| Literature DB >> 25015671 |
Yosra A Helmy1, Christian Klotz, Hendrik Wilking, Jürgen Krücken, Karsten Nöckler, Georg Von Samson-Himmelstjerna, Karl-H Zessin, Toni Aebischer.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Giardia duodenalis is a common flagellated protozoan parasite that infects the small intestine of a wide range of vertebrate hosts. This study aimed to determine whether tracing of G. duodenalis isolates by current genetic typing tools is possible using an exemplary set of samples from infected cattle, buffalo and children from the Ismailia province, Egypt.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25015671 PMCID: PMC4230635 DOI: 10.1186/1756-3305-7-321
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Estimation of prevalence in diarrheal children
| | ||
|---|---|---|
| up to 1y | 0 | 29 |
| (0/24) | (7/24) | |
| (0–11.7) | (13.7–49.4) | |
| | Ct value: 38.4 (33.2 – 39.0) | |
| >1y-2y | 9 | 26 |
| (3/35) | (9/35) | |
| (2.2–21.6) | (13.3–41.9) | |
| | Ct value: 34.5 (26.1 – 38.0) | |
| >2y-3y | 6 | 16 |
| (2/32) | (5/32) | |
| (1.1–19.2) | (5.9–31.3) | |
| | Ct value: 30.7 (18.7 – 37.4) | |
| >3y-4y | 10 | 24 |
| (2/21) | (5/21) | |
| (1.6–28.1) | (9.3–45.2) | |
| | Ct value: 33.8 (29.3 – 39.3) | |
| >4y-10y | 11 | 17 |
| (6/53) | (9/53) | |
| (4.7–22.1) | (8.6–28.9) | |
| | Ct value: 29.0 (22.7 – 39.6) | |
| Total | 8a | 21b |
| (13/165) | (35/165) | |
| (4.5–12.8) | (15.5–28) | |
| Ct value: 33.2 (18.7 – 39.6) | ||
Different superscripts (a, b): significant difference at p < 0.05.
Median ct values (range) of real time PCR assay for assigned age groups are shown.
Estimation of prevalence in cattle and buffalo
| | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1d-1 m | 9 | 9 | 8 | 52 | 57 |
| (22/244) | (17/183) | (5/61) | (12/23) | (138/244) | |
| (5.9–13.1) | (5.7–14.2) | (3.1–17.2) | (32.1–71.7) | (50.3–62.7) | |
| >1-3 m | 5 | 5 | 4 | 53 | 55 |
| (5/103) | (4/79) | (1/24) | (8/15) | (57/103) | |
| (1.8–10.4) | (1.6–11.8) | (0.2–18.9) | (28.7–76.8) | (45.7–64.7) | |
| >4-6 m | 6 | 7 | 2 | 46 | 50 |
| (9/149) | (8/107) | (1/42) | (6/13) | (74/149) | |
| (2.9–10.8) | (3.5–13.7) | (0.11–11.2) | (21.3–72.6) | (41.7–57.7) | |
| >6 m | 4 | 5 | 4 | 48 | 50 |
| (14/308) | (11/224) | (3/84) | (12/25) | (155/308) | |
| (2.6–7.3) | (2.6–8.4) | (0.9–9.4) | (29.2–67.3) | (44.8–55.9) | |
| Total | 6 | 7 | 5 | 50 | 53 |
| (50/804) | (40/593) | (10/211) | (38/76) | (424/804) | |
| (4.7–8.1) | (4.9–8.9) | (2.4–8.3) | (38.9–61.1) | (49.3–56.2) | |
bAll copro-antigen test positives and 10% of the copro-antigen negative samples were analyzed by real time PCR. Prevalence was calculated by extrapolation assuming that the analyzed negative samples are representative for all negative samples. Note that all positive copro-antigen tests were confirmed by real time PCR assay.
Note: No significant differences were detected between the age groups.
Prevalence of in animal samples in relation to fecal consistency
| | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | 50 | 20 | 21 | 9 | 88 | 37 | 36 | 15 |
| (6) | (40*) | (42*) | (18*) | (70) | (42*) | (41*) | (17*) | |
| (5–8) | (27–54) | (29–56) | (9–30) | (61–77) | (32–53) | (31–51) | (10–26) | |
| Negative | 754 | 254 | 284 | 216 | 38 | 12 | 21 | 5 |
| (94) | (34*) | (38*) | (29*) | (30) | (32*) | (55*) | (13*) | |
| (92–95) | (30–37) | (34–41) | (26–32) | (22–38) | (18–48) | (39–70) | (5–27) | |
| Total | 804 | 274 | 305 | 225 | 126 | 49 | 57 | 20 |
| | (34) | (38) | (28) | | (39) | (45) | (16) | |
| (31–37) | (35–41) | (25–31) | (31–48) | (37–54) | (10–23) | |||
+Only experimental results are presented.
