Augustine P C, Danforth H D
Avian Dis. 1985 Oct-Dec;29(4):1212-23.
Hybridoma antibodies (Hab) produced against sporozoites or merozoites of four species of Eimeria were tested for the ability to inhibit the invasion of cultured primary avian kidney cells by sporozoites of Eimeria. Five of 16 Hab that were tested showed inhibitory activity. All five of these Hab were produced against sporozoites and reacted with sporozoite surface antigens or surface/internal antigens. Four Hab produced against merozoites of E. acervulina cross-reacted with sporozoite surface antigens but failed to inhibit invasion. Similarly, Hab reacting with sporozoite anterior tips or refractile bodies had little effect on invasion. Collectively, the data suggest that surface antigens or surface/internal antigens that are unique to the sporozoite stage may influence or be part of the invasion process. Indirect immunofluorescent-antibody tests and ferritin (Fe) labeling combined with electron microscopy indicated differences in binding of two of the Hab to the sporozoite surface membranes. For example, after exposure to Hab 43A6 and a fluorescein-antimouse IgG conjugate, extracellular sporozoites of E. meleagrimitis fluoresced brightly but intracellular sporozoites exhibited little fluorescent label. Sporozoites labeled with Hab 43A6 plus a ferritin-antimouse IgG conjugate that were observed in the process of cell invasion had ferritin on the extracellular portion of the parasite but not on the intracellular portion. Extracellular aggregates of ferritin were observed near the site of invasion. The data suggested that antigens of the sporozoite surface that are recognized by Hab 43A6 are "scraped off" during the invasion of cells. In contrast, after exposure to Hab E5, both extracellular and intracellular sporozoites of E. tenella fluoresced. However, ferritin label was not observed on viable sporozoites, even when they were fixed immediately after the labeling procedure. The antigens recognized by Hab E5 may be associated with parasite secretory products rather than with an integral part of the sporozoite surface membrane.
检测了针对四种艾美耳球虫的子孢子或裂殖子产生的杂交瘤抗体(Hab)抑制艾美耳球虫子孢子侵袭培养的原代禽肾细胞的能力。所检测的16种Hab中有5种显示出抑制活性。所有这5种Hab都是针对子孢子产生的,并与子孢子表面抗原或表面/内部抗原发生反应。针对堆型艾美耳球虫裂殖子产生的4种Hab与子孢子表面抗原发生交叉反应,但未能抑制侵袭。同样,与子孢子前端或折光体发生反应的Hab对侵袭影响很小。总体而言,数据表明子孢子阶段特有的表面抗原或表面/内部抗原可能影响侵袭过程或参与其中。间接免疫荧光抗体试验以及铁蛋白(Fe)标记结合电子显微镜显示,其中两种Hab与子孢子表面膜的结合存在差异。例如,暴露于Hab 43A6和荧光素抗小鼠IgG偶联物后,火鸡艾美耳球虫的细胞外子孢子发出明亮荧光,但细胞内子孢子荧光标记很少。在细胞侵袭过程中观察到用Hab 43A6加铁蛋白抗小鼠IgG偶联物标记的子孢子,在寄生虫的细胞外部分有铁蛋白,但细胞内部分没有。在侵袭部位附近观察到铁蛋白的细胞外聚集物。数据表明,Hab 43A6识别的子孢子表面抗原在细胞侵袭过程中被“刮掉”。相比之下,暴露于Hab E5后,柔嫩艾美耳球虫的细胞外和细胞内子孢子均发出荧光。然而,即使在标记程序后立即固定,在活的子孢子上也未观察到铁蛋白标记。Hab E5识别的抗原可能与寄生虫分泌产物有关,而不是子孢子表面膜的组成部分。