Hostname: page-component-857557d7f7-gtc7z Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-11-22T09:42:39.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The immunity arising from continuous low-level infection with Eimeria maxima and Eimeria acervulina

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

L. P. Joyner  and
C. C. Norton
L. P. Joyner
Affiliation:
Central Veterinary Laboratory, MAFF, Weybridge, Surrey
C. C. Norton
Affiliation:
Central Veterinary Laboratory, MAFF, Weybridge, Surrey
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Chicks were given daily inoculations of 1 or 5 oocysts of Eimeria maxima or 5 or 20 oocysts of E. acervulina.

The inoculations ceased after 20 days with E. maxima or 25 days with E. acervulina when oocyst production had stopped. The responses to subsequent heavy challenges showed that with both species the immunity arising from the serial inoculations was stronger and/or more enduring than that produced by single inoculations of comparable numbers of oocysts.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 72 , Issue 1 , February 1976 , pp. 115 - 125
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Hein, H. (1968 a). The pathogenic effects of Eimeria acervulina in young chicks. Experimental Parasitology 22, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hein, H. (1968 b). Resistance in young chicks to reinfection by immunization with two doses of oocysts of Eimeria acervulina. Experimental Parasitology 22, 12–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hein, H. (1975). The pathogenic effects of Eimeria maxima in young chicks. (Unpublished manuscript).Google Scholar
Horton-Smith, C., Long, P. L., Peirce, A. E. & Rose, M. E. (1963). Immunity to coccidia in domestic animals. In Immunity to Protozoa (ed. Gamham, P. C. C., Peirce, A. E. and Roitt, I.). Blackwell: Oxford.Google Scholar
Jenkins, D. C. (1973). Observations on the distribution of an immune-adapted population of Nippostrongylus brasiliensis within the small intestine of rats given repeated small challenge infections. Zeitschrift fur Parasitenkunde 41, 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyner, L. P. & Norton, C. C. (1971). The recording and analysis of coccidiostatic activity: quinolone and pyridine compounds. Research in Veterinary Science 12, 80–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyner, L. P. & Norton, C. C. (1973). The immunity arising from continuous low-level infection with Eimeria tenella. Parasitology 67, 333–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, P. L. & Rowell, J. G. (1958). Counting oocysts of chicken coccidia. Laboratory Practice 7, 515–81, 534.Google Scholar
Rose, M. E. (1974). The early development of immunity to Eimeria maxima in comparison with that to Eimeria tenella. Parasitology 68, 35–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, M. E. & Long, P. L. (1962). Immunity to four species of Eimeria in fowls. Immunology 5, 79–92.Google ScholarPubMed
Ryley, J. F. & Betts, M. J. (1973). Chemotherapy of chicken coccidiosis. In Advances in Pharmacology and Chemotherapy, vol xi, pp. 221–93. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sergent, E. (1963). Latent infection and premunition. Some definitions of microbiology and immunology. In Immunity to Protozoa, (ed. Garnham, P. C. C., Peirce, A. E. and Roitt, I.), Blackwell: Oxford.Google Scholar