Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T01:05:20.671Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Host strain, H-2 genotype and immunocompetence do not affect the survival or development of Onchocerca lienalis infective larvae implanted within micropore chambers into mice or rats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

M. J. Taylor ,
R. P. Van Es ,
S. Townson  and
A. E. Bianco
M. J. Taylor
Affiliation:
Wellcome Research Centre for Parasitic Infections, Department of Biology, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London SW7 2BB
R. P. Van Es
Affiliation:
Tropical Parasitic Diseases Unit, International Institute of Parasitology, St Albans AL4 0XU
S. Townson
Affiliation:
Tropical Parasitic Diseases Unit, International Institute of Parasitology, St Albans AL4 0XU
A. E. Bianco
Affiliation:
Wellcome Research Centre for Parasitic Infections, Department of Biology, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London SW7 2BB
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The survival, growth and development of Onchocerca lienalis 3rd-stage (L3) larvae implanted into mice within micropore chambers has been studied with a view to developing a vaccination model for studies of protective immunity in onchocerciasis. The influence of host genetics on worm recoveries and development (growth and moulting rate) was analysed in a panel of inbred mice (CBA, BALB/c, DBA/2, SJL, 129J, C57BL/10 (B10), C3H/He and NIH), together with mice of BALB and B10 backgrounds with different major histocompatibility complex (H-2) genes (BALB/c, BALB.K, BALB.B and B10, B10.D2/n, B10.BR, B10.S). Parasite recoveries and development were similar in all mouse genotypes tested. They were unaffected by procedures designed to block or modulate phagocytic cell function with carbon or carrageenan, or to suppress inflammation by treatment with hydrocortisone acetate. A comparison of chambers sealed with membranes designed to admit (5·0 μm pore size) or exclude (0·2 μm pore size) host cells demonstrated no effect on the percentage recovery of living larvae, although dead larvae were more frequently retrieved when cells were excluded. Recoveries and rates of development of larvae implanted into immunodeficient scid mice and athymic Hooded rats were similar to those recorded in immunocompetent controls. We conclude that host genetic factors and immunocompetence are not significant determinants of survival, growth or development of O. lienalis larvae implanted within micropore chambers into naive mice. Despite its limitations, the use of this system merits further investigation as an approach to the study of protective immunity against developing larvae in onchocerciasis.

Keywords

Onchocerca lienalisvaccination modelinbred miceH-2 genotypeimmunomodulationimmunodeficiencyscid miceathymic Hooded rats
Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 105 , Issue 3 , December 1992 , pp. 445 - 451
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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

Abraham, D. & Grieve, R. B. (1990). Genetic control of immune responses to larval Dirofilaria immitis. Journal of Parasitology 76, 523–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abraham, D., Weiner, D. J. & Farrell, J. P. (1986). Protective immune responses of the jird to larval Dipetalonema viteae. Immunology 57, 165–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Abraham, D., Grieve, R. B., Mika-Grieve, M. & Seibert, B. P. (1988). Active and passive immunization of mice against larval Dirofilaria immitis. Journal of Parasitology 74, 275–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abraham, D., Grieve, R. B., Holy, J. M. & Christensen, B. M. (1989). Immunity to larval Brugia malayi in BALB/c mice: protective immunity and inhibition of development. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 40, 598–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bianco, A. E. (1991). Onchocerciasis–river blindness. In Parasitic Worms, Zoonoses and Human Health in Africa (ed. Macpherson, C. M. L. & Craig, P. S.), pp. 138–203. London: Unwin Hayman Press.Google Scholar
Bianco, A. E., Ham, P. J., Townson, S., Mustafa, M. B. & Nelson, G. S. (1989 a). A semi-automated system of intrathoracic injection for the large-scale production of Onchocerca lienalis infective larvae. Tropical Medicine and Parasitology 40, 57–64.Google ScholarPubMed
Bianco, A. E., Mustafa, M. B. & Ham, P. J. (1989 b). Fate of developing larvae of Onchocerca lienalis and O. volvulus in micropore chambers implanted into laboratory hosts. Journal of Helminthology 63, 218–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delves, C. J. & Howells, R. E. (1985). Development of Dirofilaria immitis third stage larvae (Nematoda: Filarioidea) in micropore chambers implanted into surrogate hosts. Tropical Medicine and Parasitology 36, 29–31.Google ScholarPubMed
Eberhard, M. L., Dickerson, J. W., Boyer, A. E., Tsang, V. C. W., Zea-Flores, R., Walker, E. M., Richards, F. O., Zea-Flores, G. & Strobert, E. (1991). Experimental Onchocerca volvulus infections in mangabey monkeys (Cercocebus atys) compared to infections in humans and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 44, 151–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fanning, M. M. & Kazura, J. W. (1983). Genetic association of murine susceptibility to Brugia malayi microfilaraemia. Parasite Immunology 5, 305–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gass, R. F., Tanner, M. & Weiss, N. (1979). Development of Dipetalonema viteae third-stage larvae (Nematoda: Filarioidea) in micropore chambers implanted into jirds, hamsters, normal and immunised mice. Zeitschrift für Parasitenkunde 61, 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozek, W. J. & Figueroa, M. H. (1982). Attempts to establish Onchocerca volvulus infection in primates and small laboratory animals. Acta Tropica 39, 317–24.Google ScholarPubMed
Nakanishi, H., Horii, Y., Terashima, K. & Fujita, K. (1989). Effect of macrophage blockade on the resistance to a primary Brugia pahangi infection of female BALB/c mice. Tropical Medicine and Parasitology 40, 75–6.Google ScholarPubMed
Nelson, F. K., Greiner, D. L., Shultz, L. D. & Rajan, T. V. (1991). The immunodeficient scid mouse as a model for human lymphatic filariasis. Journal of Experimental Medicine 173, 659–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philipp, M., Davis, T. B., Storey, N. & Carlow, C. K. S. (1988). Immunity in filariasis: perspectives for vaccine development. Annual Review in Microbiology 42, 685–716.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Philipp, M., Worms, M. J., Maizels, R. & Ogilivie, B. M. (1984). Rodent models of filariasis. Contemporary Topics in Immunobiology 12, 275–321.Google ScholarPubMed
Rajasekariah, G. R., Monteiro, Y. M., Netto, A., Deshpande, L. & Subrahmanyam, D. (1989). Protective immune responses with trickle infections of third-stage filarial larvae of Wuchereria bancrofti in mice. Clinical and Experimental Immunology 78, 292–8.Google ScholarPubMed
Storey, N., Wakelin, D. & Behnke, J. M. (1985). The genetic control of host responses to Dipetalonema viteae (Filarioidea) infections in mice. Parasite Immunology 7, 349–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strote, G. (1985). Development of infective larvae of Onchocerca volvulus in diffusion chambers implanted into Mastomys natalensis. Tropical Medicine and Parasitology 36, 120–2.Google ScholarPubMed
Suswillo, R. R., Nelson, G. S., Muller, R., Mcgreevy, P. B., Duke, B. O. L. & Denham, D. A. (1977). Attempts to infect jirds (Meriones unguiculatus) with Wuchereria bancrofti, Onchocerca volvulus, Loa loa and Mansonella ozzardi. Journal of Helminthology 46, 132–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townson, S. & Bianco, A. E. (1982). Experimental infection of mice with the microfilaria of Onchocerca lienalis. Parasitology 85, 283–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Townson, S., Bianco, A. E. & Owen, D. (1981). Attempts to infect small laboratory animals with the infective larvae of Onchocerca lienalis. Journal of Helminthology 55, 247–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed