4.2 Article

Interspecies Variation in the Susceptibility of a Wild-Derived Colony of Mice to Pinworms (Aspiculuris tetraptera)

Publisher

AMER ASSOC LABORATORY ANIMAL SCIENCE

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Pinworms are common parasites in wild and laboratory rodents. Despite their relative nonpathogenicity in immunocompetent models, pinworm infections add an unwanted variable and may confound some types of research. For this reason, health monitoring programs and biosecurity measures aim to minimize the spread of pinworm infections into colonies free from the organisms. Wild-derived and laboratory strains of mice have shown varied susceptibility to infection with Aspiculuris tetraptera, the most commonly found murine pinworm. In particular, susceptibility is increased in wild-derived mice, young animals, and males. Routine surveillance at our institution revealed pinworm infection (A. tetraptera only) within a colony of multiple, wild-derived species of Mus, although only specific species showed positive results during initial sampling. To assess whether species-associated differences in susceptibility were present, we analyzed fecal egg counts of A. tetraptera in every cage of the colony. Our results revealed significant differences in susceptibility between various species and subspecies of Mus. Egg counts were significantly higher in Mus spicilegus than Mus m. domesticus (WSB/Eip and Mus macedonicus. Mus spretus had higher egg counts than M. m. domesticus (WS13/EiJ), M. m. musculus (PWK/PhJ), and M. macedonicus. Egg counts did not differ in regard to age, sex, or number of mice per cage. As wild-derived mouse models continue to compliment research largely based on laboratory strains, it will be important to understand host-parasite interactions and their effects on research, particularly studies evaluating immune responses, behavior, growth, and other physiologic parameters.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available