Advertisement

Parasitology Research

, Volume 81, Issue 2, pp 103–108 | Cite as

Intraspecific variation ofTaenia taeniaeformis as determined by various criteria

  • H. Azuma
  • M. Okamoto
  • Y. Oku
  • M. Kamiya
Original Paper

Abstract

The intraspecific variation of four laboratory-reared isolates ofTaenia taeniaformis the SRN and KRN isolates from Norwa rats,Rattus norvegicus, captured in Japan and malaysia, respectively; the BMM isolate from a house mouse,Mus musculus, captured in Belgium; and the ACR isolate from a gray red-backed vole,Clethrionomys rufocanus bedfordiae, captured in Japan was examined by various criteria. Eggs of each of the four isolates were orally inoculated into several species of intermediate host. They were most infective to the rodent species from which the original metacestode of each isolate had been isolated in the field, and only the ACR isolate was infective to the gray red-backed vole. Although little difference was found between the SRN, KRN, and BMM isolates by the other criteria, including the morphology of rostellar hooks, the protein composition of the metacestode, and restriction endonuclease analysis of DNA, the ACR isolate was clearly different from the others. It was considered that the ACR isolate was independent as a strain distinct from the other three isolates.

Keywords

Restriction Endonuclease Intermediate Host Intraspecific Variation Protein Composition House Mouse 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allsopp BA, Jones A, Allsopp MTEP, Newton SD, Macpherson CNL (1987) Interspecific characterization of several taeniid cestodes by isoenzyme analysis using isoelectric focusing in agarose. Parasitology 95:593–601Google Scholar
  2. Ambu S, Kwa BH (1980) Susceptibility of rats toTaenia taeniaeformis infection. J Helminthol 54:43–44Google Scholar
  3. Brandt JRA, Sewell MMH (1981) Varying infectivity ofTaenia taeniaeformis for rats and mice. Vet Res Commun 5:187–191Google Scholar
  4. Bursey CC, McKenzie JA, Burt MDB (1980) Polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis in the differentiation ofTaenia (Cestoda) by total protein. Int J Parasitol 10:167–174Google Scholar
  5. Conchedda M, Ferretti G (1983) Vaccination of susceptible hosts with uninfective strains of the same parasite (Taenia taeniaeformis, Cestoda) provide protection against an infective strain. J Parasitol 69:1166–1167Google Scholar
  6. Costas M (1990) Numerical analysis of sodium dodecyl sulphate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoretic protein patterns for classification, identification and typing of medically important bacteria. Electrophoresis 11:382–391Google Scholar
  7. Costas M, Pot B, Vandamme P, Kersters K, Owen RJ, Hill LR (1990) Interlaboratory comparative study of the numerical analysis of one-dimensional sodium dodecyl sulphate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoretic protein patterns ofCampylobacter strains. Electrophoresis 11:467–474Google Scholar
  8. Curran J, Baillie DL, Webater JM (1985) Use of genomic DNA restriction fragment length differences to identify nematode species. Parasitology 90:137–144Google Scholar
  9. Dow C, Jarrett WFH (1960) Age, strain and sex differences in susceptibility toCysticercus fasciolaris in the mouse. Exp Parasitol 10:72–74Google Scholar
  10. Faulkner M (1989) The application of sodium dodecyl sulphate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis to the taxonomic identification of the total body protein band profiles ofDiplostomum spp. metacercariae (Digenea), parasite of fish eyes. Electrophoresis 10:260–264Google Scholar
  11. Iwaki T, Nonaka N, Okamoto M, Oku Y, Kamiya M (1994) Developmental and morphological characteristics ofTaenia taeniaeformis (Batsch 1786) inClethrionomys rufocanus bedfordiae andRattus norvegicus from different geographical locations. J Parasitol 80:461–467Google Scholar
  12. Jones AW, Segarra JM, Wyant KD (1960) Growth and hatching of taeniid eggs. J Parasitol 46:170–174Google Scholar
  13. Klassen RG, Thiessen JP, Dick TA (1986) Restriction endonuclease analysis of repetitive sequences in theTrichinella genome: three strain-specific patterns. J Parasitol 72:772–775Google Scholar
  14. Kumaratilake LM, Thompson RCA (1979) A standardized technique for the comparison of tapeworm soluble proteins by thin-layer isoelectric focusing in polyacrylamide gel, with particular reference toEchinococcus granulosus. Sci Tools 26:21–24Google Scholar
  15. Kumaratilake LM, Thompson RCA (1982) A review of the taxonomy and speciation of the genusEchinococcus Rudolphi 1801. Z Parasitenkd 68:121–146Google Scholar
  16. Kumaratilake LM, Thompson RCA (1984) Biochemical characterization of Australian strains ofEchinococcus granulosus by isoelectric focusing of soluble proteins. Int J Parasitol 14:581–586Google Scholar
  17. Laemmli UK (1970) Cleavage of structural proteins during assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4. Nature 227:680–685Google Scholar
  18. McManus DP, Knight M, Simpson AJG (1985) Isolation and characterization of nucleic acids from the hydatid organisms,Echinococcus spp. (Cestoda). Mol Biochem Parasitol 16:251–266Google Scholar
  19. Mitchell GF, Goding JW, Rickard MD (1977) Studies on the immune response to larval cestodes of mice. I. Increased susceptibility of certain mouse strains and hypothymic mice toTaenia taeniaeformis and analysis of passive transfer of resistance with serum. Aust J Exp Biol Med Sci 55:165–186Google Scholar
  20. Orihara M (1962) Studies onCysticercus fasciolaris, especially on differences of susceptibility among uniform strains of the mouse. Jpn J Vet Res 10:37–56Google Scholar
  21. Rausch RL (1967) A consideration of intraspecific categories in the genusEchinococcus Rudolphi, 1801 (Cestoda: Taeniidae). J Parasitol 53:37–56Google Scholar
  22. Simpson AJG (1987) The influence of molecular heterogeneity in helmith identification, protective immunity and immunodiagnosis. Int J Parasitol 17:69–77Google Scholar
  23. Singh BB, Rao BV (1977) Susceptibility of strains of albino mice to infection with eggs ofTaenia taeniaeformis. Int J Parasitol 1:33–34Google Scholar
  24. Thompson RCA (1988) Intraspecific variation and epidemiology. In: Mehlhorn H (ed) Parasitology in focus. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 391–411Google Scholar
  25. Thompson RCA, Kumaratilake LM, Eckert J (1984) Observation ofEchinococcus granulocus of cattle origin in Switzerland. Int J Parasitol 14:283–291Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Azuma
    • 1
  • M. Okamoto
    • 2
  • Y. Oku
    • 1
  • M. Kamiya
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Parasitology, Faculty of Veterinary MedicineHokkaido UniversitySapporo 060Japan
  2. 2.The Institute of Experimental Animal SciencesOsaka University Medical SchoolSuita-shi 565Japan

Personalised recommendations