Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T02:09:39.968Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In vitro development of hydatid cysts from posterior bladders and ruptured brood capsules of equine Echinococcus granulosus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

M. T. Rogan  and
K. Sylvia Richards
M. T. Rogan
Affiliation:
Parasitology Research Laboratory, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Keele, Keele, Staffs. ST5 5BG
K. Sylvia Richards
Affiliation:
Parasitology Research Laboratory, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Keele, Keele, Staffs. ST5 5BG
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A variety of morphological forms developed during monophasic culture of ruptured brood capsules of equine Echinococcus granulosus. Attached to some protoscoleces were small posterior bladders, with a surface ultrastructure of truncated microtriches, and these never developed a laminated layer. In contrast, small free vesicles of similar size and ultrastructure, but devoid of an attached protoscolex, produced a layer by 20–30 days. The surface ultrastructure of both these forms is similar to that of the protoscolex attachment stalk and the brood capsule lining, and posterior bladders and small free vesicles are considered to be derived from portions of the stalk±part of the brood capsule lining retained at protoscolex release. Also present were large vesicles interpreted from their size and surface anatomy as ruptured, everted brood capsules. When devoid of attached protosoleces these formed cysts each with a laminated layer, whereas similar vesicles with several attached protoscoleces did not develop a layer, or only very occasionally after 70 or more days. In contrast, a few large vesicles with a single attached protoscolex produced a laminated layer. The possibility that protoscolex attachment to stalk remnants or brood capsules inhibits the cystic development of these structures is discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 92 , Issue 2 , April 1986 , pp. 379 - 390
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

Bénex, J. (1968). Considerations expérimentales nouvelles sur l'évolution in vitro en milieu des larves d'Echinococcus granulosus. Annales de Parasitologie Humaine et comparée 43, 561–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brudnjak, J., Cvetnić, S. & Wikerhauser, T. (1970). Cystic development of protoscoleces and brood capsules of Echinococcus granulosus in cell cultures and cell free media. Veterinarski Archiv, Zagreb 40, 292–6.Google Scholar
Conder, G. A., Marchiondo, A. A., Williams, J. F. & Anderson, F. L. (1983). Freeze-etch charac terization of the teguments of three metacestodes: Echinococcus granulosus, Taenia crassiceps, and Taenia taeniaeformis. Journal of Parasitology 69, 539–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coutelen, F. (1927). Essai de culture in vitro de scolex et hydatides échinococciques. Annales de Parasitologie Hurnaine et comparée 5, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dissanaike, A. S. & Paramananthon, D. C. (1961). On an unusual brood capsule from a hydatid cyst of a goat in Ceylon. Journal of Helminthology 35, 221–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, H. S. & Rao, B. V. (1967). Unusual brood capsules from hydatid cysts in Indian buffalo, Journal of Helminthology 41, 111–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurri, J. (1963). Vitalidid y evolutividad de los escolices hidaticos in vivo e in vitro. Anales-Facultad de Medcina de Montevideo 48, 372–81.Google Scholar
Heath, D. D. & Osborn, P. J. (1976). Formation of Echinococcus granulosus laminated membrane in a defined medium. International Journal for Parasitology 6, 467–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lascano, E. F., Coltorti, E. A. & Varela-Diaz, V. M. (1975). Fine structure of the germinal membrane of Echinococcus granulosus cysts. Journal of Parasitology 61, 853–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lopez-Campos, J. L., Linares, J., Alonso, J., Anethos, J. & Diaz-Flores, L. (1978). Estudio de Ia capa laminada, membranas germinativas y tegumento del protoescolex del Equinococcus granulosus en su localizacion humana. Morfologia normal y patologia 2, 99–109.Google Scholar
McManusa, D. D. & Barrett, N. J. (1985). Isolation, fractionation and partial characterization of the tegumen tal surface from protoscoleces of the hydatid organism, Echinococcus granulosus. Parasitology 90, 111–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morseth, D. J. (1967). Fine structure of the hydatid cyst and protoscolex of Echinococcus granulosus. Journal of Parasitology 53, 312–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pauluzzi, S., Sorice, F., Castagnari, L. & Serra, P. (1965). Contributo all´ studio delle colture in vitro degli scolici de Echinococcus granulosus. Annali Slavo 7, 191–218.Google Scholar
Richards, K. S., Arme, C. & Bridges, J. G. (1983). Echinococcus granulosus equinus: An ultra- structural study of the laminated layer, including changes on incubating cysts in various media. Parasitology 86, 399–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smyth, J. D.(1962). Studies on tapeworm physiology. X. Axenic cultivation of the hydatid organism, Echinococcus granulosus: establishment of a basic technique. Parasitology 52, 441–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smyth, J. D. (1967). Studies on tapeworm physiology. XI. In vitro cultivation of Echinococcus granulosus from the protoscolex to the strobilate stage. Parasitology 57, 111–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smyth, J. D. (1979). Echinococcus granulosus and E. multilocularis: in vitro culture of the strobilar stages from protoscoleces. Angewandte Parasitologie 20, 137–47.Google ScholarPubMed
Yamashita, J., Ohbayashi, M., Sakamoto, T. & Orihara, M. (1962). Studies on Echinococcus. XIII. Observations on the vesicular development of the scolex of Echinococcus multilocularis in vitro. Japanese Journal of Veterinary Research 10, 85–96.Google Scholar