| Literature DB >> 25880025 |
Chaoqun Yao1,2, Liza S Köster3,4.
Abstract
Tritrichomonas foetus is a very intriguing trichomonad protozoan with respect to its varied choice of residence in the different host species. It is an obligate parasite of the reproductive and the gastrointestinal tract of bovine and feline host respectively, leading to trichomonosis. Bovine trichomonosis is a sexually transmitted disease whereas feline trichomonosis is a disease with a purported fecal-oral route of spread. Further, the trichomonad is a commensal in the nasal passages, stomach, cecum and colon of swine host. Advances have been exponential in understanding the trichomonad biology and specifically feline trichomonosis since late 1990s and early 2000s when T. foetus was soundly determined to be a causative agent of chronic diarrhea in the domestic cat. It is a challenging task, even for a skilled investigator not to mention the busy clinical veterinarian, to keep up with the vast volume of information. Here we comprehensively reviewed the trichomonad biology, clinical manifestations, pathogenesis, host immunity, world map of distribution, risk factors, diagnosis and treatment. Risk factors associated with T. foetus-positive status in the domestic cat include young age, purebred, history of diarrhea, co-infections with other enteral pathogens. In addition, molecular similarity of bovine and feline isolates of T. foetus in DNA sequence was concisely discussed. The data presented serve as an information source for veterinarians, and investigators who are interested in biology of T. foetus and feline trichomonosis.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25880025 PMCID: PMC4364588 DOI: 10.1186/s13567-015-0169-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Vet Res ISSN: 0928-4249 Impact factor: 3.683
Figure 1trophozoites. A: Giemsa-stain. B: scanning electron microscopy. AF: anterior flagella; Ax: axostyle; N: nucleus; PF: posterior flagellum; UM: undulating membrane. A and B: reproduced from Figure 1 of Doi et al. ([80]) and Figure 1b of Midlej et al. [81], respectively, with permission.
Genetic similarity in percentage (%) between feline isolates and bovine isolates of
|
|
| ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ITS (4, 327) | 99.7 | [ | |||||||||||||
| ITS-2 (4, 368) | 99.7 | [ | |||||||||||||
| EF-1α (4, 783) | 99.4 | [ | |||||||||||||
| CP8 (4, 663) | 99.7 | [ | |||||||||||||
| CP1 (7, 503) | 99.4 | [ | |||||||||||||
| CP2 (7, 669) | 96.7 | [ | |||||||||||||
| CP4 (7, 273) | 99.3 | [ | |||||||||||||
| CP5 (7, 361) | 99.2 | [ | |||||||||||||
| CP6 (7, 318) | 98.1 | [ | |||||||||||||
| CP7 (7, 373) | 99.7 | [ | |||||||||||||
| CP8 (7, 907) | 99.4 | [ | |||||||||||||
| CP9 (7, 289) | 99.3 | [ | |||||||||||||
| MDH1 (7, 562) | 99.6 | [ | |||||||||||||
| ITS1 + 2 (7, 297) | 99.7 | [ | |||||||||||||
CP, cysteine protease; MDH, malate dehydrogenase; ITS, internal transcribed spacer; EL, elongation factor.
*number of cattle isolates.
#first number - number of cat isolates; second number - length of sequence in base pair (bp).
Genetic similarity in percentage (%) between and bovine isolates of
|
|
| |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ITS-2 (4, 368) | 100.0 | [ | ||||||||||||
| EF-1α (4, 783) | 99.4 | [ | ||||||||||||
| CP8 (4, 663) | 99.7 | [ | ||||||||||||
| CP1 (4, 503) | 100.0 | [ | ||||||||||||
| CP2 (4, 669) | 100.0 | [ | ||||||||||||
| CP4 (4, 273) | 100.0 | [ | ||||||||||||
| CP5 (4, 361) | 100.0 | [ | ||||||||||||
| CP6 (4, 318) | 100.0 | [ | ||||||||||||
| CP7 (4, 373) | 100.0 | [ | ||||||||||||
| CP8 (4, 907) | 100.0 (3); 99.9 (1) | [ | ||||||||||||
| CP9 (4, 289) | 100.0 | [ | ||||||||||||
| MDH1 (4, 562) | 100.0 | [ | ||||||||||||
| ITS1 + 2 (4, 297) | 100.0 | [ | ||||||||||||
CP, cysteine protease; MDH, malate dehydrogenase; ITS, internal transcribed spacer.
