4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Wolbachia and its influence on the pathology and immunology of Dirofilaria immitis infection

期刊

VETERINARY PARASITOLOGY
卷 158, 期 3, 页码 191-195

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2008.09.014

关键词

Dirofilaria immitis; Wolbachia; Lung; Pathology; Immunohistochemistry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Since the definitive identification ill 1995 of the bacterial endosymbiont Wolbachia that resides ill different tissues Of the filarial worm Dirofilaria immitis. there has been increasing interest to understand whether and what role it plays in the pathogenesis of and immune response to heartworm infection. The present study evaluated the effects of treatments oil lung pathology in 20 beagle dogs experimentally infected with D. immitis. Dogs in Group I were treated with doxycycline (10 mg/kg/day) orally front weeks 0-6. 10-12. 16-18, 22-26. and 28-34. Dogs ill Group 2 served as infected, non-treated controls. Dogs in Group 1 were given doxycycline as described for Group I combined with weekly oral doses of ivermectin (6 mcg/kg) for 34 weeks and intramuscular (IM) melarsomine (2.5 mg/kg) at week 24, followed by two additional melarsomine injections 24 h apart 1 month later. Group 4 received only melarsomine as described for Group 3. Lung lesion, criteria. scored by two independent blinded Pathologists. included perivascular inflammation and endothelial proliferation. Doxycycline treatment alone had no effect oil lesion scores. whereas the combination of doxycycline and ivermectin resulted in less severe perivascular inflammation. All lungs Were evaluated, for positive immunostaining for the Wolbachia surface Protein (WSP). Control showed numerous thrombi, intense perivascular and interstitial inflammation and occasionally. positive staining for WSP. Interestingly, dogs receiving doxycycline/ivermectin/melarsomine showed significantly less severe arterial lesions and the Virtual absence of thrombi. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据