Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T16:53:19.346Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Eimeria tenella, E. acervulina and E. maxima: studies on the development of resistance to diclazuril and other anticoccidial drugs in the chicken

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

H. D. Chapman
Affiliation:
Institute for Animal Health, Houghton Laboratory, Houghton, Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire PE17 2DA

Summary

Resistance to diclazuril was induced by 10 passages of the Houghton strains of Eimeria acervulina and E. tenella in chickens given progressively greater concentrations of the drug. This resistance was, however, not complete since the drug retained some efficacy against the drug-passaged lines. Attempts to passage the Houghton strain of E. maxima in birds medicated with concentrations of diclazuril greater than 0·016 parts per million (ppm) were unsuccessful and after 10 passages at this concentration resistance had not developed. Resistance to methyl benzoquate developed after 6 passages of E. tenella in medicated chickens but resistance to amprolium was only partial after 10 passages. The pathogenicity of diclazuril- and amprolium-resistant lines of E. tenella was lower than that of the parental line. Diclazuril was effective against lines of E. tenella resistant to amprolium, arprinocid, clopidol, dinitolmide, halofuginone, methyl benzoquate, monensin and robenidine.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

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

Chapman, H. D. (1976). Eimeria tenella: experimental studies on the development of resistance to robenidine. Parasitology 73, 265–73.Google Scholar
Chapman, H. D. (1978). Eimeria tenella: experimental studies on the development of resistance to amprolium, clopidol and methyl benzoquate. Parasitology 76, 177–83.Google Scholar
Chapman, H. D. (1984 a). Drug resistance in avian coccidia ( a review). Veterinary Parasitology 15, 1127.Google Scholar
Chapman, H. D. (1984 b). Eimeria tenella: experimental development of resistance to monensin in the chicken. Parasitology 89, 916.Google Scholar
Chapman, H. D. (1985). Eimeria tenella: development of resistance to arprinocid and decoquinate in the chicken. Research in Veterinary Science 38, 226–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, H. D. (1986 a). Eimeria tenella: experimental studies on the development of resistance to halofuginone. Veterinary Parasitology 21, 8390.Google Scholar
Chapman, H. D. (1986 b). Drug resistance in coccidia: recent research. In Research in Avian Coccidiosis (ed. McDougald, L. R., Long, P. L. & Joyner, L. P.). Proceedings of the Georgia Coccidiosis Conference, Athens GA, USA.Google Scholar
Chapman, H. D. (1989). The sensitivity of field isolates of Eimeria tenella to anticoccidial drugs in the chicken. Research in Veterinary Science 47, 125–8.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. & Reid, W. M. (1970). Anticoccidial drugs: lesion scoring techniques in battery and floor pen experiments with chickens. Experimental Parasitology 28, 30–6.Google Scholar
Klimes, B. (1969). Resistance development of Eimeria tenella to some coccidiostats (6-azauracil, nitrofurazone, zoalene and amprolium). Acta Veterinaria Brno 38, 101–8.Google Scholar