Advertisement

Parasitology Research

, 104:683 | Cite as

Light and transmission electron microscopic studies on trophozoites and cyst-like stages of Histomonas meleagridis from cultures

  • Mareike Munsch
  • Abdulrahman Lotfi
  • Hafez Mohammed Hafez
  • Saleh Al-Quraishy
  • H. Mehlhorn
Original Paper

Abstract

The present study deals with Berlin strains of Histomonas meleagridis, the specimens of which were cultivated in Dwyer’s medium. The light and electron microscopic examination revealed that the cultivated trophozoite stages (reaching about 10 μm in size) appeared more or less spherical, although their surface (covered by a single membrane) showed amoeba-like waves. All stages were uni-nucleated and reproduced by binary fission with an extranuclear spindle apparatus. Some trophozoites appeared ovoid and possessed a single flagellum with a typical microtubular 9 × 2 + 2 arrangement. Furthermore, the latter were characterized by an inner row of typical microtubules (remnant of an axostyle) and a Golgi apparatus (both adjacent to the nucleus), multivesicular structures, hydrogenosomes, and many food vacuoles containing either starch grains or bacteria. Their cytoplasm was densely filled with glycogen granules and ribosomes. Similar stages were also documented in the caeca and cloaca of chicken when being inoculated (via cloaca) with such culture stages. In addition to these typical trophozoites, the cultures contained a low number of 10-μm-sized spherical cyst-like stages with a surrounding amorphous layer. The cytoplasm of some of these cyst-like stages—when studied by electron microscopy—appeared with two membranes or had formed an amorphic, cyst-wall-like layer at their surface, apparently corresponding to their light microscopical appearance. Such stages might be involved in transmission from one host to another and probably have been missed before in microscopical examinations of infected poultry.

Keywords

Methylene Blue Starch Granule Food Vacuole Glycogen Granule Binary Fission 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgement

We hereby gratefully acknowledge the support by the King Saud University Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

References

  1. Callait MP, Granier C, Chanve C, Zenner L (2002) In vitro activity of therapeutic drugs against H. meleagridis. Poultry Science 81:1122–1127PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Dobell C (1940) Research on intestinal protozoa in monkeys and man. X. The life history of Dientamoeba fragilis: observations, experiments, and speculation. Parasitology 32:417–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dywer DM (1970) An improved method for cultivating H. meleagridis. J Parasitol 56:191–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Friedhoff KT, Kunigk C, Müller I (1991) Experimental infections in chickens with Chilomastix gallinarum, Tetratrichomonas gallinarum and Tritrichomonas eberthi. Parasitol Res 77:329–334PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Grabensteiner E, Hess M (2006) PCR for the identification and differentiation of Histomonas meleagridis, Tetratrichomonas gallinarum and Blastocystis spp. Vet Parasitol 142:223–230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Grabensteiner E, Liebhart D, Arshad N, Hess M (2007) The need of in vivo experiments to validate the effects noticed in vitro of certain plant extracts against H. meleagridis, T. gallinarum and Blastocystis. Planta Medica 73:797–1034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hafez HM, Hauck R, Lüschow D, McDougald L (2005a) Comparison of the specificity and sensitivity of PCR, nested PCR (nPCR), and real-time PCR (qPCR) for the diagnosis of histomoniasis. Avian Dis 49:366–370PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hafez HM, Schulze D, Hauck R, Lüschow D (2005b) Histomonas meleagridis: The situation after the ban of the last available drug in the EU. Proceedings of the 55th Western Poultry Disease Conference, Vancouver, B. C. Canada. 36–38Google Scholar
  9. Hess M, Kolbe T, Grabensteiner E, Prosl H (2005) Clonal cultures of H. meleagridis, Tetratrichomonas gallinarum and Blastocystis sp. established through micromanipulation. Parasitology 133:547–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Honigberg BM, Kuldovaa J (1969) Structure of a nonpathogenic histomonad from the caecum of galliform birds and revision of the trichomonad family Monocercomonadidae Kirby. Eucaryotic Microbiol 16:526–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jodas S, Korbel R, Hafez HM (2005) Schwarzkopfkrankheit—Kann man seine Puten schützen? Vet-Med-Report Sonderausgabe V1: 4Google Scholar
  12. Lee DL, Long PL, Millard BJ, Bradley J (1968) The fine structure and method of feeding of the tissue parasitizing stages of Histomonas meleagridis. Parasitology 59:171–184Google Scholar
  13. Lotfi A, Hafez HM (2008) Investigations on the pathogenicity of Histomonas meleagridis in three different turkey lines. Poultry Sci 87 (in press)Google Scholar
  14. Lucius R, Loos-Frank B (1997) Parasitologie. Spektrum, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  15. Lund EE (1963) Histomonas wenrichii n. sp. (Mastigophora: Mastigamoebidae), a nonpathogenic parasite of gallinaceous birds. J Protozool 10:401–404PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Lund EE (1967) H. meleagridis after 1000 in vitro passages. J Protozool 14:349–351PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Lund EE (1972) Histomonasias. Poultry 18:990–1006Google Scholar
  18. McDougald LR (2005) Blackhead disease (histomonasiasis) in poultry: A critical review. Avian Dis 49:462–476PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mehlhorn H (ed) (2008) Encyclopedia of Parasitology. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  20. Mehlhorn H, Haberkorn A, Schaub G (1981) Studies on Blastocrithidia tritomae. Acta Trop 56:21–218Google Scholar
  21. Mehlhorn H, Hafez HM, Schein E (2006) Histomonas meleagridis: new concept of life cycle and treatment. Proceeding of the 6th International Symposium on Turkey Diseases (ed. H.M. Hafez). DVG Service GmbH, Giessen, Germany ISBN: 3-939902-04-7. 204Google Scholar
  22. Mielewczik M, Mehlhorn H, Al-Quraishy S, Grabensteiner E, Hess M (2008) Transmission electron microscopic studies of stages of Histomonas from clonal cultures. Parasitol Res 103:745–750PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nickel R, Schummer A, Seiferle E (1992) Lehrbuch der Anatomie der Haustiere. Band V, Anatomie der Vögel. Parey Buchverlag Berlin. 446 SeitenGoogle Scholar
  24. Rommel M (ed) (2000) Veterinärmedizinische Parasitologie. Parey, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  25. Schuster FL (1968) Ultrastructure of Histomonas meleagridis (Smith) Tyzzer, a parasitic amoebo-flagellate. J Parasitol 54(4):725–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Smith T (1895) An infectious disease among turkeys caused by protozoa (infectious entero-hepatitis). Bur Anim Ind USDA Bul 8:7Google Scholar
  27. Smith T (1910) Amoeba meleagridis. Science 32:509–512PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Smith T, Graybill HW (1920) Epidemiology of blackhead in turkeys under approximately natural conditions. J Exp Med 31:633–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tyzzer EE (1919) Development phases of the protozoon of blackhead in turkeys. J Med Res 40:1–30Google Scholar
  30. Tyzzer EE (1924) The chicken as a carrier of Histomonas meleagridis (blackhead): the protozoon in its flagellated stage. J Exp Med 44:676–678Google Scholar
  31. Van der Heijden HM, Mc Dougald LR (2005) High yield of parasites and prolonged in vitro culture of H. meleagridis. Avian Pathol 34:505–508PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mareike Munsch
    • 1
  • Abdulrahman Lotfi
    • 2
  • Hafez Mohammed Hafez
    • 2
  • Saleh Al-Quraishy
    • 3
  • H. Mehlhorn
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Zoomorphology, Cytology and ParasitologyHeinrich Heine University of DüsseldorfDüsseldorfGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Poultry DiseasesFree University BerlinBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Department of ZoologyKing Saud UniversityRiyadhSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations