Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-26T18:43:20.586Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Host specificity in eimerian coccidia: development of Eimeria vermiformis of the mouse, Mus musculus, in Rattus norvegicus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

M. Elaine Rose
Affiliation:
Houghton Poultry Research Station, Houghton, Huntingdon, Cambs. PE17 2DA
B. J. Millard
Affiliation:
Houghton Poultry Research Station, Houghton, Huntingdon, Cambs. PE17 2DA

Extract

The ability of Eimeria vermiformis, a coccidium which normally parasitizes the mouse, to develop in rats was investigated. The Rowett strain (Lac: RNU) rats were euthymic (rnu/+), treated or untreated with cortisone acetate, and athymic (rnu/rnu). E. vermiformis completed its development only in rnu/rnu rats, which passed small numbers of oocysts capable of sporulating and infecting C57BL/6 mice. In the rnu/+ rats, irrespective of cortisone treatment, development appeared to terminate with the completion of the asexual (schizogonic) stages since no gametocytes were recognized in the tissues and no oocysts were detected in the faeces. The findings are discussed with reference to the factors which govern host specificity.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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

Blagburn, B. L., Adams, J. H. & Todd, K. S. (1982). First asexual generation of Eimeria vermiformis Ernst, Chobotar and Hammond, 1971 in Mus musculus. Journal of Protozoology 68, 1178–80.Google ScholarPubMed
Doran, D. J. (1978). The life cycle of Eimeria dispersa Tyzzer, 1929 from the turkey in gallinaceous birds. Journal of Parasitology 64, 882–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Festing, M. F. W. (1981). Athymic nude rats. In Immunologic Defects in Laboratory Animals, vol. 1 (ed. Gershwin, M. E. and Merchant, B.), pp. 267–83. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyner, L. P. (1982). Host and site specificity. In The Biology of the Coccidia (ed. Long, P. L.), pp. 3562. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Klesius, P. H. & Hinds, S. E. (1979). Strain-dependent differences in murine susceptibility to coccidia. Infection and Immunity 26, 1111–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kogut, M. H. & Long, P. L. (1981). The effect of silica injections on the rejection of Eimeria from nonspecific hosts. Journal of Parasitology 67, 960–1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, P. L. (1970). Development (schizogony) of Eimeria tenella in the liver of chickens treated with corticosteroid. Nature 225, 290–1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, P. L., Millard, B. J., Joyner, L. P. & Norton, C. C. (1976). A guide to laboratory techniques used in the study and diagnosis of avian coccidiosis. Folia Veterinaria Latina 6, 201–17.Google Scholar
McLoughlin, D. K. (1969). The influence of dexamethasone on attempts to transmit Eimeria meleagrimitis to chickens and E. tenella to turkeys. Journal of Protozoology 16, 145–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marquardt, W. C. (1973). Host and site specificity in the coccidia. In The Coccidia: Eimeria, Isospora, Toxoplasma and Related Genera (ed. Hammond, D. M. with Long, P. L.), pp. 2342. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Marquardt, W. C. (1976). Some problems of host and parasite interactions in the coccidia. Journal of Protozoology 23, 287–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marquardt, W. C. (1981). Host and site specificity in the coccidia: a perspective. Journal of Protozoology 28, 243–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayberry, L. F., Marquardt, W. C., Nash, D. J. & Plan, B. (1982). Genetic dependent transmission of Eimeria separata from Rattus to three strains of Mus musculus, an abnormal host. Journal of Parasitology 68, 1124–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mesfin, G. M. & Bellamy, J. E. C. (1979). Thymic dependence of immunity to Eimeria falciformis var. pragensis in mice. Infection and Immunity 23, 460–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Millard, B. J. & Lawn, A. M. (1982). Parasite-host relationships during the development of Eimeria dispersa Tyzzer 1929, in the turkey (Meleagris gallopavo gallopavo) with a description of intestinal intra-epithelial leucocytes. Parasitology 84, 1320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norton, C. C. (1979). Coccidiosis of pheasants and turkeys: recent experiments with pheasant coccidia at Weybridge. Symposium on Coccidia and Further Prospects of their Control, pp. 174–7. Prague: Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Peirce, M. A. (1980). A simple staining technique to demonstrate the sporozoite refractile globule in coccidian parasites. Parasitology 80, 551–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, M. E. & Hesketh, P. (1979). Immunity to coccidiosis: further investigations in T-lymphocyte and B-lymphocyte-deficient animals. Infection and Immunity 26, 630–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, M. E., Ogilvie, B. M., Hesketh, P. & Festing, M. F. W. (1979). Failure of nude (athymic) rats to became resistant to reinfection with the intestinal coccidian parasite Eimeria nieschulzi or the nematode Nippostrongylus brasiliensis. Parasite Immunology 1, 125–32.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, 4554.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Todd, K. W. & Lepp, D. L. (1971). The life cycle of Eimeria vermiformis Ernst, Chobotar and Hammond, 1971 in the mouse Mus musculus. Journal of Protozoology 18, 332–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Todd, K. W., Lepp, D. L. & Trayser, G. V. (1971). Development of the asexual cycle of Eimeria vermiformis Ernst, Chobotar and Hammond, 1971, from the mouse, Mus musculus, in dexamethasone treated rats, Rattus norvegicus. Journal of Parasitology 57, 1137–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyzzer, E. E. (1929). Coccidiosis in gallinaceous birds. American Journal of Hygiene 10, 269–83.Google Scholar