in black and white
Main menu
Share a book About us Home
Biology Business Chemistry Computers Culture Economics Fiction Games Guide History Management Mathematical Medicine Mental Fitnes Physics Psychology Scince Sport Technics

Principles and practice of Clinical parasitology - Gillespie S.

Gillespie S. Principles and practice of Clinical parasitology - Wiley publishing , 2001. - 675 p.
ISBN 0-471-97729-2
Download (direct link): principlesandpracticeofclin2001.pdf
Previous << 1 .. 152 153 154 155 156 157 < 158 > 159 160 161 162 163 164 .. 212 >> Next

Principles and Practice of Clinical Parasitology
Edited by Stephen Gillespie and Richard D. Pearson © 2001 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
clearly distinguish amebiasis from bacterial dysentery, and coined the terms ‘amebic dysentery’ and ‘amebic liver abscess'.
Historically, ipecac bark was used in the treatment of dysentery. Piso introduced ipecac bark, which had been used for centuries in Peru for the treatment of dysentery, to Europe in 1658. Helvetius used ipecac to successfully treat the dysentery of King Louis XIV, and subsequently sold it as a secret remedy to the French government. Not until 1858 was the use of large doses of ipecac for the treatment of dysentery promoted by Surgeon E. S. Docker in Mauritius, who demonstrated that ipecac (60 grains, two or three times daily) decreased mortality from 10-18% to only 2%. However, large doses of ipecac by mouth was complicated by severe nausea and vomiting and necessitated the co-administration of opium, chloral hydrate or tannic acid. An alternative therapy was discovered by Leonard Rogers, Professor of Pathology in Calcutta, India, who found that emetine, the principal alkaloid in ipecac, killed amebae in the mucus of stools from patients with dysentery at dilutions as high as 1/100000. In 1912 he reported successfully treating three patients in Calcutta, who had been unable to tolerate oral ipecac, by injection of emetine (Rogers, 1912).
The cyst form of E. histolytica was implicated as the infective form of the parasite by Walker and Sellards (1913) in the Philippines, and the parasite’s life-cycle was outlined by Dobell (1925). Axenic culture of E. histolytica (free of any associated microorganisms) was accomplished by Diamond (1961) at the NIH in 1961. This milestone in the history of amebiasis has enabled study of the cell biology and biochemistry of the parasite, upon which our current understanding of amebiasis is based.
E. histolytica, a pseudopod-forming nonflagellated protozoan parasite, is the most invasive of the Entamoeba group (which includes E. dispar, E. hartmanni, E. polecki, E. coli and E. gingivalis). It is the Entamoeba that most often
causes clinical disease in humans, such as amebic colitis and liver abscess. Trophozoites of this parasite contain a single nucleus, and nuclear division occurs without the formation of condensed metaphase chromosomes. No sexual forms of the parasite have been identified.
The taxonomy of E. histolytica has changed significantly in the last decade and it has recently been reclassified into two species which are morphologically identical but genetically distinct: E. histolytica (Schaudinn, 1903), an invasive disease-causing parasite, and E. dispar (Brumpt, 1925), a non-invasive parasite. This separation was initially proposed in 1925 by Brumpt, who found that only one of the species caused disease in kittens or human volunteers, and named the non-pathogenic species E. dispar (Thompson and Glasser, 1986). However, in the absence of a means to distinguish the two morphologically identical parasites, this distinction was not generally accepted. In 1978, Sargeaunt and colleagues demonstrated that isoenzyme typing could be used to distinguish the pathogenic from the non-pathogenic species of Entamoeba and the issue was re-examined. The two species can be differentiated by isoenzyme analysis, typing by monoclonal antibodies to surface antigens, and restriction fragment length polymorphisms and PCR (Table 9.1) (Sargeaunt et al., 1978; Tannich et al., 1989; Tannich and Burchard, 1991; Diamond and Clark, 1993; Garfinkel et al., 1989; Clark and Diamond, 1993). Earlier reports that E. histolytica and E. dispar could convert in culture (Andrews et al., 1990; Mirelman et al.,
1986) were recently shown to be artifactual with the apparent conversion due to contamination of laboratory strains (Clark and Diamond, 1993).
Table 9.1 Differentiation of E. histolytica and E. dispar
Biochemical characters
Discrimination by isoenzyme migration Immunological characters Monoclonal antibodies Genetic characters
Restriction fragment pattern comparisons Repetitive DNA sequences Riboprinting Clinical characters
E. dispar has not been associated with tissue invasion
From Petri (1996), with permission.
Fig. 9.1 E. histolytica trophozoite and cyst. (A) The motile and invasive trophozoite forms each contain a single nucleus and are 10 and 60 pm in diameter, respectively. (B) The infectious cyst form is 10-15 pm in diameter and contains four nuclei. Note that it is not possible to distinguish E. histolytica from E. dispar morphologically (photograph courtesy of Centers for Disease Control)
Since E. dispar infection need not be treated, an important clinical advance has been the development of antigen detection tests that differentiate infection by the two amebae (see Diagnosis).
The E. histolytica life-cycle is relatively simple and consists of an infective cyst and an invasive trophozoite form. The trophozoite stage is 10-60 pm in diameter, containing a single nucleus with a central karyosome (Figure 9.1A). The cyst is 10-15 pm in diameter and contains four or fewer nuclei (Figure 9.1B). The quadrinucleate cyst is the infectious form of the parasite, is resistant to chlorination, gastric acidity and desiccation, and can survive in a moist
Previous << 1 .. 152 153 154 155 156 157 < 158 > 159 160 161 162 163 164 .. 212 >> Next