory is to have rats infected with only one tapeworm.

Rats given 1–20 cysticercoids showed a mean recovery of 100–65%, while rats given 40–200 cysticercoids showed a mean recovery ranging from 13 to 2%. In addition to ‘normal’ worms, defined as worms > 10 mm, small, most probably destrobilated, worms were found. In the 50 and 100 cysticercoid infections, worm recoveries were, respectively, 8% ‘normal’, 16% small, and 2% ‘normal’, 5% small. From the significantly lower recovery from heavy infections it is concluded that a deleterious factor is operating during the 8 weeks after the infection.

Type
Research Article
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.)

References

Beck, J. W. (1952). Effect of diet upon singly established Hymenolepis diminuta in rats. Experimental Parasitology 1, 4659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bråten, T. (1966). Studies of the helminth fauna of Norway. VII. Growth, fecundity, and fertility of Diphyllobothrium norvegicum (Cestoda) in the golden hamster. Nytt Magasin for Zoologi 13, 3951.Google Scholar
Chandler, A. C. (1939). The effects of number and age of worms on development of primary and secondary infections with Hymenolepis diminuta in rats, and an investigation into the true nature of ‘premunition’ in tapeworm infections. American Journal of Hygiene 29, 105–14.Google Scholar
Hager, A. (1941). Effects of dietary modifications of host rats on the tapeworm Hymenolepis diminuta. Iowa State College Journal of Science 15, 127–53.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. C. (1961). Effects of concurrent infections on Hymenolepis diminuta (Cestoda) and Moniliformis dubius (Acanthocephala). I. General effects and comparison with crowding. Journal of Parasitology 47, 209–16.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. C. (1962). Effects of concurrent infections on Hymenolepis diminuta (Cestoda) and Moniliformis dubius (Acanthocephala). II. Effects on growth. Journal of Parasitology 48, 8796.Google Scholar
Hopkins, C. A. (1970). Diurnal movement of Hymenolepis diminuta in the rat. Parasitology 60, 255–71.Google Scholar
Hopkins, C. A., Subramanian, G. & Stallard, H. (1972). The development of Hymenolepis diminuta in primary and secondary infections in mice. Parasitology 64, 401–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Penso, G. & Balducci, D. (1963). Tissue Cultures in Biological Research. 1st edn, Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Read, C. P. (1951). The ‘crowding effect’ in tapeworm infections. Journal of Parasitology 37, 174–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Read, C. P. & Rothman, A. H. (1957). The role of carbohydrates in the biology of Cestodes. IV. Some effects of host dietary carbohydrate on growth and reproduction of Hymenolepis. Experimental Parasitology 6, 294305.Google Scholar
Read, C. P. & Kilejian, A. Z. (1969). Circadian migratory behavior of a cestode symbiote in the rat host. Journal of Parasitology 55, 574–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ridley, R. K. & MacInnis, A. J. (1968). A fast, simple method for obtaining viable Hymeno-lepidid cysticercoids from Tribolium confusum. Journal of Parasitology 54, 662.Google Scholar
Roberts, L. S. (1961). The influence of population density on patterns and physiology of growth in Hymenolepis diminuta (Cestoda: Cyclophyllidea) in the definitive host. Experimental Parasitology 11, 332–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, L. S. & Mong, F. N. (1968). Developmental physiology of Cestodes. III. Development of Hymenolepis diminuta in superinfections. Journal of Parasitology 54, 5562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar