Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-nr592 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-20T19:26:36.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of mode of infection on the development and chemotherapeutic response of Hymenolepis nana in rats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 November 2009

Suman Gupta ,
J. C. Katiyar  and
A. B. Sen
Suman Gupta
Affiliation:
Division of Parasitology, Central Drug Research Institute, Lucknow-226001, India
J. C. Katiyar
Affiliation:
Division of Parasitology, Central Drug Research Institute, Lucknow-226001, India
A. B. Sen
Affiliation:
Division of Parasitology, Central Drug Research Institute, Lucknow-226001, India
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The susceptibility of rats to Hymenolepis nana (Cestoda) and the chemotherapeutic response of anti-cestode drugs was studied during egg-induced and cysticercoid-induced infections. In cysticercoid-induced infection, the percentage of infected animals and the number of mature worms were significantly more than in egg-induced infection. The former mode of transmission required more drug to clear the parasites. These differences have been discussed on the basis of immunity engendered in the definitive host by the developing larvae.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 55 , Issue 2 , June 1981 , pp. 101 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

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

Gupta, S. R., Biswas, H., Arora, R. R. & Rao, C. K. (1974) Analytical study of the prevalence of intestinal parasites in patients with gastro-intestinal symptoms. Journal of Communicable Diseases, 6, 342–345.Google Scholar
Gupta, S., Kat Yar, J. C. & Sen, A. B. (1979) Efficacy of 4-bromo-l-hydroxy-2-(2-chIoro-4-nitro) naphthanilide against experimental Hymenolepis nana infection in laboratory animals. Indian Journal of Parasitology, 3, 199–201.Google Scholar
Gupta, S., Katiyar, J. C, Sen, A. B, Dubey, S. K, Singh, H., Sharma, S. & Iyer, R. N. (1980) Anticestode activity of 3, 5-dibromo-2'-chloro-salicyIanilide-4-isothiocyanate: a preliminary report. Journal of Helminthology, 54, 271–273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hager, A. (1941) Effect of dietary modifications of host rats on the tapeworm Hymenolepsis diminuta. Iowa State College Journal of Science, 15, 127–153.Google Scholar
Hawking, F. (1963) Chemotherapy of trypanosomiasis. In: Experimental chemotherapy (editors Schnitzer, R. J. & Hawking, F.) Vol. 1, pp. 129–256. Academic Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hearin, J. T. (1941) Studies on the acquired immunity to the dwarf tapeworm Hymenolepis nana var. fraterna, in the mouse host. American Journal of Hygiene, 33, 71–87.Google Scholar
Heyneman, D.(1962) Studies on helminth immunity. 1. Comparison between lumenal and tissue phases of infection in the white mouse by Hymenolepsis nana (Cestoda: Hymenolepididae). American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 11, 46–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heyneman, D. (1963) Host parasite resistance patterns. Some implications from experimental studies with helminths. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 113, 114–129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunninen, A. V. (1935) Studies on the life history and host-parasite relations o{ Hymenolepis fratema (H. nana var. fratema Stiles) in white mice. American Journal of Hygiene, 22, 414–443.Google Scholar
Ito, A. & Yamamoto, M. (1977) Maturation of initially infected Hymenolepsis nana under rapid protective immunity against reinfection with the eggs. Japanese Journal of Parasitology, 26, 301–306.Google Scholar
Misra, A., Katiyar, J. C. & Sen, A. B.(1980) Experimental studies with Nippostrongylus brasiliensis on factors modifying therapeutic efficacy of anthelmintics in rats. Indian Journal of Experimental Biology (In press).Google ScholarPubMed
Pradhan, S, Saxena, H., Pratap, V. K. & Jain, P. (1977) Coprological survey of parasitic infestations among patients attending O.P.D. and indoor of L.L.R. Hospital, Kanpur. Indian Journal of Public Health, 21, 23–28.Google ScholarPubMed
Sharma, R. D., Bansal, R. D. & Sharma, A. N. (1975) Pathogenic intestinal parasites in New Kangra district, Himanchal Pradesh. Journal of the Indian Medical Association, 10, 255–258.Google Scholar
ShorbD, A. D, A. (1933) Host-parasite relations of Hymenolepis fraterna in the rat and the white mouse. American Journal of Hygiene, 18, 74–113.Google Scholar
Steward, J. S. (1955) Anthelmintic studies: A taenicidal testing technique. Parasitology, 45, 255–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voge, M. & Turner, J. A. (1956) Effect of temperature on larval development of the cestode, Hymenolepis diminuta. Experimental Parasitology, 5, 580–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinmann, C. J. (1958) Egg production by Hymenolepis nana var. fratema and egg infectivity after passage from mice with light, moderate and heavy worm burdens. Journal of Parasitology, 44 (Suppl.), p. 16.Google Scholar
Weinmann, C. J. (1966) Immunity mechanisms in cestode infection. In: Biology of Parasites. Edited by Soulsby, E. J. L., Academic Press, New York, 301–320.Google Scholar
Woodland, W. N. F. (1924) On the life cycle of Hymenolepis fratema (H. nana var.fraterna Stiles) in the white mouse. Parasitology, 16, 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar