Previous Article | Next Article 
Infect Immun, May 1998, p. 1941-1945, Vol. 66, No. 5
0019-9567/98/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1998, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Participation of Parasite Surface Glycoproteins in
Antibody-Mediated Protection of Epithelial Cells against
Trichinella spiralis
Catherine S.
McVay,1
Allan
Tsung,1 and
Judith
Appleton1,2,*
The James A. Baker Institute for Animal
Health1 and
Department of Microbiology
and Immunology,2 College of Veterinary
Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853
Received 9 July 1997/Returned for modification 3 November
1997/Accepted 27 January 1998
 |
ABSTRACT |
The L1 stage of the parasitic nematode Trichinella
spiralis displays on its surface glycoproteins that are
immunologically cross-reactive with several larval excretory-secretory
(ES) products. The basis for the cross-reactivity is tyvelose, the
terminal residue on the complex glycans shared by these surface and ES
glycoproteins. In neonatal rats, tyvelose-specific monoclonal
antibodies mediate the expulsion of larvae from the intestine. The aim
of the studies described in this report was to determine how antibody
binding to larval surfaces contributes to expulsion. In these
experiments, which involve an in vitro assay of epithelial cell
invasion, surface proteins on living larvae were biotinylated to
distinguish them from ES products. Biotinylated and nonbiotinylated
larvae were cocultured with avidin, biotin-specific antibodies, or
anti-tyvelose monoclonal antibodies. Biotinylated larvae cultured with
avidin or biotin-specific antibodies invaded Madin-Darby canine kidney (MDCK) cells equally as well as biotinylated larvae cultured with medium alone. Anti-tyvelose monoclonal antibodies were highly protective in this assay; however, biotinylation of larval surfaces hindered the ability of anti-tyvelose monoclonal antibodies to prevent
larval invasion of epithelial cells. This correlated with a reduction
in the binding of anti-tyvelose antibody to biotinylated larval
surfaces. Our results indicate that antibody binding to surface
glycoproteins contributes to protection against T. spiralis invasion but that surface binding alone is not sufficient for protection. Our findings support the notion that protection is effected
by cross-linking of ES products to surface antigens.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
Trichinosis is acquired by the
ingestion of animal muscle tissue containing viable mature L1
Trichinella spiralis larvae (11, 15). Larvae molt
to adulthood, mate, and reproduce in the host small intestine. The
T. spiralis life cycle is completed when newborn larvae
invade and mature in striated muscle cells of the new host
(11). During the intestinal phase of infection, larval and
adult parasites localize to the crypt-villus junction, establishing an
intramulticellular niche composed of numerous epithelial cells (21). The parasites are mobile in the epithelium,
continually invading and occupying the cytoplasm of new cells
(22).
Rat pups suckling previously infected dams expel up to 99% of a
challenge dose of infective larvae (1, 9). A major component of this dramatic protection, called rapid expulsion, is mediated by
antibodies specific for a dideoxyhexose called tyvelose (2, 4,
12). Tyvelose residues cap antennae of complex glycans shared by
several glycoproteins expressed on the surfaces and in the ES products
of L1 larvae (10, 19). Anti-tyvelose antibodies appear to
protect in two ways: by excluding larvae from the epithelium and by
dislodging them from that site. Exclusion may occur with or without
entrapment of larvae in mucus (5). Mucus entrapment occurs
as early as 30 min after a challenge of immune rat pups, retaining
larvae in the intestinal lumen and preventing invasion (5,
6). Mucus-trapped larvae are coated with antibody, suggesting that binding of antibodies to the surface promotes entrapment or
exclusion. Mucus entrapment is reversible and is insufficient to effect
protection (6). Alternate mechanisms by which larvae are
excluded from epithelia have not been elucidated.
In this paper, we describe experiments designed to assess the
protection afforded by specific antibody binding to larval surface glycoproteins. We inoculated cultured epithelial cells with
surface-tagged larvae in the presence of surface binding (tag-specific)
antibodies or surface and excretory-secretory product (ES) binding
antibodies (anti-tyvelose). We report evidence that surface
tyvelose-bearing glycoproteins are secondary targets in
antibody-mediated exclusion of larvae from epithelia.
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
Tissue culture.
The AA7 clone (strain 1) of the Madin-Darby
canine kidney (MDCK) cell line was a gift from William Young
(University of Kentucky) (16). Cells were maintained in
minimal essential medium (Earle's salts) supplemented with
L-glutamine, nonessential amino acids, and 10% fetal
bovine serum. The cells were dispersed with 0.5% trypsin-0.65 mM EDTA
and passaged no more than 15 times before being used in experiments.
Parasite.
T. spiralis (pig strain) infectious larvae
were recovered from infected AO rats by digestion of carcasses in
acidified pepsin (8). Pepsin-digested L1 larvae were
activated by incubation in 25% rat intestinal contents in 0.85%
saline for 2 h at 37°C (13). They were then washed
four times in saline and incubated in saline at 37°C for an
additional 1 h (13).
MAbs.
Protective rat monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) used in
these experiments were anti-tyvelose 18H (immunoglobulin G2a
[IgG2a]), and 9E (IgG2c) (2, 6). MAb 16H (IgG1) has an
alternate specificity and is not protective (2, 6). All
antibodies were concentrated from ascites by
(NH4)2SO4 precipitation as
described previously (6).
Biotinylation of larval surface proteins.
Activated larvae
were washed twice in saline and then twice in 50 mM carbonate buffer
(pH 8.5). The larvae were incubated at room temperature in
sulfo-NHS-LC-biotin (Pierce, Rockford, Ill.) diluted to 1 mg/ml in 50 mM carbonate buffer (pH 8.5) for 1.5 h. Control larvae were
incubated in carbonate buffer alone. The larvae were washed four times
in saline before being used in assays. The viability of the larvae was
estimated to be greater than 95%.
Fluorescence microscopy.
Biotinylated and control larvae
were washed twice in ice-cold Dulbecco's phosphate-buffered saline
(DPBS) and then incubated with 10 µg of MAb 18H per ml in DPBS for 30 min on ice. Following four 5-min washes with cold DPBS, larvae were
incubated on ice for 30 min in goat anti-rat IgG conjugated with
fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC; Organon Teknika Corp., Durham, N.C.)
diluted to 200 µg/ml in DPBS. The larvae were washed as above,
suspended in mounting medium (Vectashield; Vector Laboratories, Inc.,
Burlingame, Calif.), placed on a slide, and covered with a coverslip.
They were examined with an inverted microscope equipped for
epifluorescence (Nikon Diaphot; Opti-quip, Highland Mills, N.Y.).
Images were captured with a charge-coupled device camera (Hamamatsu
Photonics K. K.) and NIH Image 1.58. To monitor the quality of
labeling, biotinylated and control larvae were routinely incubated with
FITC-streptavidin (Pierce) and examined by fluorescence microscopy as
described above.
Western blots.
Biotinylated or control larvae were washed in
15 ml of ice-cold DPBS seven times and then homogenized in DPBS
containing 1.5% N-octylglucopyranoside, 1 mM EDTA/1 mM
EGTA, 1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, and 25 µg of tolysulfonyl
phenylalanyl chloromethyl ketone (TPCK) (3). Homogenates
were centrifuged at 10,000 × g for 10 min at 4°C,
and the soluble portion (lysate) was stored at
20°C. Proteins from
lysates were resolved by sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel
electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) under reducing conditions and then subjected
to Western blotting (2). The blots were washed in 0.1%
Nonidet P-40 (NP-40) in DPBS for 45 min at room temperature and then
probed with streptavidin-horseradish peroxidase (Pierce) diluted
1:5,000 in 0.1% NP-40-1% bovine serum albumin in DPBS for 45 min.
Following four 5-min washes in 0.1% NP-40 in DPBS, the blots were
developed with a chemiluminescent substrate (Amersham Life Science,
Inc., Cleveland, Ohio) and exposed to X-Omat AR film (Kodak, Rochester,
N.Y.).
Invasion assay.
