, Volume 22, Issue 6, pp 593–599 | Cite as

Major histocompatibility (B) complex effects on acquired immunity to cecal coccidiosis

  • Robert A. Clare
  • Richard G. Strout
  • Robert L. TaylorJr.
  • Walter M. Collins
  • W. Elwood Briles


The influence of the major histocompatibility (B) complex on acquired immunity to the avian coccidium Eimeria tenella was studied in 217 F4 segregants (B2B2, B2B5, B5B5) of a cross between inbred lines 61 (B2B2) and 151 (B5B5) and segregating haplotype combinations of UNH105 (B23B23B23B24, B24B24), a noninbred line of New Hampshire chickens. Chickens were immunized at 6 weeks of age with 500 oocysts daily for 5 days, then challenged 14 days later with 10000 oocysts. Responses to infection were evaluated by cecal lesion scores, body weight gain, delayed wattle reaction (DWR), and spleen weight. The F4 segregants of genotypes B2B5 and B5B5 exhibited greater immunity to challenge than B2B2 chickens. B5B5 chickens showed a significantly greater DWR following immunization and larger spleens 6 days after the challenge than either of the other genotypes. However, both BIBS and B5B5 chickens demonstrated significantly lower lesion scores than B2B2 chickens. There were no significant differences in weight gain among these genotypes. Among 139 line UNH105 segregants, B23B23 hosts had significantly lower lesion scores than B24B24 chickens. No other differences in immune response among line UNH105 genotypes were detected.


Immune Response Weight Gain Inbred Line Body Weight Gain Complex Effect 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aeed, P. A.: Characterization of the anti-Rous sarcoma response of B-F/B-G recombinants on different B complex backgrounds, and failure to produce recombinants between the B-L and B-F chromosomal segments. Master of Science Thesis, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire 03824, 1984Google Scholar
  2. Becker, E. R., Hall, P. R., and Madden, R.: The mechanism of immunity in murine coccidiosis. Am. J. Hyg. 21: 389–404, 1935Google Scholar
  3. Bedrnik, P. and Hála, K.: Sensitivity of different inbred lines of hens to Eimeria tenella infection. Proc. I nt. Symp. Coccidia, pp. 221–222, Prague, 1979Google Scholar
  4. Briles, W. E. and Briles, R. W.: Identification of haplotypes of the chicken major histocompatibility complex (B). Immunogenetics 15: 449–459, 1982Google Scholar
  5. Briles, W. E., McGibbon, W. H., and Irwin, M. R.: On multiple alleles affecting cellular antigens in the chicken. Genetics 35: 633–652, 1950Google Scholar
  6. Briles, W. E., Stone, H. A., and Cole, R. K.: Marek's disease: Effects of B histocompatibility alloalleles in resistant and susceptible chicken lines. Science 195: 193–195, 1977Google Scholar
  7. Briles, W. E., Briles, R. W., Taffs, R. E., and Stone, H. A.: Resistance to a malignant lymphoma in chickens is mapped to subregion of major histocompatibility (B) complex. Science 219: 977–979, 1983Google Scholar
  8. Collins, W. M. and Briles, W. E.: Response of two B (MHC) recombinants to Rous sarcoma virus-induced tumors. Animal Blood Groups Biochem. Genet. 2 (suppl. 1): 38, 1980Google Scholar
  9. Collins, W. M., Briles, W. E., Zsigray, R. M., Dunlop, W. R., Corbett, A. C., Clark, K. K., Marks, J. L., and McGrail, T. P.: The B locus (MHC) in the chicken: Association with the fate of RSV-induced tumors. Immunogenetics 5: 333–343, 1977Google Scholar
  10. Collins, W. M., Briles, W. E., Corbett, A. C., Clark, K. K., Zsigray, R. M., and Dunlop, W. R.: B locus (MHC) effect upon regression of RSV-induced tumors in noninbred chickens. Immunogenetics 9: 97–100, 1979Google Scholar
  11. Giambrone, J. J. and Klesius, P. H.: Chicken coccidiosis: Correlation between resistance and delayed hypersensitivity. Poult. Sci. 59: 1715–1721, 1980Google Scholar
  12. Giambrone, J. J., Klesius, P. H., and Edgar, S. A.: Avian coccidiosis: Evidence for a cell-mediated immune response. Poult. Sci. 59: 38–43, 1980Google Scholar
  13. Goto, N., Kadama, H., Okada, K., and Fujimoto, Y.: Suppression of phytohemagglutinin skin response in thymectomized chickens. Poult. Sci. 57: 246–250, 1978Google Scholar
  14. Heinzelmann, E. W., Zsigray, R. M., and Collins, W. M.: Cross-reactivity between RSV-induced tumor antigen and B5 MHC alloantigen in the chicken. Immunogenetics 13: 29–37, 1981Google Scholar
  15. Jaffe, W. P. and McDermid, E. M.: Blood groups and splenomegaly in chick embryos. Science 137: 984, 1962Google Scholar
  16. Johnson, L. W. and Edgar, S. A.: Ea-A and Ea-E cellular antigen genes in Leghorn lines resistant and susceptible to acute cecal coccidiosis. Poult. Sci. 63: 1695–1704, 1984Google Scholar
  17. Johnson, J. and Reid, W. M.: Anticoccidial drugs: Lesion scoring techniques in battery and floor pen experiments with chickens. Exp. Parasitol. 28: 30–36, 1970Google Scholar
  18. Joyner, L. P. and Norton, C. C.: The immunity arising from continous low-level infection with Eimeria tenella. Parasitology 67: 333–340, 1973Google Scholar
  19. Joyner, L. P. and Norton, C. C.: The immunity arising from continous low-level infection with Eimeria maxima and Eimeria acervulina. Parasitology 72: 115–125, 1976Google Scholar
  20. Klesius, P. H. and Giambrone, J. J.: Adoptive transfer of delayed hypersensitivity and protective immunity to Eimeria tenella with chicken-derived transfer factor. Poult. Sci. 63: 1333–1337, 1984Google Scholar
  21. Klesius, P. H. and Hinds, S. E.: Strain-dependent differences in murine susceptibility to coccidia. Infect. Immun. 26: 1111–1115, 1979Google Scholar
  22. Klesius, P. H., Kramer, T., Burger, D., and Malley, A.: Passive transfer of coccidian oocyst antigen and diphtheria toxoid hypersensitivity in calves across species barriers. Transplant. Proc. 7: 449–452, 1975Google Scholar
  23. Klesius, P., Johnson, W., and Kramer, T.: Delayed wattle reaction as a measure of cell-mediated immunity in the chicken. Poult. Sci. 56: 249–256, 1977Google Scholar
  24. McCorkle, F. M., Stinson, R., and Glick, B.: A biphasic graft vs. host response in aging chickens. Cell. Immunol. 46: 208–212, 1979Google Scholar
  25. Plachý, J. and Albrecht, V.: Genetic control of Rous sarcoma regression in inbred lines of chickens. Folia Biol. (Praha) 27: 289–300, 1981Google Scholar
  26. Plachý, J. and Benda, V.: Location of the gene responsible for Rous sarcoma regression in inbred lines of chickens. Folia Biol. (Praha) 27: 363, 1981Google Scholar
  27. Plachý, J. and Vilhelmová, M.: Syngeneic lines of chickens. VII. The lines derived from the recombinants at the B complex (MHC) of Rous sarcoma regressor and progressor inbred lines of chickens. Folia Biol. (Praha) 30: 189–201, 1984Google Scholar
  28. Rose, M. E.: Eimeria tenella: Skin hypersensitivity to infected antigen in the fowl. Exp. Parasitol. 42: 129–141, 1977Google Scholar
  29. Schierman, L. W. and Nordskog, A. W.: Relationship of blood type to histocompatibility in chickens. Science 134: 1008–1009, 1961Google Scholar
  30. Schierman, L. W., Watanabe, D. H., and McBride, R. A.: Genetic control of Rous sarcoma regression in chickens: Linkage with the major histocompatibility complex. Immunogenetics 5: 325–332, 1977Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert A. Clare
    • 1
  • Richard G. Strout
    • 1
  • Robert L. TaylorJr.
    • 1
  • Walter M. Collins
    • 1
  • W. Elwood Briles
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Animal and Nutritional SciencesUniversity of New HampshireDurham
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesNorthern Illinois UniversityDekalb

Personalised recommendations