Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T16:25:26.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Behaviour of sterilised exsheathed infective Trichostrongylid larvae in sterile media resembling their environment in Ovine hosts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2009

Geoffrey Lapage
Geoffrey Lapage
Affiliation:
(Institute of Animal Pathology, University of Cambridge.)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Attempts were made to cultivate in sterile artificial media the sterilised first parasitic larva of intestinal nematodes of sheep. These larvae were obtained by artificial production of the second ecdysis in 1 in 20 dilutions of Milton hypochlorite in distilled water.

2. Over 1,500 larvae were thus isolated, usually in hanging drops, in more than 200 different sterile media, containing ingredients likely to be present in the normal environment of these larvae inside their hosts.

3. None of the larvae showed any growth. Most formed the next sheath and were ready for the third ecdysis, but only 10 larvae actually performed this. The parasitic third larva thus liberated always emerged by a rent at the side of the eosophageal region of the sheath, and never by detachment of a cap like that characteristic of the second ecdysis. In every instance the parasitic third larva died immediately after the third ecdysis, which set it free. Two of these 10 larvae underwent the second and third ecdyses simultaneously.

4. The methods used by the writer (1933b) to induce artificially the second ecdysis always failed to produce the third ecdysis. No method of producing this at will was found.

5. The longest time any first parasitic larva lived was 41 days. Few of them lived, however, less than 8–10 days. A life of 18–30 days was more usual before visible signs of physiological abnormality appeared, such as the gradual vacuolation and emptying of the intestinal cells which usually preceded their death.

6. Those which were ready with a loose sheath for the third ecdysis, showed, as infective larvae also do, remarkable powers of resistance to changes produced in them by osmotic factors.

7. None of the larvae showed any particular reaction to blood, mucosa of the stomach or duodenum, nor, indeed, to any of the ferments or tissues these larvae encounter in their hosts. They seemed to be as indifferent in this respect as the sheathed infective larvae are.

8. A comparative physiological study of the sheathed infective and the exsheathed first parasitic phases of the second larva would verify, and perhaps modify, our knowledge of the functions of the so-called protective sheath of the infective larva.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , May 1935 , pp. 115 - 128
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1935

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

Ackert, J. E. & Spindler, L. A., 1929.—“Vitamin D and resistance of Chickens to Parasitism.” Amer. J. Hyg., 9, 292–307. (W. L. 600a.)Google Scholar
Ackert, J. E. & Beach, T. D., 1931a.—“Yeast as a Factor in the Growth of the Fowl Nematode. Ascaridia lineata (Schneider).” Jl. Parasit., 18, 113. (W. L. 11425.)Google Scholar
Ackert, J. E. & Nolf, L. O., 1931b.—“Resistance of Chickens to Parasitism affected by Vitamin B.” Amer. J. Hyg., 13, 337–344. (W. L. 600a.)Google Scholar
Ackert, J. E., McIlvaine, M. F. & Crawford, N. Z., 1931c.—“Resistance of Chickens to Parasitism effected by Vitamin A.” Amer. J. Hyg., 13, 320–336. (W. L. 600a.)Google Scholar
Baker, J. R., 1930.—“A Fluid for Mammalian Sperm-suspensions.” Quart. J. exp. Physiol., 20, 67–70. (W. L. 17502.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, A. T. & White, F. D., 1930.—“A Course in Practical Biochemistry.” London: J. & A. Churchill.Google Scholar
Foster, A. C. & Cort, W. W., 1931.—“The Effect of Diet on Hookworm infestation in Dogs.” Science, 73, 681–683. (W. L. 19938.)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glaser, R. W., 1931.—“The Cultivation of a Nematode Parasite of an Insect.” Science, 73, 614–615. (W. L. 19938.)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glaser, R. W., 1932.—“Studies on Neoaplectana Glaseri, a Nematode Parasite of the Japanese Beetle (Popillia japonica).” State of New Jersey Dept. of Agric., Circular No. 211, 3–34.Google Scholar
Hawk, P. B. & Bergeim, O., 1931.—“Practical Physiological Chemistry.” 10th Edn.London: J. & A. Churchill.Google Scholar
Hill, R. & Holden, H. F., 1926.—“The Preparation and some properties of the globin of Oxyhaemoglobin.” Bio-chem. J., 20, 1327–1339. (W. L. 2967.)Google ScholarPubMed
Hoeppli, R., 1927.—“Ueber Beziehungen zwischen dem biologischen Verhalten parasitischer Nematoden und histologischen Reaktionen des Wirbeltierkörpers.” Arch. Schiffs- u. Trop. hyg., Beihefte zum Bd., 31, 203–290. (W. L. 1804.)Google Scholar
Hogue, M. J., 1930.—In Hegner, R. W. & Andrews, J., 1930.—“Problems and Methods of Research in Protozoology.” New York: The MacMillan Co.Google Scholar
Lapage, G., 1933a.—“The Cultivation of Infective Nematode Larvae on Pure Cultures of B. Coll.” 3rd Rep. Dir. Inst. of Animal Path., Univ. of Cambridge, 237–270.Google Scholar
Lapage, G., 1933b.—“Cultivation of Parasitic Nematodes.” Nature, 131, 583–584. (W.L 14900.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lapage, G., 1935,—“The Second Ecdysis of Infective Nematode Larvae.” Parasitology. 27, 186–206. (W. L. 16035.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Bolles, 1928.—“Microtomist's Vade-Mecum.” 9th Edn. Edited by Gatenby, J. Bronte, Cowdry, E. V. and collaborators. London: J. & H. Churchill.Google Scholar
Medical Research Council, The, 1931.—“A System of Bacteriology in Relation to Medicine.” 9 Vols. by various authors. London: H.M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Stumberg, J. E., 1933.—“The Detection of the Proteins of the Nematode Haemonchus contortus in the Sera of Infected Sheep and Goats.” Amer. J. Hyg., 18, 247–265. (W. L. 600a.)Google Scholar
Taliaferro, W. H., 1929.—“The Immunology of Parasitic Infections.” New York & London: The Century Co.Google Scholar
Veglia, F., 1915.—“The Life History and Anatomy of Haemonchus contortus (Rud).” 3rd & 4th Rep. Dir. Vet. Res., Union of S. Africa, 347–500.Google Scholar
Woodman, H. E. & Stewart, J., 1928.—“The Mechanism of Cellulose Digestion in the Ruminant Organism. II. The transformation of Cellulose into glucose by the agency of Cellulose-splitting Bacteria.” J. agric. Sci., 18, 713–723. (W. L. 10966.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodman, H. E. & Stewart, J., 1932.—“The Mechanism of Cellulose Digestion in the Ruminant Organism. III. The action of Cellulose-splitting Bacteria on the Fibre of certain typical feeding stuffs.” J. agric. Sci., 22, 528–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, A., 1921.—“Researches expérimentales sur l'élevage aseptique de l'Anguillule du vinaigre Anguillula oxophila Schneider.” Rev. suisse Zool., 28, 357–380. (W.L. 19288.)Google Scholar