Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-wxhwt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T02:29:44.044Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Infections with Eimeria maxima and Eimeria acervulina in the fowl: effect of previous infection with the heterologous organism on oocyst production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

M. Elaine Rose
M. Elaine Rose
Affiliation:
Houghton Poultry Research Station, Houghton, Huntingdon, Cambs. PE17 2DA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Judged by oocyst production, infections with Eimeria acervulina in birds immunized with E. maxima were consistently higher than in birds which had not been immunized. Oocyst production of E. maxima in birds previously infected with E. acervulina was greater, in three out of four experiments, than in control chickens, but some of the differences were slight. The findings are discussed but no satisfactory explanation can be offered. In general there was little or no difference between the oocyst production of the individual species when present as single or mixed infections.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 70 , Issue 2 , April 1975 , pp. 263 - 271
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

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

Catchpole, J., & Joyner, L. P., (1974). Mixed infections with four species of Eimeria in sheep. Parasitology 69, xx.Google Scholar
Dusczynski, D. W., (1972). Host and parasite interactions during single and concurrent infections with Eimeria nieschulzi and E. separata in the rat. Journal of Protozoology 19, 82–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernando, M. A., & McCraw, B. M., (1973). Mucosal morphology and cellular renewal in the intestine of chickens following a single infection of Eimeria acervulina. Journal of Parasitology 59, 493–501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoff, R. L., & Frenkel, J. K., (1974). Cell-mediated immunity against Besnoitia and Toxoplasma in specifically and cross-immunized hamsters and in cultures. Journal of Experimental Medicine 139, 560–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horton-Smith, C., & Long, P. L., (1959). The effects of different anti-coccidial agents on the intestinal coccidioses of the fowl. Journal of Comparative Pathology and Therapeutics 69, 192–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huff, D., & Clark, D. T., (1970). Cellular aspects of the resistance of chickens to Eimeria tenella infections. Journal of Protozoology 17, 35–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joyner, L. P., & Long, P. L., (1974). The specific character of the Eimeria, with special reference to the coccidia of the fowl. Avian Pathology. (In the Press.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, P. L., (1973). Studies on the relationship between Eimeria acervulina and Eimeria mivati. Parasitology 67, 143–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, P. L., (1974). Experimental infection of chickens with two species of Eimeria isolated from the Malaysian Jungle Fowl. Parasitology 69, 337–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, P. L., & Rose, M. E., (1970). Extended schizogony of Eimeria mivati in betamethasonetreated chickens. Parasitology 60, 147–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, P. L., & Rowell, J. G., (1958). Counting oocysts of chicken coccidia. Laboratory Practice 7, 515–8, 534.Google Scholar
Mackaness, G. B., & Blanden, R. V., (1967). Cellular immunity. Progress in Allergy 11, 89–140.Google ScholarPubMed
Michael, E., (1974). Morphological and histological observations of the regenerated mucosa of the duodenum of the fowl after sub-total villous atrophy. Histochemistry 38, 361–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, D. S., (1972). Macrophages as effectors of cell-mediated immunity. In Macrophages and Cellular Immunity (ed. Laskin, A. I. and Lechevalier, H.) pp. 45–76. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Patton, W. M., (1970). In vitro phagocytosis of coccidia by macrophages from the blood of infected chickens. Journal of Parasitology 56, 260.Google Scholar
Pierce, A. E., Long, P. L., & Horton-Smith, C., (1962). Immunity to Eimeria tenella in young fowls (Gallus domesticus). Immunology 5, 129–52.Google ScholarPubMed
Pross, H. F., & Eidinger, D., (1974). Antigenic competition: a review of non-specific antigen induced suppression. Advances in Immunology 18, 133–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, M. E., (1971). Immunity to coccidiosis: protective effect of transferred serum in Eimeria maxima infections. Parasitology 62, 11–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, M. E., (1973). Immune responses to the Eimeria: recent observations. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Coccidia and Belated Organisms, pp. 92–118. University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
Rose, M. E., (1974). Immune responses in infections with coccidia: macrophage activity. Infection and Immunity 10, 862–871.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruskin, J., McIntosh, M., & Remington, J. S., (1969). Studies on the mechanisms of resistance to phylogenetically diverse organisms. Journal of Immunology 103, 252–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruskin, J., & Remington, J. S., (1968). Role for the macrophage in acquired immunity to phylogenetically unrelated intracellular organisms. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, pp. 474–7.Google Scholar
Williams, R. B., (1973 a). Effects of different infection rates on the oocyst production of Eimeria acervulina or Eimeria tenella in the chicken. Parasitology 67, 279–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, R. B., (1973 b). The effect of Eimeria acervulina on the reproductive potentials of four other species of chicken coccidia during concurrent infections. British Veterinary Journal 129, xxix–xxxi.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed