| Literature DB >> 23965819 |
Rebecca J M Hurst1, Kathryn J Else.
Abstract
The mouse whipworm Trichuris muris has long been used as a tractable model of human Trichuriasis. Here we look back at the history of T. muris research; from the definition of the species and determination of its life cycle, through to the complex immune responses that we study today. We highlight the key research papers that have developed our understanding of immune responses to this parasite, and reflect on how original concepts have been transformed, as our knowledge of immunology has grown. Although we have a good understanding of host–parasite interactions in the context of the underlying cellular immunology, there are still many aspects of the biology of the Trichuris parasite that remain undefined. We predict that advances in parasite biology will be key in the future development of new and improved treatments for Trichuriasis.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23965819 PMCID: PMC3761323 DOI: 10.1017/S0031182013001054
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasitology ISSN: 0031-1820 Impact factor: 3.234
Fig. 1.Milestones in T. muris research. The timeline shows an overview of some of the key research papers that have been published on T. muris throughout the years.
Fig. 2.Development of the T. muris life cycle; from its initial documentation to our modern understanding. The left panel shows drawings taken from Fahmy et al. (1954) where the life cycle of T. muris was initially described. Originally, only two moults were thought to occur, however, the right panel shows our current understanding, based on the life cycle defined by Panesar (1989). Thus T. muris goes through the four classical larval moults of nematodes to reach adulthood. The similarities between the two life cycles are highlighted. Scanning electron microscope images were taken at the University of Manchester.
Fig. 3.Developing models for the induction of Th2 responses following T. muris infection. (A) Originally, Th2 cell differentiation was thought to occur by ‘default’, in the absence of a Th1-inducing stimulus; (B) Moving forward, it was hypothesized that a Th2 pathogen associated molecular pattern (PAMPs) might drive Th2 cell differentiation by binding to pattern recognition receptors (PRRs), however, any nematode PAMP that promotes Th2 responses is yet to be defined; (C) Modern understanding suggests that endogenous factors, such as alarmins, tissue factors (e.g. TSLP) and cytokines act on DCs to drive Th2 priming. Furthermore, other cells such as eosinophils (EOS) and basophils (BAS) may also help to drive Th2 differentiation through secreting Th2-driving signals e.g. IL-25.