Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T15:30:34.962Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Immune responses to infections with coccidia in chickens: gut hypersensitivity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

M. Elaine Rose ,
P. L. Long  and
J. W. A. Bradley
M. Elaine Rose
Affiliation:
Houghton Poultry Research Station, Houghton, Huntingdon, Cambs. PE17 2DA
P. L. Long
Affiliation:
Houghton Poultry Research Station, Houghton, Huntingdon, Cambs. PE17 2DA
J. W. A. Bradley
Affiliation:
Houghton Poultry Research Station, Houghton, Huntingdon, Cambs. PE17 2DA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Sporulated oocysts or oocyst hulls of Eimeria acervulina given via the crop, and oocyst juice or sporozoites inoculated directly into the in testinal lumen, were tested for their effects on the hypersensitivity of the intestines of immunized and susceptible birds. Only viable sporozoites consistently caused an increase in the permeability of the immunized intestine to macromolecules, shown by the leakage of intravenously injected dye. Repulsion of epithelium and disruption of the villi were seen more often in immunized than in susceptible chickens but there was no correlation with treatment or with dye leakage.

The hypersensitive response of immune intestines challenged with a heterologous organism was approximately half as intense as the response to homologous challenge.

The significance of these findings in relation to immunity to coccidiosis is discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 71 , Issue 3 , December 1975 , pp. 357 - 368
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

Badaway, A. M., Campbell, R. M., Cuthbertson, D. P. & Fell, B. F. (1957). Changes in the intestinal mucosa of the sheep following death by humane killer. Nature, London 180, 756–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doran, D. J. (1966). The migration of Eimeria acervulina sporozoites to the duodenal glands of LieberkÜhn. Journal of Protozoology 13, 27–33.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
Imondi, A. R. & Bird, F. H. (1966). The turnover of intestinal epithelium in the chick. Poultry Science 45, 142–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kouwenhoven, B. & van der Hoest, C. J. G. (1973). Histological observations with respect to the immune mechanism in Eimeria acervulina infection in the domestic fowl. Zeitschrift für Parasitenkunde 42, 11–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, P. L. (1968). The pathogenic effects of Eimeria praecox and E. acervulina in the chicken. Parasitology 58, 691–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, P. L. (1972). Eimeria tenella: reproduction, pathogenicity and immunogenicity of a strain maintained in chick embryos by serial passage. Journal of Comparative Pathology 82, 429–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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., Fernando, A. M. & Remmler, O. (1974). Experimental infections of the domestic fowl with a variant of Eimeria praecox from the Ceylon jungle fowl. Parasitology 69, 1–9.Google Scholar
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
Rose, M. E. & Long, P. L. (1969). Immunity to coccidiosis: gut permeability changes in response to sporozoite invasion. Experientia 25, 183–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Urquhart, G. M., Mulligan, W., Eadie, R. M. & Jennings, F. W. (1965). Immunological studies on Nippostrongylus brasiliensis infection in the rat. The role of local anaphylaxis. Experimental Parasitology 17, 210–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van der Horst, C. J. G. & Kouwenhoven, B. (1973). Biochemical investigation with regard to infection and immunity of Eimeria acervulina in the fowl. Zeitschrift für Parasitenkunde 42, 23–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed