Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-995ml Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T12:58:19.646Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

In vitro interactions between epithelial cells and Gyrodactylus derjavini

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2007

K. Buchmann*
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Microbiology, Section of Fish Diseases,
C.V. Nielsen
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Microbiology, Section of Fish Diseases,
J. Bresciani
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology, Zoology Section, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, 13 Bülowsvej, DK-1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
*
*Fax: 45 35282711 E-mail: kurt.buchmann@vetmi.kvl.dk

Abstract

Skin responses of fish to various parasites have been shown to involve various immunologically competent cells producing factors which guide the reactions of epithelial cells. However, the present study has demonstrated that a monoculture of epithelial cells has the ability to encapsulate and partially degrade ectoparasites without involvement of leukocytes. The ectoparasitic monogeneanGyrodactylus derjavini was kept on a monolayer of Epithelioma Papulosum Cyprini (EPC) cells in 24-well multidishes supplied with tissue culture medium. Gyrodactylus derjavini did not reproduce but survived an incubation period of up to139 h in the system. Due to sterile conditions, dead gyrodactylids were not subjected to microbial degradation and remained intact for several weeks. However, at 40 days G. derjavini was overgrown by EPC-cells and became partly degraded during the following 15 days. Analysis of enzyme reactivity in EPC-cells showed reactions for ten enzymes including esterases, amidases, phosphatases and phosphohydrolases. No marked differences for the ten enzymes between cell cultures with and without the ectoparasites were found but it cannot be excluded that some of these enzymes took part in parasite degradation. The study showed the in vitro capability of epithelial cells to interact, encapsulate and degrade G. derjavini without the involvement of leukocytes. This response probably is non-specific and will not exclude that various immunocompetent cells and their products normally optimize and accelerate elimination of invading parasites in vivo.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Cambridge University Press 2000

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

Åsbakk, K. & Dalmo, R.A. (1998) Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) epidermal Malphigian cells — motile cells clearing away latex beads in vitro. Journal of Marine Biotechnology 6, 3034.Google Scholar
Buchmann, K. (1988) Interactions between the gill parasitic monogeneans Pseudodactylogyrus anguillae and P. bini and the fish host Anguilla anguilla. Bulletin of the European Association for Fish Pathologists 8, 98100.Google Scholar
Buchmann, K. (1999) Immune mechanisms in fish skin against monogeneans — a model. Folia Parasitologica 46, 19.Google ScholarPubMed
Buchmann, K. & Bresciani, J. (1999) Rainbow trout leucocyte activity: influence on the ectoparasitic monogenean Gyrodactylus derjavini. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 35, 1322.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bychowsky, B.E. (1957) Monogenetic trematodes, their systematics and phylogeny. Academy of Sciences USSR, 627 pp. Moscow, Leningrad (English translation of the American Institute of Biological Sciences 1961).Google Scholar
Fijan, N., Sulimanovic, D., Bearzotti, M., Muzinic, D., Zwillenberg, L.O., Chilmonczyk, S., Vautheror, J.F. & de Kinkelin, P. (1983) Some properties of the Epithelioma Cyprini (EPC) cell line from carp Cyprinus carpio Annales de Virologie 134 E, 207220.Google Scholar
Frankland, H.M.T. (1955) The life history and bionomics of Diclidophora denticulata (Trematoda: Monogenea). Parasitology 45, 313351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Llewellyn, J. (1960) Amphibdellid (monogenean) parasites of the electric rays (Torpedinidae). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the UK 39, 561589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Llewellyn, J. & Simmons, J.E. (1984) The attachment of the monogenean parasite Callorhyncicola multitesticulatus to the gills of its holocephalan host Callorhynchus millii. International Journal for Parasitology 14, 191196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molnar, K. (1972) Studies on gill parasitosis of the grasscarp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) caused by Dactylogyrus lamellatus Achmerow, 1952. IV. Histopathological changes. Acta Veterinaria Academiae Scientarum Hungariae 22, 924.Google Scholar
Oliver, G. (1977) Effet pathogene de la fixation de Diplectanum aequans (Wagener, 1857) Diesing, 1858 (Monogenea, Monopistocotylea, Diplectanidae) sur les branchies de Dicentrarchus labrax (Linnaeus, 1758), (Pisces, Serranidae). Zeitschrift für Parasitenkunde 53, 711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paperna, I. (1964) Host reaction to infestation of carp with Dactylogyrus vastator Nybelin, 1924 (Monogenea). Bamidgeh 16, 129141.Google Scholar
Prost, M. (1963) Investigations on the development and pathogenicity of Dactylogyrus anchoratus (Duj. 1845) and D. extensus Mueller et van Cleave, 1932 for breeding carps. Acta Parasitologia Polonica 11, 1748.Google Scholar
Roubal, F.R. (1986) Studies on monogeneans and copepods parasitizing the gills of a sparid (Acanthopagrus australis (Günther)) in Northern New South Wales. Canadian Journal of Zoology 64, 841849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thune, R.L. & Rogers, W.A. (1981) Gill lesions in bluegill, Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque, infested with Cleidodiscus robustus Mueller, 1934 (Monogenea, Dactylogyridae). Journal of Fish Diseases 4, 277280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilde, J. (1935) Der Schleiendactylogyrus (Dactylogyrus macracanthus) und die Schädigung der Schleienkieme diesen Parasiten. Fischerei-Zeitung 38, 661663.Google Scholar
Wunder, W. (1929) Die Dactylogyrus-Krankheit der Karpfenbrut, ihre Ursache und ihre bekämpfung. Zeitschrift für Fischerei 27, 511545.Google Scholar