Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-jtdwj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T14:53:58.162Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Infectivity of Trichinella isolates in mice is determined by host immune responsiveness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

F. Bolas-Fernandez  and
D. Wakelin
F. Bolas-Fernandez
Affiliation:
MRC Experimental Parasitology Group, Department of Zoology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD
D. Wakelin
Affiliation:
MRC Experimental Parasitology Group, Department of Zoology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A comparison was made of the development, survival and reproduction of 5 isolates of Trichinella spiralis in inbred mice. Low responder C57BL/10 mice allowed worms of all isolates to survive longer and reproduce more successfully than did high responder NIH mice, suggesting that host immunity exerted a dominant influence upon infectivity. One isolate (Is-5 (W) — an arctic isolate) had a markedly lower infectivity than all other isolates, and was selected for more detailed study, together with isolate Is-1 (S) (a temperate isolate) which showed high infectivity. The lower infectivity of Is-5 (W) reflected a more rapid onset of immunity in mice infected with this parasite, immunity reducing the reproductive potential of female worms and causing an early expulsion from the intestine. No evidence of a dose-dependent suppression of immunity was found to explain the higher infectivity of Is-1 (S). Is-5 (W) provided a very rapid mucosal mastocytosis in infected mice, whereas Is-1 (S) caused no measurable response. In contrast, Is-1 (S) elicited higher levels of circulating parasite-specific antibodies than did Is-5 (W). These results are discussed in relation to the interplay of parasite immunogenicity and host immune responsiveness in determining infectivity, and point to the importance of identifying those immunodominant parasite molecules which control the balance of the host—parasite relationship.

Keywords

Trichinella spiralishost immunityhost—parasite relationshipimmunogenicityinfectivity.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 99 , Issue 1 , August 1989 , pp. 83 - 88
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Alizadeh, H., & Wakelin, D., (1982). Comparison of rapid expulsion of Trichinella spiralis in mice and rats. International Journal for Parasitology 12, 65–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Belosevic, M., & Dick, T. A., (1979). Trichinella spiralis: comparison of stages in host intestine with those of an arctic Trichinella sp. Experimental Parasitology 48, 432–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dick, T. A., (1983). Species and intraspecific variation. In Trichinella and Trichinellosis (ed. Campbell, W. C.,), pp. 31–73. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamble, H. R., & Murrell, K. D., (1986). Conservation of diagnostic antigen epitbpes among biologically diverse isolates of Trichinella spiralis. Journal of Parasitology 72, 921–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, T. D. G., Grencis, R. K., & Wakelin, D., (1982). Specific cross-immunity between Trichinella spiralis and Trichuris muris: immunization with heterologous infections and antigens and transfer of immunity with heterologous immune mesenteric lymph node cells. Parasitology 84, 381–9.Google Scholar
Nelson, G. S., Blackie, E. J., & Mukundi, J., (1966). Comparative studies on geographical strains of Trichinella spiralis. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 60, 471–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sukhdeo, M. V. K., & Meerovitch, E., (1980). A biological explanation for the differences in infectivity of geographical isolates of Trichinella. Canadian Journal of Zoology 58, 1227–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wakelin, D., (1983). Genetic variation in immunity to Trichinella spiralis in the mouse. Wiadomosci Parazytologiczne 29, 375–85.Google Scholar
Wakelin, D., (1985). Genetics immunity and parasite survival. In Ecology and Genetics of Host—Parasite Interactions (ed. Rollinson, D., & Anderson, R. M.), pp. 39–54. London and New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wakelin, D., & Denham, D. A., (1983). The immune response. In Trichinella and Trichinosis (ed. Campbell, W. C.), pp. 265–308. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wakelin, D., Donachie, A. M., & Grencis, R. K., (1985). Genetic control of immunity to Trichinella spiralis in mice: capacity of cells from slow responder mice to transfer immunity to syngeneic and F1 hybrid recipients. Immunology 86, 203–11.Google Scholar
Wakelin, D., & Lloyd, M., (1976). Immunity to primary and challenge infections of Trichinella spiralis in mice: a re-examination of conventional parameters. Parasitology 72, 173–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wakelin, D., & Wilson, M. M., (1977). Transfer of immunity to Trichinella spiralis in the mouse with mesenteric lymph node cells: time of appearance of effective cells in donors and expression of immunity in recipients. Parasitology 74, 215–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wassom, D. L., Dougherty, D. A., Krco, C. J., & David, C. S., (1984). H-2-controlled, dose-dependent suppression of the response that expels adult Trichinella spiralis from the small intestine of mice. Immunology 53, 811–18.Google ScholarPubMed
Wassom, D. L., Dougherty, D. A., & Dick, T. A., (1988). Trichinella spiralis infections of inbred mice: immunologically specific responses induced by different Trichinella isolates. Journal of Parasitology 74, 283–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed