Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T09:58:32.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Observations on coprophagy and the transmission of Hymenolepis nana infections in mice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

A. M. Ghazal  and
R. A. Avery
A. M. Ghazal
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Bristol
R. A. Avery
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Bristol
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Young, previously uninfected white mice became infected with Hymenolepis nana when exposed in small cages to parasite eggs which had been sprinkled in suspension onto the floor of their cage, or to faeces from mice with patent infections. The mean daily probabilities of infection for individual eggs under these two conditions were 2·9 × 10−6 and 5·4 × 10−6 respectively. If the mice were starved for 24 h prior to exposure to faeces, then the mean daily probability of infection increased to 2·6 × 10−4. These differences in transmission are interpreted as being due to differences in the extent of coprophagy; they are not due to any effect of starvation on the hatchability of eggs.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 73 , Issue 1 , August 1976 , pp. 39 - 45
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

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

Barnes, R. H., Fiala, G., McGhee, B. & Brown, A. (1957). Prevention of coprophagy in the rat. Journal of Nutrition 63, 489–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ghazal, A. M. (1974). Experimental epidemiology of dwarf tapeworm Hymenolepis nana var. fraterna infection in the mouse. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. University of Bristol.Google Scholar
Ghazal, A. M. & Avery, R. A. (1974). Population dynamics of Hymenolepis nana in mice: fecundity and the ‘crowding effect’. Parasitology 69, 403–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 217–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunninen, A. V. (1935). Studies on the life history and host-parasite relations of Hymenolepisfraterna (H. nana var. fraterna) in white mice. American Journal of Hygiene 59, 489–506.Google Scholar
Jenkins, D. C. & Phillipson, R. F. (1971). The kinetics of repeated low-level infections of Nippostrongylus brasiliensis in the laboratory rat. Parasitology 62, 457–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shorb, D. A. (1933). Host-parasite relations of Hymenolepis fraterna in the rat and mouse. American Journal of Hygiene 18, 74–113.Google Scholar