1971
DOI: 10.1007/bf00259337
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Distribution and growth of hymenolepis diminuta in the rat, hamster and mouse

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

1972
1972
2007
2007

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This response is correlated with the rejection of the parasite . In spite of the mast cell response in part II of the intestine, which is the parasite's preferred habitat [Turton, 1971], the high number of eosinophils in that part hardly changed after infection. Moreover, the EPO response in the intestinal lumen was not in relation with the eosinophil concentration profile in the intes tinal tissues.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This response is correlated with the rejection of the parasite . In spite of the mast cell response in part II of the intestine, which is the parasite's preferred habitat [Turton, 1971], the high number of eosinophils in that part hardly changed after infection. Moreover, the EPO response in the intestinal lumen was not in relation with the eosinophil concentration profile in the intes tinal tissues.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…diminuta, i.e. 1045%down the small intestine as found by Turton (1971), for example. By days 7 and 10, a majority of the worms moved posteriorly whereas by day 13 a considerable number of worms had moved anteriorly.…”
Section: Distribution Of Worms and Worm Dry Weightmentioning
confidence: 78%
“…Published data show that different vertebrate hosts have variable levels of susceptibility to R. nana and other Hymenolepididae species (Woodland, 1924;Larsh, 1944;Schiller, 1959a, b;Litchford, 1963;De Rycke, 1966;Turton, 1971;Hopkins et al, 1972;Isaak et al, 1977;Murray et al, 1984;van Haeren & de Rycke, 1984;Ishih et al, 1992;Stradowski, 2004). It has been found that non-immunosuppressed M. unguiculatus have low susceptibility to the mouse isolates of R. nana used herein, even when different infection methods are employed.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%