*Percentage calculated as proportion of Giardia positive and negative samples, respectively.
Note: No significant differences of fecal consistency were detected of Giardia positive and Giardia negative animals.
Analysis of potential risk factors for infections in diarrheal children
| | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Copro-antigen test | 9.5 | 6.2 | 9.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 5.0 | 5.0* | 9.0* |
| (8/84) | (5/81) | (7/82) | (6/83) | (10/108) | (3/57) | (3/57) | (10/108) | |
| (4.5–17.3) | (2.3–13.2) | (3.8–16.2) | (2.9-14.4) | (4.8–15.9) | (1.4–13.7) | (1.4–13.7) | (4.8–15.9) | |
| Real time PCR assay | 22.6 | 19.8 | 23.0 | 19.0 | 21.0 | 21.0 | 11.0+ | 27.0+ |
| (19/84) | (16/81) | (19/82) | (16/83) | (23/108) | (12/57) | (6/57) | (29/108) | |
| (14.6–32.5) | (12.2–29.5) | (15–33.2) | (11.9–28.8) | (14.4–29.8) | (11.9–33) | (4.4–20.6) | (19–35.8) | |
*p = 0.390; +p = 0.013.
Samples assigning for different assemblages at different gene loci
| 6/C3 | Cattle | A | A | - | E | E |
| 42a/C3 | Cattle | A | A | E | E | E |
| 21b/C19 | Cattle | E | - | - | E | A |
| 19a/C3 | Cattle | E | - | - | A | - |
| H135 | Human | - | - | - | A/E | E |
| 31a/C4 | Cattle | A/E | - | E | E | E |
| H86 | Human | B | A | - | B | A/B |
| 15d/C10 | Cattle | - | - | E | - | A/E |
(-) = negative result.
Note: All PCRs and sequence analysis were performed at least twice with similar results.
Type and number of assemblages detected in animal and human samples by multi locus sequence typing
| A | 8 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 1 | - | 1 | 1 | - | - | 1 | 2 | |
| 1 | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| 1 | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 5 | 2 | 2 | ||
| | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 11 | 12 | 11 | |
| | 46 | 40 | 6 | 51 | 43 | 8 | 46 | 39 | 7 | - | 2 | - | |
| | 1 | 1 | - | 1 | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | |
| | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | - | |
| Total | 57 | 49 | 8 | 53 | 45 | 8 | 47 | 4 | 7 | 16 | 18 | 16 | |
Figure 1Relatedness of assemblage B and E sequencing types using distance matrix analysis. The sequencing fragments of samples with the complete information at all three gene loci were concatenated in the order of the tpi-bg-gdh sequences. The resulting sequencing fragments (1358 bp) were subsequently aligned using ClustalW. Shown are the deduced distance matrices for assemblage B (A) and assemblage E (B) sequencing types. Numbers and heatmap indicate nucleotide residues not identical between two sequences. We revealed only two complete type A sequences and these were excluded from the analysis. (A) Eight unique type B sequences could be analyzed. (B) 25 unique sequences (of a total of 29 type E sequences) were retrieved and analyzed. Samples 31b/C7 and 33c/B7 were identical as well as samples 40b/C7, 41a/C1, 43a/B1 and 43a/C2.
Figure 2Spatial distribution of samples containing assemblage B and E type parasites. Clusters of concatenated B and E type sequences were defined based on sequence identity, i.e. sequences that were identical or that differed in maximally one base pair were combined in one cluster. The spatial distribution of sequence types was visualized on a map of the study region. (A) Analysis of the 8 B type sequences revealed one cluster with 2 sequences that differed in one base pair (samples H66 and H90). (B) Analysis of 29 E type sequences revealed 4 clusters. Cluster 1 comprising of the identical sequences of samples 31b/C7 and 33c/B7. Cluster 2 comprising of the 4 identical sequences of samples 40b/C7, 41a/C1, 43a/B1 and 43a/C25, and of sequence of sample 32a/C2 that differed in one base pair. Cluster 3 comprising of sequences of samples 5a/C1 and 7a/C9 that differ in one base pair. Cluster 4 comprising of sequences of samples 35a/C2 and 35c/C8 that differ in one base pair. Note that sample 40c/C10 (shaded grey area) differed only in three base pairs from sample 40b/C7 of cluster 2.