The invasion assay has been described
elsewhere (13). Briefly, MDCK cells were grown to confluence
in eight-well glass chamber slides (Nunc, Naperville, Ill.). Monolayers
were overlaid with larvae suspended in minimal essential medium-15 mM
HEPES-1.75% agarose. For protection assays, larvae were suspended in
culture medium containing avidin or antibodies. Avidin (Neutravidin;
Pierce) was included in the assay mixtures at concentrations ranging
from 1.0 to 0.125 mg/ml; affinity-purified goat anti-biotin (Sigma, St.
Louis, Mo.) was included at 0.25 mg/ml. After incubation of the
cultures for 2 h at 37°C under 5% CO2, the chamber
housing, gasket, and medium were removed from the slides. Monolayers
were submerged for 2 min in 0.4% trypan blue solution (Sigma), rinsed in DPBS (with MgCl2 and CaCl2), and fixed in
10% buffered formalin for 20 min. Coverslips were mounted on slides
with glycergel (DAKO Corp., Carpenteria, Calif.). The area of dead
(trypan blue-stained) cells in monolayers was quantified by
computer-assisted image capture analysis (NIH Image 1.58). At least 25 fields per monolayer were captured by video microscopy with a 4×
objective (Labophot; Nikon and COHU, Inc., San Diego, Calif.). The mean
area of dead cells per field was estimated for at least three
monolayers per treatment group. Differences between groups were
determined by analysis of variance and Scheffés mean separation
test.
Affinity chromatography.
Antibody 18H was conjugated to
cyanogen-bromide activated Sepharose 4B beads (Sigma) as previously
described (3). Lysates from biotinylated larvae were applied
to the affinity column (1.5 by 7.5 cm), which had been equilibrated
with wash buffer (0.01 M Tris-Cl, 0.14 M NaCl, 0.5% Triton X-100,
0.5% deoxycholate [pH 8.0]) (20). The column was washed
with 0.05 M Tris-Cl-0.5 M NaCl (pH 8.0) and then with 0.05 M
Tris-Cl-0.5 M NaCl (pH 9.0). Bound glycoproteins were eluted with 50 mM triethanolamine-0.5 M NaCl-0.1% Triton X-100 (pH 11.5). Eluted
fractions were neutralized with 1 M Tris-Cl (pH 6.7) and stored at
4°C (20).
 |
RESULTS |
Biotinylation of larval surface proteins.
In these
experiments, we wanted to identify the protective effects associated
with antibody binding to larval surface glycoproteins. Our strategy was
to provide a distinct surface binding target. Membrane-impermeant
biotin was used to label surface proteins, and FITC-streptavidin
staining revealed that the biotin was evenly distributed over the
larval surfaces (data not shown). Biotinylation of larval proteins was
confirmed by immunoblot analysis with streptavidin-horseradish peroxidase. Streptavidin bound to proteins (estimated molecular masses
of 115, 105, 98, 80, and 53 kDa) in lysates of biotinylated larvae
(Fig. 1, lane b). Two of these proteins
(105 and 80 kDa) were also present in lysates of control larvae (lane
a), indicating that these larval proteins are inherently reactive with
avidin. Affinity chromatography revealed that MAb 18H bound two of the biotinylated proteins (98 and 53 kDa) but not the native avidin binding
proteins (lane c).

View larger version (35K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 1.
Western blot of T. spiralis larval lysates
analyzed with streptavidin-horseradish peroxidase as described in
Materials and Methods. Lanes: a, proteins from lysate of control
larvae; b, proteins from lysate of biotinylated larvae; c, proteins
from lane b affinity purified with MAb 18H. Estimated molecular masses
(in kilodaltons) of dominant proteins are indicated by arrows. A Power
Macintosh 720/120 computer and Adobe Photoshop 4.0 was used to label
the figure. The image from the autoradiograph was imported into Adobe
Photoshop 4.0 with a UMAX PowerLook II scanner.
|
|
Effect of anti-biotin in invasion assays.
Avidin binding to
biotinylated surface proteins of infectious larvae was used to mimic
the binding of MAb to tyvelose in surface glycoproteins. Damage to
monolayers infected with either biotinylated or control larvae was at
least threefold greater than that in treatment-matched, uninfected
controls (Table 1) (Note that all values
were elevated in this assay in comparison with other experiments reported here. We believe that this is due to stain variation, and it
does not alter conclusions we have drawn on the basis of statistical
analysis). The presence of avidin (Table 1) or streptavidin (data not
shown) did not protect monolayers infected with biotinylated or control
larvae. To more closely match the size of anti-tyvelose MAbs, we tested
anti-biotin antibodies. Affinity-purified goat anti-biotin antibodies
were tested in assays at 0.25 mg/ml, a concentration at which both
anti-tyvelose MAb 18H (Table 2) and 9E
(Fig. 2) were protective. The presence of
biotin-specific antibodies did not reduce damage to monolayers infected
with biotinylated larvae (Table 2). These findings demonstrate that the
specific binding of biotinylated surface proteins on T. spiralis larvae by either avidin or anti-biotin antibodies does
not prevent invasion of epithelia in vitro.

View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 2.
Titration of anti-tyvelose MAb on MDCK monolayers
inoculated with biotinylated and control T. spiralis
larvae. Biotinylated and control larvae were cocultured with various
concentrations of MAb 9E (a) or MAb 18H (b) in overlays of confluent
MDCK monolayers as described in the text. Data points are means
of areas of damage to three or four monolayers. Solid symbols indicate
mean area of damage caused by biotinylated larvae; open symbols
indicate mean areas of damage caused by control larvae. Dashed lines
show mean damage to uninfected control monolayers. Asterisks denote
areas of damage which were significantly greater than those in
noninfected treatment-matched control (P 0.05).
|
|
Protection by anti-tyvelose MAbs.
MAb 18H at 0.25 µg/ml
protected MDCK cells from invasion by T. spiralis infectious
larvae (Table 2). We assayed the protective abilities of MAbs 9E and
18H at more physiologic concentrations. Monolayer damage caused by
larvae in the presence of MAb 16H (0.25 mg/ml) was significantly
greater than that in treatment-matched, uninfected controls (Fig. 2)
and approximated the level of damage caused by larvae in the presence
of medium alone (Table 1). Damage in monolayers infected with control
larvae increased with decreasing concentrations of MAb 9E; however,
protection was evident at all concentrations tested (Fig. 2a). In
contrast, damage in monolayers infected with biotinylated larvae
increased more sharply with decreasing concentrations of 9E (Fig. 2a):
protection was lost at 9E concentrations of
20 µg/ml (Fig. 2a).
This trend was repeated when larvae were cultured with anti-tyvelose
MAb 18H (Fig. 2b). Protection against control larvae was provided by
all concentrations of 18H tested. By comparison, protection against
biotinylated larvae was lost at 18H concentrations of
62 µg/ml
(P = 0.002) (Fig. 2b). Biotinylated and control larvae
were equally invasive in the presence of MAb 16H. Therefore, the
differential protection by anti-tyvelose MAbs does not appear to be due
to an inherent increase in activity of biotinylated larvae. Rather,
these data suggest that anti-tyvelose MAbs are less effective in
protecting MDCK cells from invasion by biotinylated larvae than by
control larvae. The reduced protective efficacy of anti-tyvelose MAbs against biotinylated larvae correlated with reduced binding of these
antibodies to the surfaces of biotinylated larvae (Fig. 3).

View larger version (55K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 3.
Immunofluorescent staining of control (a) and
biotinylated (b) larvae. Activated control and biotinylated larvae were
prepared as described in the text. Larvae were incubated with 20 µg
of MAb 18H per ml before being stained with FITC-conjugated goat
anti-rat IgG. Bar, 0.1 mm. The figure was prepared as described for
Fig. 1.
|
|
Formation of anterior caps.
When inoculated onto MDCK cells,
larvae probe the surface of the monolayer with their heads. This
browsing behavior precedes invasion of the monolayer (13).
When cocultured with tyvelose-specific MAbs, larvae acquired cephalic
caps (Fig. 4). Caps also formed when
larvae were cultured with anti-tyvelose antibody in liquid medium in
the absence of cells (data not shown), indicating that they were
composed of immune complexes rather than cell debris or agarose. The
presence of a cap did not noticeably alter the movement of the larva;
however, capped larvae were excluded from monolayers. Larvae were able
to dislodge the caps.

View larger version (94K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 4.
