Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T13:28:40.217Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Life cycle of Trichostrongylus retortaeformis in its natural host, the rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2024

F. Audebert ,
H. Hoste  and
M.C. Durette-Desset
F. Audebert
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de Biologie parasitaire, Protistologie et Helminthologie, CNRS FR 63, Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, 61 rue de Buffon, 75231 Paris cedex 05, France Laboratoire d'Ecologie Evolutive Parasitaire, UMR 7103, équipe de Parasitologie fondamentale et fonctionnelle, UPMC, 9 quai St Bernard, CC175, 75252 Paris, France
H. Hoste
Affiliation:
Unité mixte INRA/ENVT ‘Physiopathologie des Maladies Infectieuses et Parasitaires des Ruminants’, Ecole nationale vétérinaire, 23 chemin des Capelles, 31076 Toulouse cedex, France
M.C. Durette-Desset*
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de Biologie parasitaire, Protistologie et Helminthologie, CNRS FR 63, Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, 61 rue de Buffon, 75231 Paris cedex 05, France
*
*Author for correspondence Fax: +01 40 79 34 99, E-mail: mcdd@cimrs1.mnhn.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The chronology of the life cycle of Trichostrongylus retortaeformis (Zeder, 1800) (Nematoda, Trichostrongyloidea) is studied in its natural host Oryctolagus cuniculus. The free living period lasted 5 days at 24°C. Worm-free rabbits were each infected per os with T. retortaeformis larvae. Rabbits were killed at 12 h post-infection (p.i.) and every day from one day to 13 days p.i. By 12 h p.i., all the larvae were exsheathed and in the small intestine. The third moult occurred between 3 and 5 days p.i. and the last moult between 4 and 7 days p.i. The prepatent period lasted 12 to 13 days. The patent period lasted five and a half months. The four known life cycles of species of Trichostrongylus in ruminants were compared with that of T. retortaeformis. No significant difference was found except in the duration of the prepatent period. These similarities in the life cycles confirm the previously formulated hypotheses on the relationship between the parasites of the two host groups ().

Type
Other
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 76 , Issue 3 , September 2002 , pp. 189 - 192
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2002

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

Audebert, F., Cassone, J., Hoste, H. & Durette-Desset, M.C. (2000) Morphogenesis and distribution of Trichostrongylus retortaeformis in the intestine of the rabbit. Journal of Helminthology 74, 95–107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baermann, G. (1917) Eine einfache methode zur auffindung von Ankylostomum (Nematoden) larven in erdproben. Tijdschrdiergeneeskunde 57, 131–137.Google Scholar
Barker, I.K. (1975) Location and distribution of Trichostrongylus colubriformis in the small intestine of sheep during the prepatent period, and the development of villus atrophy. Journal of Comparative Pathology 85, 417–426.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beveridge, I. & Barker, I.K. (1983) Morphogenesis of Trichostrongylus rugatus and distribution during development in sheep. Veterinary Parasitology 13, 55–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bizzell, W.E. & Ciordia, H. (1965) The course of uncomplicated experimental infections with Trichostrongylus colubriformis in calves. Journal of Parasitology 51, 174 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coudert, P., Licois, D. & Besnard, J. (1988) Establishment of a Specified Pathogen Free breeding colony (SPF) without hysterectomy and hand-rearing procedures. pp. 137–148 in Proceedings of the 4th Congress of the World Rabbit Science Association, October 10–14, Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar
Douvres, F.W. (1957) The morphogenesis of the parasitic stages of Trichostrongylus axei and Trichostrongylus colubriformis, nematode parasites of cattle. Proceedings of the Helminthological Society of Washington 24, 4–14.Google Scholar
Durette-Desset, M.C. (1985) Trichostrongyloid nematodes and their vertebrate hosts: reconstruction of the phylogeny of a parasitic group. Advances in Parasitology 24, 239–306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ford, G.E. (1971) The relationship between a nematode parasite Trichostrongylus retortaeformis and its host or environment. 250 pp. Thesis submitted to the Australian National University (Canberra).Google Scholar
Haupt, W. (1973) Untersuchungen zum Verlauf des Befalls mit Trichostrongylus retortaeformis (Zeder, 1800) Loos, 1905, beim Hauskaninchen (Oryctolagus cuniculus). Aus der Sektion Tierproduktion and Veterinärmedlzin der Karl Marx Universität Leipzig, 135–141.Google Scholar
Hubert, J. & Kerboeuf, D. (1984) A new method for culture of larvae used in diagnosis of ruminant gastrointestinal strongylosis: comparison with fecal cultures. Canadian Journal of Comparative Medicine 48, 63–71.Google ScholarPubMed
Michel, J.F. (1952) Inhibition of development of Trichostrongylus retortaeformis . Nature 169, 933 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mönnig, H.O. (1927) The life-histories of Trichostrongylus instabilis and T. rugatus of sheep in South Africa. 11–12th Annual Report of the Director of Veterinary Services and Animal Industry, Union of South Africa, (1926), 231–251.Google Scholar
Prasad, D. (1959) The effects of temperature and humidity on the free-living stages of Trichostrongylus retortaeformis . Canadian Journal of Zoology 37, 305–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purvis, G.M. & Sewell, M.M.H. (1971) The host-parasite relationship between the domestic rabbit and Trichostrongylus colubriformis.(Correspondence). Veterinary Record 89, 151–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raynaud, J.P. (1970) Etude de l'efficacité d'une technique de coproscopie quantitative pour le diagnostic de routine et le contrôle des infestations parasitaires des bovins, ovins, équins et porcins. Annales de Parasitologie Humaine et Comparée 45, 321–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar