Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T01:17:28.740Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variation in susceptibility of inbred lines of chickens to seven species of Eimeria

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

N. Bumstead  and
B. J. Millard
N. Bumstead
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Animal Health, Houghton Laboratory, Houghton, Huntingdon, Cambs PE17 2DA
B. J. Millard
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Animal Health, Houghton Laboratory, Houghton, Huntingdon, Cambs PE17 2DA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The pattern of oocyst production of 8 inbred lines of chickens was compared for each of the 7 species of Eimeria which infect this host. Both the overall numbers and the pattern of oocyst production differed in the inbred lines, but there was no evidence of prolonged cycling of schizogenic developmental stages. Comparison of the numbers of oocysts produced by the different lines indicates that there may be common genetic factors affecting susceptibility to 6 of the 7 species. Surprisingly there appears to be an inverse relationship between susceptibility to E. tenella and susceptibility to the other species: lines which produced most oocysts of E. tenella produced least oocysts of the other species and vice-versa.

Keywords

EimeriaCoccidiacoccidiosischickensgenetic resistanceoocyst production.
Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 104 , Issue 3 , June 1992 , pp. 407 - 413
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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

Bumstead, N., Millard, B. J., Barrow, P. & Cook, J. K. A. (1991). Genetic Basis of disease resistance in chickens. In Breeding for Disease Resistance in Farm Animals, (ed. Owen, J. B. & Axford, R. F. E.), pp. 10–23. Wallingford: C.A.B. International.Google Scholar
Bumstead, N., Messer, L. I. & Greenwood, N. M. (1987). Use of ev loci as a measure of inbreeding in domestic fowls. British Poultry Science 28, 717–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bumstead, N. & Millard, B. J. (1987). Genetics of resistance to coccidiosis: response of inbred lines to infection by Eimeria tenella and Eimeria maxima. British Poultry Science 28, 705–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clare, R. A. & Danforth, H. D. (1989). Major histocompatibility complex control of immunity elicited by genetically engineered Eimeria tenella (Apicomplexa) antigen in chickens. Infection and Immunity 57, 701–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, L. R. (1973). Techniques. In The Coccidia, (ed. Hammond, D. M. & Long, P. L.) pp. 411–458. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Jeffers, T. K. (1978) Genetics of coccidia and the host response. In Avian Coccidiosis, (ed. Long, P. L., Boorman, K. N. & Freeman, B. M.), pp. 51–125. Edinburgh: British Poultry Science Ltd.Google Scholar
Joyner, L. P. & Norton, C. C. (1969). A comparison of two laboratory strains of Eimeria tenella.Parasitology 59, 907–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joyner, L. P. & Norton, C. C. (1973). The immunity arising from continuous low-level infection with Eimeria tenella. Parasitology 67, 333–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klesius, P. H. & Hinds, S. E. (1979). Strain-dependent differences in murine susceptibility to coccidia. Infection and Immunity 26, 1111–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lillehoj, H. S. (1986). Immune response during coccidiosis in SC and FP chickens. I. In vitro assessment of T cell proliferation response to stage-specific parasite antigens. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology 13, 321–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lillehoj, H. S. (1988). Influence of inoculation dose, inoculation schedule, chicken age and host genetics on disease susceptibility and development of resistance to Eimeria tenella infection. Avian Diseases 32, 437–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lillehoj, H. S. & Ruff, M. D. (1986). Comparison of disease susceptibility and subclass specific antibody response in SC and RP chickens experimentally infected with E. tenella, E. acervulina or E. maxima.Avian Diseases 31, 112–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, P. L., Joyner, L. P., Millard, B. J. & Norton, C. C. (1976). A guide to the laboratory techniques used in the study and diagnosis of avian coccidiosis. Folia Veterinaria Latina 6, 201–17.Google Scholar
Long, P. L. & Millard, B. J. (1979). Immunological differences in Eimeria maxima: effect of a mixed immunising inoculum on heterologous challenge. Parasitology 79, 451–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, M. E., Owen, D. G. & Hesketh, P. (1984). Susceptibility to coccidiosis: effect of strain of mouse on reproduction of Eimeria vermiformis. Parasitology 88, 45–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, M. E., Wakelin, D. & Hesketh, P. (1991). Interferon-gamma-mediated effects upon immunity to coccidial infection in the mouse. Parasite Immunology 13, 63–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stockdale, P. G. H., Stockdale, M. J., Rickard, M. D. & Mitchell, G. F. (1985). Mouse strain variation and effects of infectious dose in infection of mice with Eimeria falciformis, a coccidian parasite of the large intestine. International Journal for Parasitology 15, 447–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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: CRC Press.Google Scholar