Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T05:31:46.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Infectivity, antigenicity and host responses to isolates of the genus Trichinella

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

F. Bolas-Fernandez  and
D. Wakelin
F. Bolas-Fernandez
Affiliation:
MRC Experimental Parasitology Group, Department of Zoology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD
D. Wakelin
Affiliation:
MRC Experimental Parasitology Group, Department of Zoology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Comparisons were made of the infectivity and antigenicity of 4 Trichinella spiralis isolates (S, D, Y, W), of quite different geographical origins, and T. pseudospiralis (P) in rapid- and slow-responder inbred mice. Infectivity was measured by the Index of Reproductive Capacity (ICR) expressed as the ratio between the number of muscle larvae recovered on day 30 post-infection (p.i.) and the numbers of larvae given at infection. Antigen recognition was measured by the degree of proliferation of mesenteric lymph node cells (MLNC) to in vitro stimulation with crude muscle larvae antigen (CMLA) and by the total antibody responses to CMLA at day 25 p.i. as measured by ELISA. Regarding infectivity the isolates fell into two groups, high infectivity (S, D and Y) and low infectivity (W and P). Analysis of CMLA, detergent-stripped (CTAB) and I-labelled surface larval proteins was made by SDS—PAGE under reducing conditions. Differences in antigen profiles were seen in all antigen preparations, being most noticeable in CTAB and 125I-labelled proteins from W and P isolates. Antigen recognition by polyclonal infection-derived antisera and by monoclonal antibodies raised against the T. spiralis London strain (L) was studied in the W (Arctic) and S (Spanish) isolates. Polyclonal antisera recognized different antigens in the S and W isolates, as did the monoclonal antibody, although recognition was more restricted. Neither antibody recognized a 64 kDa band in the W isolate which was clearly visible in the others tested.

Keywords

Trichinella isolatesinfectivityantigens
Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 100 , Issue 3 , June 1990 , pp. 491 - 497
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

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

Almond, N. M., Mclaren, D. J. & Parkhouse, R. M. E. (1986). A comparison of the surface and secretions of Trichinella pseudospiralis and T. spiralis. Parasitology 93, 163–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arriaga, C., Muniz, E., Morilla, A. & Ortega Pierres, M. G. (1989). Evaluation of purified surface stichosomal components of Trichinella spiralis muscle larvae for diagnosis of swine trichinellosis. In Trichinellosis (ed. Tanner, Ch., Martinez, A. R. & Bolas, F.) pp. 182–7. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas.Google Scholar
Bolas-Fernandez, F. & Wakelin, D. (1980). Infectivity of Trichinella isolates in mice is determined by host immune responsiveness. Parasitology 99, 83–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dame, J. B., Murrell, K. D., Worley, D. E. & Schad, G. A. (1987). Trichinella spiralis: Genetic evidence for synanthropic subspecies in sylvatic hosts. Experimental Parasitology 64, 195–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dick, T. A. (1983). Species and intraspecific variation. In Trichinella and Trichinellosis (ed. Campbell, W. C.), pp. 31–73. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dick, T. A., Currans, J. & Klassen, G. (1985). Genetic and molecular biology of Trichinella. In Trichinellosis (ed. Kim, W. K.) pp. 118–128. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Gamble, H. R. & Murrell, K. D. (1986). Conservation of diagnostic antigen epitopes among biologically diverse isolates of Trichinella spiralis. Journal of Parasitology 72, 921–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grencis, R. K., Crawford, C., Pritchard, D. I., Behnke, J. M. & Wakelin, D. (1986). Immunization of mice with surface antigens from the muscle larvae of Trichinella spiralis. Parasite Immunology 8, 587–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laemmli, U. K. (1970). Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4. Nature, London 277, 680–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, T. D., 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
Martinez-Fernandez, A. R., Gomez-Barrio, A., Armas-Serra, C. & Albarran, E. (1989). Trichinella spiralis GM-I x T. pseudospiralis garkavi: generational behavior. In Trichinellosis (ed. Tanner, Ch., Martinez, A. R. & Bolas, F.) pp. 89–93. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas.Google Scholar
Phillip, M., Parkhouse, R. M. E. & Ogilvie, B. M. (1980). Changing proteins on the surface of a parasitic nematode. Nature, London 287, 538–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rappaport, I. (1943 a). A comparison of three strains on Trichinella spiralis. I. Pathogenicity and extent of larval development in the musculature. American Journal of Tropical Medicine 23, 343–50.Google Scholar
Rappaport, I. (1943 b). A comparison of three strains of Trichinella spiralis. II. Longevity and sex ratio of adults in the intestine and rapidity of larval development in the musculature. American Journal of Tropical Medicine 23, 351–62.Google Scholar
Schad, G. A., Duffy, C. H., Leiby, D. A., Murrell, K. D. & Zirkle, E. W. (1987). Trichinella spiralis in an agricultural ecosystem: transmission under natural and experimentally modified farm conditions. Journal of Parasitology 73, 95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silberstein, D. S. & Despommier, D. D. (1984). Antigens from Trichinella spiralis that induce a protective response in the mouse. Journal of Immunology 132, 898–904.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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., Donachie, A. M. & Grencis, R. K. (1985). Genetic control of immunity to Trichinella spiralis in mice: capacity of cells from slow responder mice to transfer immunity in syngeneic and F1 hybrid recipients. Immunology 86, 203–11.Google Scholar
Wassom, D. L., Dougherty, D. A. & Dick, T. A. (1988). Trichinella spiralis infections in inbred mice: immunologically specific responses induced by different Trichinella isolates. Journal of Parasitology 72, 283–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zarlenga, D. S. & Gamble, R. H. (1989). Identification and characterization of a cDNA clone expressing an excretory- secretory antigen from Trichinella spiralis muscle larvae. In Trichinellosis, (ed. Tanner, Ch., Martinez, A. R. & Bolas, F.) pp. 28–34. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas.Google Scholar