Antibody-mediated formation of cephalic caps. Larvae
were included in overlays of MDCK cells that were grown to confluence
in single-chamber slides and incubated at 37°C under 5%
CO2 for 15 min. The images were captured as described in
Materials and Methods. (a) Anterior of an infectious larva cultured in
medium alone. (b) Cephalic cap on a larva cultured with medium
containing 1.0 mg of MAb 18H per ml. Bar, 0.1 mm. The figure was
prepared as described for Fig. 1.
|
|
 |
DISCUSSION |
Neonatal rats passively immunized with anti-tyvelose MAbs exhibit
rapid expulsion after challenge with T. spiralis larvae (2). Evidence suggests that rapid expulsion results from
direct interaction of specific antibody with tyvelose in glycoproteins on larval surfaces and in ES antigens (5, 7). The purpose of
this study was to assess how specific antibody binding to larval surface glycoproteins contributes to protection.
T. spiralis L1 larvae invade and move through MDCK cells,
leaving serpentine trails of dead and damaged cells (13). In
this study, anti-tyvelose MAbs 18H and 9E prevented larval invasion of
MDCK cells. This establishes that tyvelose-specific antibodies are
protective in vitro, validating the invasion assay as a tool for
investigating protective immunity and confirming the central role of
antibody in rapid expulsion. Furthermore, our results demonstrate that
antibodies can protect epithelia without the assistance of inflammatory
cells, soluble cofactors, or mucus.
Four major surface proteins of L1 larvae have been identified. Surface
iodination of larvae with chloramine-T labels proteins of approximately
105, 97, 55, and 51 kDa as measured by SDS-PAGE (3, 18). All
four of these proteins are precipitated by anti-tyvelose MAbs
(3). Our aim in this study was to generate binding targets on larval surfaces distinct from tyvelose residues. We used
sulfosuccinimidyl-6-(biotinamido)hexanoate to selectively label
surface proteins of living larvae. SDS-PAGE analysis of biotin-labeled
larval proteins revealed major bands at 98 and 55 kDa. While we did not
make a direct comparison, it appears that only a subset of the surface
proteins revealed by chloramine-T iodination are accessible to the
biotin label. This would agree with earlier reports that surface
proteins are not equally exposed on the larva (17) and that
IODOGEN labels only two of four larval surface proteins labeled by the
chloramine-T method (3).
None of the larval surface proteins has been cloned; therefore, we
cannot estimate the number of primary amines available for
biotinylation. For the same reason, we are not able to estimate the
number of tyvelose residues in larval surface glycoproteins available
for binding. Thus, a comparison of the number of available biotin
residues with the number of tyvelose residues on larval surfaces is not
possible. However, indirect immunofluorescence demonstrated that
biotin, like tyvelose, is uniformly distributed over larval surfaces
(reference 5 and data not shown). Further, the
biotin label was retained on larval surfaces throughout the invasion
assay (data not shown). Our data show that the major biotinylated
proteins (98 and 55 kDa) were bound by MAb 18H. Taken together, these
findings suggest that the biotinylated proteins are relevant larval
surface binding targets.
In this study, anti-tyvelose MAbs protected MDCK cells from invasion by
T. spiralis larvae. In contrast, neither avidin nor antibody
binding of biotin on the surfaces of infectious larvae prevented their
invasion of MDCK cells. These findings differ from results of
experiments wherein we surface labeled larvae with trinitrophenyl
(TNP) and fed them to rat pups together with anti-TNP antibodies. A
moderate reduction (42%) in worm burden was observed in those rats
(3a). Moderate protection was also observed when infectious
larvae were coated with anti-tyvelose antibodies before being
inoculated into suckling rat pups (6). The difference
between results obtained in vivo and in vitro may lie in the
contribution of larval mucus entrapment to exclusion in vivo. At
present we are conducting experiments to test a role for mucus in the
in vitro model of protection.
