Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-dvmhs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-06T15:13:38.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hymenolepis microstoma: a change in susceptibility to resistance with increasing age of the parasite

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

R. J. Howard
R. J. Howard
Affiliation:
Wellcome Laboratories for Experimental Parasitology, (Zoology Department), University of Glasgow, Bearsden, Glasgow, G61 1QH
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Hymenolepis microstoma from secondary infections in mice were found to grow initially more slowly than H. microstoma from primary infections. Eventually a similar rate of growth was attained by both kinds of worm. After transplantation, young worms (≤4 days old) grew more slowly in previously infected than in naive mice. In contrast, 10-day-old worms grew equally well in naive or resistant mice. The administration of cortisone to mice during a secondary infection of H. microstoma inhibited the stunting of growth in young worms which were able to grow as well as those in a primary infection. The effects of the cortisone persisted for less than 4 days. Worms in a secondary infection given 4days after cortisone treatment were stunted in growth. These experiments suggest that the susceptibility of the worms to the resistance of the mouse applies to the first 4 days within the host. The loss or reduction of this susceptibility might be associated with the worms' entry into the bile duct which occurs 3–4 days after infection.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 75 , Issue 2 , October 1977 , pp. 241 - 249
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

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

Durbin, C. G. (1952). Longevity of the liver fluke, Fasciola sp. in sheep. Proceedings of the Helminthological Society of Washington 19, 120.Google Scholar
Foster, W. B. & Hanson, W. L. (1965). Antibodies in mice infected with Hymenolepis microstoma against freshly excysted cysticercoids as demonstrated by the fluorescent antibody technique. Journal of Parasitology 51, Sect. 2, Abst. 160.Google Scholar
Goodall, R. I. (1973). Studies on the growth, location specificity and immunobiology, of some hymenolepid tapeworms. Ph.D. thesis, University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
Goose, J. & MacGregor, M. (1973). Naturally acquired immunity to Fasciola hepatica in the rat. British Veterinary Journal 129, xlix–lli.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayes, T. J., Bailer, J. & Mitrovic, M. (1973). Immunity of Fasciola hepatica in rats: the effects of two different levels of primary exposure on superinfection. Journal of Parasitology 59, 810–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, C. A. & Stallard, H. E. (1974). Immunity to intestinal tapeworms: the rejection of Hymenolepis citelli by mice. Parasitology 69, 63–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hopkins, C. A. & Zajac, A. (1976). Transplantation of Hymenolepis diminuta into naive, immune and irradiated mice. Parasitology 73, 73–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howard, R. J. (1976 a). The growth of secondary infections of Hymenolepis microstoma in mice: the effect of various primary infection regimes. Parasitology 72, 317–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howard, R. J. (1976 b). Aspects of the host/parasite relationship of Hymenolepis microstoma. Ph.D. thesis, University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
Lippens-Mertens, F. & De Rycke, P. H. (1973). Excystation of Hymenolepis microstoma. II. Relative influences of proteolytic enzymes and bile salts. Zeitschrift fϋr Parasitenkunde 42, 61–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Medawar, P. B. (1945). Size, shape and age. In Essays on Growth and Form (ed. Le Gros-Clark, W. E., Medawar, P. B.), pp. 157–87. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Moss, G. D. (1971). The nature of the immune response of the mouse to the bile duct cestode Hymenolepis microstoma. Parasitology 62, 285–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Remmington, R. D. & Schork, M. A. (1970). Statistics with Applications to the Biological and Health Sciences, pp. 313–15. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice-Hall Inc.Google Scholar
Ridley, R. K. & MacInnes, A. J. (1968). A fast, simple method of obtaining viable hymenolepidid cysticercoids from Tribolium confusum. Journal of Parasitology 54, 662.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tan, B. D. & Jones, A. W. (1967). Autoelimination by means of X-rays: distinguishing the crowding factor from others in premunition caused by the mouse bile duct cestode, Hymenolepis microstoma. Experimental Parasitology 20, 147–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tan, B. D. & Jones, A. W. (1968). Resistance of mice to reinfection with the bile-duct cestode Hymenolepis microstoma. Experimental Parasitology 22, 250–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed