Humoral immune responses during experimental infection with Fascioloides magna and Fasciola hepatica in goats and comparison of their excretory/secretory products
Jazyk angličtina Země Německo Médium print-electronic
Typ dokumentu srovnávací studie, časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem
- MeSH
- 2D gelová elektroforéza MeSH
- biologické markery MeSH
- diferenciální diagnóza MeSH
- ELISA MeSH
- Fasciola hepatica imunologie MeSH
- Fasciolidae imunologie MeSH
- fasciolóza imunologie MeSH
- imunoblotting MeSH
- infekce červy třídy Trematoda imunologie MeSH
- kozy MeSH
- nemoci koz imunologie MeSH
- protilátky helmintové krev MeSH
- zkřížené reakce MeSH
- zvířata MeSH
- Check Tag
- zvířata MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
- srovnávací studie MeSH
- Názvy látek
- biologické markery MeSH
- protilátky helmintové MeSH
This study investigated the humoral immune responses of goats experimentally infected with Fascioloides magna and Fasciola hepatica to F. magna excretory/secretory products (FmESP) or F. hepatica excretory/secretory products (FhESP), respectively. An enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was used to determine serum antibody responses and for possible discrimination of F. magna and F. hepatica infections in goats. Comparison of ESPs of both flukes and evaluation of ESP antigenicity was also studied applying immunoblotting techniques. In all infected goats, antibody level was significantly increased (against negative control) since 2 weeks post infection (WPI). However, the dynamics of antibodies varied between F. magna and F. hepatica groups during the course of the infection. The cross-reaction of antibodies developed against F. magna and F. hepatica with ESP proteins was recorded by ELISA. The species-specific proteins 40, 120 kDa from FmESP and 80, 160 kDa from FhESP (with no antibody cross-reaction) were detected by two dimensional electrophoresis and immunoblot as the potential immunodiagnostic markers. Our results suggest that F. magna and F. hepatica infection could be distinguished by common immunological techniques based on species-specific antigen-antibodies interaction.
Zobrazit více v PubMed
Vet Res. 2003 Jul-Aug;34(4):435-43 PubMed
J Parasitol. 1985 Apr;71(2):263-4 PubMed
Vet Parasitol. 1988 Mar;27(3-4):283-90 PubMed
Am J Vet Res. 1998 May;59(5):533-7 PubMed
Parasitol Res. 2006 Nov;99(6):643-7 PubMed
Vet Parasitol. 1996 Apr;62(3-4):247-52 PubMed
J Parasitol. 1976 Feb;62(1):26-32 PubMed
Am J Vet Res. 1980 Jun;41(6):883-4 PubMed
Vet Parasitol. 1991 Nov;40(3-4):241-55 PubMed
Am J Vet Res. 1980 Sep;41(9):1531-2 PubMed
Parasitol Res. 1997;83(7):680-6 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 1988 Oct;26(10):2048-53 PubMed
J Wildl Dis. 1979 Jan;15(1):83-9 PubMed
J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1962 Feb 15;140:342-7 PubMed
Vet Parasitol. 1986 Jan;19(1-2):145-50 PubMed
J Parasitol. 1990 Oct;76(5):736-9 PubMed
Vet Parasitol. 1992 Dec;45(1-2):59-71 PubMed
J Parasitol. 1988 Oct;74(5):810-8 PubMed
Am J Vet Res. 1992 Feb;53(2):246-50 PubMed
J Comp Pathol. 1999 Feb;120(2):199-210 PubMed
Am J Vet Res. 1985 Aug;46(8):1637-41 PubMed
Vet Parasitol. 1991 Nov;40(3-4):227-39 PubMed
Vet Parasitol. 1995 Jul;58(4):357-63 PubMed
Korean J Parasitol. 2003 Jun;41(2):121-3 PubMed