Investigation of more subtle devices of immune defense is possible by
using the cell culture assay of invasion. Indeed, results of the
present study indicate that a mucus-independent mechanism of exclusion
exists. We speculate that antibodies complex disgorged tyvelose-bearing
glycoproteins and, further, cross-link the complexed material to
surface glycoproteins, promoting the formation and retention of
cephalic immune complexes. The presence of these affixed complexes
would physically block sensory receptors of larvae and thus impede
their invasion of epithelial cells (14). Our evidence for
this mechanism is indirect and includes the observation that
anti-tyvelose MAbs were less able to protect MDCK cells from invasion
by biotinylated than by unlabeled larvae. This reduced protection
correlated with a reduced binding of tyvelose-specific MAb to
biotinylated larval surfaces. Although we have not proven that sensory
reception is compromised, our results clearly show that specific
binding of anti-tyvelose antibody to larval surface glycoproteins
contributes to the exclusion of T. spiralis from epithelia
and that this exclusion is independent of mucus entrapment.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
We thank Lucille Gagliardo and Arin Betchen for their technical
assistance. We are also grateful to Barbara Butcher for helpful discussions and suggestions and to Alan Sher for suggesting the hapten
approach.
This research was supported by U.S. PHS grant AI 14490 from the
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
Corresponding author. Mailing address: The James A. Baker Institute for Animal Health, College of Veterinary Medicine,
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853. Phone: (607) 256-5600. Fax: (607) 256-5608. E-mail: jaa2{at}cornell.edu.
Editor: S. H. E. Kaufmann
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Appleton, J. A., and D. D. McGregor.
1984.
Rapid expulsion of Trichinella spiralis in suckling rats.
Science
226:70-72[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 2.
|
Appleton, J. A.,
L. R. Schain, and D. D. McGregor.
1988.
Rapid expulsion of Trichinella spiralis in suckling rats: mediation by monoclonal antibodies.
Immunology
65:487-492[Medline].
|
| 3.
|
Appleton, J. A., and L. Usack.
1993.
Identification of potential antigenic targets for rapid expulsion of Trichinella spiralis.
Mol. Biochem. Parasitol.
58:53-62[Medline].
|
| 3a.
| Appleton, J. A. Unpublished data.
|
| 4.
|
Bell, R. G., and D. D. McGregor.
1979.
Trichinella spiralis: role of different life cycle phases in induction, maintenance, and expression of rapid expulsion in rats.
Exp. Parasitol.
48:51-60[Medline].
|
| 5.
|
Carlisle, M. S.,
D. D. McGregor, and J. A. Appleton.
1990.
The role of mucus in antibody-mediated rapid expulsion of Trichinella spiralis in suckling rats.
Immunology
70:126-132[Medline].
|
| 6.
|
Carlisle, M. S.,
D. D. McGregor, and J. A. Appleton.
1991.
Intestinal mucus entrapment of Trichinella spiralis larvae induced by specific antibodies.
Immunology
74:546-554[Medline].
|
| 7.
|
Carlisle, M. S.,
D. D. McGregor, and J. A. Appleton.
1991.
The role of the antibody Fc region in rapid expulsion of Trichinella spiralis in suckling rats.
Immunology
74:552-558[Medline].
|
| 8.
|
Crum, E. D.,
D. D. Despommier, and D. D. McGregor.
1977.
Immunity to Trichinella spiralis. I. Transfer of resistance by two classes of lymphocytes.
Immunology
33:787-795[Medline].
|
| 9.
|
Culbertson, J. T.
1943.
Natural transmission of immunity against Trichinella spiralis from mother rats to their offspring.
J. Parasitol.
29:114-116.
|
| 10.
|
Denkers, E. Y.,
D. L. Wassom, and C. E. Hayes.
1990.
Characterization of Trichinella spiralis antigens sharing an immunodominant, carbohydrate-associated determinant distinct from phosphorylcholine.
Mol. Biochem. Parasitol.
41:241-250[Medline].
|
| 11.
|
Despommier, D. D.
1983.
Biology, p. 75.
In
W. C. Campbell (ed.), Trichinella and trichinosis. Plenum Press, New York, N.Y.
|
| 12.
|
Ellis, L. A.,
A. J. Reason,
H. R. Morris,
A. Dell,
R. Iglesias,
F. M. Ubeira, and J. A. Appleton.
1994.
Glycans as targets for monoclonal antibodies that protect rats against Trichinella spiralis.
Glycobiology
4:585-592[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 13.
|
ManWarren, T.,
L. Gagliardo,
J. Geyer,
C. McVay,
S. Pearce-Kelling, and J. Appleton.
1997.
Invasion of intestinal epithelia in vitro by the parasitic nematode Trichinella spiralis.
Infect. Immun.
11:4806-4812.
|
| 14.
|
McLaren, D. J.
1976.
Nematode sense organs.
Adv. Parasitol.
14:195-265[Medline].
|
| 15.
|
Neva, F. A., and H. W. Brown.
1994.
Intestinal nematodes of human beings, p. 113.
In
Basic clinical parasitology, 6th ed. Appleton & Lange, Norwalk, Conn.
|
| 16.
|
Nichols, G. E.,
J. C. Lovejoy,
C. A. Borgman,
J. M. Sanders, and W. J. Young.
1986.
Isolation and characterization of two types of MDCK epithelial cell clones based on glycosphingolipid pattern.
Biochim. Biophys. Acta
887:1-12[Medline].
|
| 17.
|
Ortega-Pierres, G.,
A. Chayen,
N. W. Clark, and R. M. Parkhouse.
1984.
The occurrence of antibodies to hidden and exposed determinants of surface antigens of Trichinella spiralis.
Parasitology
88:359-369.
|
| 18.
|
Philipp, M.,
R. M. Parkhouse, and B. M. Ogilvie.
1980.
Changing proteins on the surface of a parasitic nematode.
Nature
287:538-540[Medline].
|
| 19.
|
Reason, A. J.,
L. A. Ellis,
J. A. Appleton,
N. Wisnewski,
R. B. Grieve,
M. McNeil,
D. L. Wassom,
H. R. Morris, and A. Dell.
1994.
Novel tyvelose-containing tri- and tetra-antennary N-glycans in the immunodominant antigens of the intracellular parasite Trichinella spiralis.
Glycobiology
4:593-603[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 20.
|
Springer, T. A.
1991.
Isolation and analysis of proteins, p. 8.2.1-8.2.8.
In
J. E. Coligan, A. M. Kruisbeek, D. H. Marguiles, E. M. Shevach, and W. Strober (ed.), Current protocols in immunology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y.
|
| 21.
|
Wright, K. A.
1979.
Trichinella spiralis: an intracellular parasite in the intestinal phase.
J. Parasitol.
65:441-445[Medline].
|
| 22.
|
Wright, K. A.,
E. Weidman, and H. Hong.
1987.
The distribution of cells killed by Trichinella spiralis in the mucosal epithelium of two strains of mice.
J. Parasitol.
73:935-939[Medline].
|
Infect Immun, May 1998, p. 1941-1945, Vol. 66, No. 5
0019-9567/98/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1998, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Vervelde, L., Bakker, N., Kooyman, F. N.J., Cornelissen, A. W.C.A., Bank, C. M.C., Nyame, A. K., Cummings, R. D., van Die, I.
(2003). Vaccination-induced protection of lambs against the parasitic nematode Haemonchus contortus correlates with high IgG antibody responses to the LDNF glycan antigen. Glycobiology
13: 795-804
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Gounaris, K., Thomas, S., Najarro, P., Selkirk, M. E.
(2001). Secreted Variant of Nucleoside Diphosphate Kinase from the Intracellular Parasitic Nematode Trichinella spiralis. Infect. Immun.
69: 3658-3662
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Blackwell, N. M., Else, K. J.
(2001). B Cells and Antibodies Are Required for Resistance to the Parasitic Gastrointestinal Nematode Trichuris muris. Infect. Immun.
69: 3860-3868
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
McVay, C. S., Bracken, P., Gagliardo, L. F., Appleton, J.
(2000). Antibodies to Tyvelose Exhibit Multiple Modes of Interference with the Epithelial Niche of Trichinella spiralis. Infect. Immun.
68: 1912-1918
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Peters, P. J., Gagliardo, L. F., Sabin, E. A., Betchen, A. B., Ghosh, K., Oblak, J. B., Appleton, J. A.
(1999). Dominance of Immunoglobulin G2c in the Antiphosphorylcholine Response of Rats Infected with Trichinella spiralis. Infect. Immun.
67: 4661-4667
[Abstract]
[Full Text]