Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T07:10:55.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Immunity to tapeworms: intraspecific cross-protective interactions between Hymenolepis citelli, H. diminuta and H. microstoma in mice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Sidi T. O. Alghali  and
R. K. Grencis
Sidi T. O. Alghali
Affiliation:
Wellcome Laboratories for Experimental Parasitology, University of Glasgow, Bearsden Road, Bearsden, Glasgow G61 1QH
R. K. Grencis
Affiliation:
Wellcome Laboratories for Experimental Parasitology, University of Glasgow, Bearsden Road, Bearsden, Glasgow G61 1QH
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Interactions between tapeworm species in a single host offer intriguing opportunities for immunological studies that attempt to identify the mechanism(s) underlying protection against cestode infections. Mice that are immunized against Hymenolepis citelli infections were shown to be refractory to subsequent H. diminuta challenge infections. The reciprocity of the response was also demonstrated, although the protection recorded for H. diminuta when mice are sensitized with H. citelli is weaker than that observed when mice are primed with H. diminuta against H. citelli challenge. H. citelli was also shown to be expelled simultaneously during the rejection phase of H. diminuta in concurrent infections, indicating the susceptibility of the former tapeworm to the rejection mechanism initiated by the latter. H. microstoma immunized mice were shown to be strongly protected against heterologous H. citelli challenge. However, mice primed against H. citelli were not as strongly protected against H. microstoma challenge infections: a statistically significant protection was obtained only after a 12-cysticercoid H. citelli primary infection, although a 6-cyst infection did stunt the growth of H. microstoma challenge worms. It is presently suggested that the cross-protective responses observed in the study between H. citelli, H. diminuta and H. microstoma may have emanated from a specific immunological cross-reactivity due to the sharing of similar immunogens.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 92 , Issue 3 , June 1986 , pp. 665 - 674
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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

Alghali, S. T. O. (1980). Intestinal immunity to tapeworms: the rejection of Hymenolepis citelli by mice and rats. Ph.D. thesis, University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
Befus, A. D. (1975 a). Secondary infections of Hymenolepis diniinuta in mice: effects of varying worm burdens in primary and secondary infections. Parasitology 71, 61–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Befus, A. D. (1975 b). Intestinal immune responses of mice to the tapeworms Hymenolepis diminuta and H. microstoma. Ph.D thesis, University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
Coleman, R. M., Carty, J. M. & Graziadei, W. D. (1968). Immunogenicity and phylogenetic relationship of tapeworm antigens produced by Hymenolepis nana and Hymenolepis diminuta. Immunology 15, 297–304.Google ScholarPubMed
Cox, F. E. G. (1978). Specific and non-specific immunization against parasitic infections. Nature, London 272, 623–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dineen, J. K., Gregg, P., Windon, R. G., Donald, A. D. & Kelly, J. D. (1977). The role of immunologically specific and non-specific components of resistance in cross-protection to intestinal nematodes. International Journal for Parasitology 7, 211–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elowni, E. E. (1980). Immunity to tapeworms: vaccination against Hymenolepis diminuta and role of the bursa of Fabricius in rejection of Raillietina cesticillus. Ph.D. thesis, University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
Ford, B. R. (1972). Hymenolepis citelli: development and chemical composition in hypothermic ground squirrels. Experimental Parasitology 32, 62–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodall, R. I. (1973). Studies on the growth, location specificity and immunobiology of some hymenolepid tapeworms. Ph.D. thesis, University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
Gray, J. S. (1973). Studies on host resistance to secondary infections of Raillietina cesticillus Molin, 1858, in the fowl. Parasitology 67, 375–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holland, C. (1984). Interactions between Moniliformis (Acanthocephala) and Nippostrongylus (Nematoda) in the small intestine of laboratory rats. Parasitology 88, 303–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hopkins, C. A. (1980). Immunity and Hymenolepis diminuta. In Biology of the Tapeworm Hymenolepis diminuta (ed. Arai, H. P.), pp. 551–614. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, C. A. & Allen, L. M. (1979). Hymenolepis diminuta: the role of the tail in determining the position of the worm in the intestine of the rat. Parasitology 79, 401–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hopkins, C. A., Goodall, R. I. & Zajac, A. (1977). The longevity of Hymenolepis microstoma in mice, and its immunological cross-reaction with H. diminuta. Parasitology 74, 175–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, C. A., Grant, P. M. & Stallard, H. (1973). The effect of oxyclozanide on H. microstoma and H. diminuta. Parasitology 64, 401–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, R. J. (1976 a). The growth of secondary infections of Hymenolepis microsto in mice: the effect of various primary infection regimes. Parasitology 72, 317–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howard, R. J. (1976 b). Aspects of the host/parasite relationship of Hymenolepis microstoma. Ph.D. thesis, University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
Howard, R. J., Crristie, P. R., Wakelin, D., Wilson, M. M. & Behnke, J. M. (1978). The effect of concurrent infection with Trichinella spiralis on Hymenolepis microstoma in mice. Parasitology 77, 273–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jenkins, D. C. (1975). The influence of Nematospiroides dubius on subsequent Nippostrongylus brasiliensis infections in mice. Parasitology 71, 349–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kazacos, K. R. (1976). Increased resistance in the rat to Strongyloides ratti following immunization against Trichinella spiralzs. Journal of Parasitology 62, 493–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, M. W. (1980). Immunologically mediated non-specific interactions between the intestinal phase of Trichinella spiralis and Nippostrongylus brasiliensis in the mouse. Parasitology 80, 61–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larsh, J. E. & Race, G. J. (1975). Allergic inflammation as a hypothesis for the expulsion of worms from tissues: a review. Experimental Parasitology 37, 251–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, T. D. G., 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
Lloyd, S. (1979). Homologous and heterologous immunization against the metacestodes of Taenia saginata and Taenia taeniaeformis in cattle and mice. Zeitschrift für Parasitenkunde 60, 87–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millott, S. M. & Cox, F. E. G. (1985). Interactions between Trypanosoma brucei and Babesia spp. and Plasmodium spp. in mice. Parasitology 90, 241–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moqbel, R. & Wakelin, D. (1979). Trichinella spiralis and Strongyloides ratti: immune interactions in adult rats. Experimental Parasitology 47, 65–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palmas, C., Wakelin, D. & Cabaj, W. (1985). Immune responses to Trichinella pseudospiralis and Trichinella spiralis in mice. International Journal for Parasitology 15, 321–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parkhouse, R. M. E. (1984). Parasite evasion of the immune response. In Symposia of the British Society for Parasitology, vol. 21 (ed. Parkhouse, R. M. E.), pp. 571–682. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Read, C. P. & Phifer, K. (1959). Role of CHO in the biology of cestodes. VII. Interaction between individual tapeworms of the same and different species. Experimental Parasitology 8, 46–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1967). Statistical Methods, 6th edn. Iowa: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Urquhart, G. M. (1980). Vaccines against parasites. Symposia of the British Society for Parasitology, vol. 18 (ed. Taylor, A. E. R. and Muller, R.), pp. 107–14. Oxford Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Wakelin, D. & Wilson, M. M. (1979). Immunity to T. spiralis in irradiated mice. International Journal for Parasitology 9, 37–41.Google Scholar
Weinmann, C. J. (1966). Immunity mechanisms in cestode infections. In Biology of Parasites (ed. Soulsby, E. J. L.), pp. 301–20. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Williams, J. F. (1979). Recent advances in the immunology of cestode infections. Journal of Parasitology 65, 337–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed