Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T00:49:18.968Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The infection of Boophilus microplus with Babesia bigemina

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

L. L. Callow
Affiliation:
Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Animal Research Institute Yeerongpilly, Brisbane, Australia

Extract

Experiments were performed to determine at what phase or phases of its parasitic development Boophilus microplus becomes infected with Babesia bigemina. Problems due to Boophilus microplus being a one-host tick were overcome by artificially transferring ticks from one host to a second just prior to a moult. In several experiments, a babesiacide was used to eliminate parasites so that the exposure of ticks to infection could be restricted to one phase of their development. Further information was obtained by correlating the presence or absence of patent parasitaemia in the bovine with the presence or absence of infection in ticks which fed on it.

It was found that ticks were susceptible to infection for approximately the last day of their parasitic life. Infection at other times, that is, during larval, nymphal and the major part of the adult stages was not usual. Four of five attempts to infect larvae and all five attempts to infect nymphs were negative.

Infection of ticks always resulted when a patent parasitaemia coincided with the last day of parasitic life. Ticks were infected in all thirteen instances when these conditions existed but in only seven of eighteen instances when the animal was a carrier but was not showing parasitaemia.

Stage-to-stage transmission did not occur, although suitable conditions for this existed on nine occasions.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1968

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

Callow, L. L. & Hoyte, H. M. D. (1961 a). The separation of Babesia bigemina from Babesia argentina and Theileria mutans. Aust. vet. J. 37, 6670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callow, L. L. & Hoyte, H. M. D. (1961 b). Transmission experiments using Babesia bigemina, Theileria mutans, Borrelia sp. and the cattle tick, Boophilus microplus. Aust. vet. J. 37, 381–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eyles, D. E. (1952). Studies on Plasmodium gallinaceum. III. Factors associated with the malaria infection in the vertebrate host which influence the degree of infection in the mosquito. Am. J. Hyg. 55, 386–91.Google ScholarPubMed
Neitz, W. O. (1956). Classification, transmission, and biology of piroplasms of domestic animals. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 64, 56111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polianskii, I. I. & Kheisin, E. M. (1959). (Some observations on the development of Babesia bovis in the tick vector.) Karel. Fil. Akad. Nauk. SSSR 14, 513.Google Scholar
Reichenow, E. (1935). (The transmission and development of piroplasms). Zentbl. Bakt. ParasitKde (1 Abt. Orig.). 135, 108–91.Google Scholar
Smith, T. & Kilborne, F. L. (1893). Investigations into the nature, causation, and prevention of Texas or Southern cattle fever. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. no. 1, 301 pp.Google Scholar