Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-21T20:04:22.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The use of enzyme electrophoresis for the identification of the species of Eimeria present in field isolates of coccidia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

H. D. Chapman
Affiliation:
Houghton Poultry Research Station, Houghton, Huntingdon, Cambs. PE17 2D A

Extract

The electrophoretic mobility of glucose phosphate isomerase (GPI) has been used to identify Eimeria acervulina, E. praecox and E. mivati in isolates of coccidia from commercial sites in the United Kingdom. Mixtures of two or three species gave separate bands upon electrophoresis and each species could be identified provided that it formed at least 10–20% of the total number of oocysts present in a sample of 8 × 106 oocysts. The principal forms of GPI corresponded to the GPI of E. acervulina (H), E. praecox (H) and E. mivati (W) and were found in 38, 34 and 8 isolates respectively of the 46 examined. Three further variants of GPI are described.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

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. (1982). The treatment of coccidiosis: studies on the sensitivity of recent field isolates of Eimeria acervulina type to anticoccidial drugs given in the drinking water. Journal of Comparative Pathology 92, 213–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edgar, S. A. & Seibold, C. T. (1964). A new coccidium of chickens, Eimeria mivati sp.n (Protozoa: Eimeriidae) with details of its life history. Journal of Parasitology 50, 193204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horton-Smith, C. & Long, P. L. (1959). The effects of different anticoccidial agents on the intestinal coccidioses of the fowl. Journal of Comparative Pathology and Therapeutics 69, 192207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jeffers, T. K. (1974). Eimeria acervulina and E. maxima: Incidence and anticoccidial drug resistance of isolants in major broiler-producing areas. Avian Diseases 18, 331–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyner, L. P. & Long, P. L. (1974). The specific characters of the Eimeria, with special reference to the coccidia of the fowl. Avian Pathology 3, 145–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, P. L. (1967 a). Studies on Eimeria mivati in chickens and a comparison with Eimeria acervulina. Journal of Comparative Pathology 77, 315–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, P. L. (1967 b). Studies on Eimeria praecox. Johnson, 1930, in the chicken. Parasitology 57, 351–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, C. C. & Joyner, L. P. (1980). Studies with Eimeria acervulina and E. mivati: pathogenicity and cross immunity. Parasitology 81, 315–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, W. M., Womack, H. E. & Johnson, J. (1968). Coccidiosis susceptibility in layer flock replacement programs. Pountry Science 47, 892–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shirley, M. W. (1975). Enzyme variation in Eimeria species of the chicken. Parasitology 71, 369–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shirley, M. W. (1978). Electrophoretic variants ofphosphoglucomutase in different species and strains of Eimeria from the chicken. In Avian Coccidiosis (ed. Long, P. L., Boorman, K.N. and Freeman, B. M.), pp. 127–34. British Poultry Science Ltd.Google Scholar
Shirley, M. W. (1979): A reappraisal of the taxonomic status of Eimeria mivati Edgar and Seibold 1964, by enzyme electrophoresis and cross-immunity tests. Parasitology 78, 221–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shirley, M. W., Millard, B. J. & Long, P. L. (1977). Studies on the growth, chemotherapy and enzyme variation of Eimeria acervulina var. diminuta and E. acervulina var. mivati. Parasitology 75, 165–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shirley, M. W. & Rollinson, D. (1979). Coccidia: the recognition and characterization of populations of Eimeria. In Problems in the Identification of Parasites and their Vectors. Symposia of the British Society for Parasitology 17, 730.Google Scholar