*number of cattle isolates.
#first number - number of cat isolates; second number - length of sequence in base pair (bp).
Figure 2antigens in colonic mucosal biopsy specimens. Immunolabeled trichomonads (red stained organisms) in panel A are located on surface enterocytes and within superficial mucus and detritus of the cecal mucosa. Panel B is a negative control omitting primary antibody. Bar = 100 μm. Reproduced with permission [28].
Figure 3Scanning electron microscopy of adhesion to porcine intestinal epithelial cell (IPEC)-J2 monolayers. A. Aggregates of trophozoites adhering to IPEC-J2 monolayers (arrows). B. Six trophoziotes adhering to a single IPEC-J2 cell. Reproduced with permission [47].
Figure 4Geographical distribution of surveys for and case report of detected positive cats worldwide. The prevalence of T. foetus infection of each regional study is reported although is not representative of the true prevalence of the entire country. Highest rate is used in countries with more than one regional report on prevalence.
Cases and prevalence of feline trichomonosis throughout the world
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australia | Vet Clinic | M;C;PCR;S | 16 | [ | ||
| Australia | 2006-2010 | Vet Clinic | M: PCR | 13 | [ | |
| 2008-2009 | Cattery (59) | PCR | 42.4 | |||
| Australia | 2006-2007 | Cattery (82) | C;PCR | 0 | [ | |
| Shelter (52) | 0 | |||||
| Austria & Germany | Fecal samples (31) | PCR,S | 19.4 | [ | ||
| Austria | 1997-2008 | Necropsy (96); Organ samples (6) | chromogenic in situ hybridization; PCR; S | 2.9 | [ | |
| Canada | Cats with chronical diarrhea (1) | PCR | 1 | [ | ||
| Canada | 2011-2012 | Cat Clinic (140) | C;PCR | 0.7 | [ | |
| Cat show (55) | 23.6 | |||||
| Humane Society (46) | 0 | |||||
| European Union – 15 countries | 2009-2010 | Diarrheic cats (1840) | PCR,S | 9.0 | [ | |
| Finland | 2008-2010 | Diagnostic samples (60) | PCR | 28.3 | [ | |
| France | 2009-2010 | Cat show (140) | C;S | 14.3 | [ | |
| Germany | Diarrheic cats (3) | M, PCR, S | 3 | [ | ||
| Germany | 2008 | Cat shows (230) | C;PCR;S | 15.7 | [ | |
| Greece | Fecal samples (30) | PCR | 20.0 | [ | ||
| Italy | 2008-2010 | Pet (181), sheltered cats (54), stray cats (28) | C | 0 | [ | |
| Italy | Healthy pets (146) | PCR | 2.1 | [ | ||
| Italy | 2006 | Rescued Cats (74) | M;C;PCR | 32.4 | [ | |
| Japan | 2008 | Animal Hospitals (147) | C;PCR;S | 8.8 | [ | |
| Netherland | 2006 | Diarrheic cats (53) | PCR | 2 | [ | |
| Cattery (47) | 4 | |||||
| pet (54) | 0 | |||||
| New Zealand | 2006 | Cat shows (22) | C;PCR | 81.8 | [ | |
| Norway | 2006 | Vet Clinic | M; PCR;S | 3 | [ | |
| Norway | 2009 | Cat show (52) | C; PCR;S | 21.2 | [ | |
| Poland | Vet Clinics (135) | C;PCR | 7.3 | [ | ||
| South Korea | 2008 | Vet Clinic | M;C;PCR | 2 | [ | |
| Spain | Cattery (20) | M;C;PCR | 25.0 | [ | ||
| Sweden | Diarrheic cats (1) | 1 | [ | |||
| Switzerland | 2007 | Diarrheic cats (45) | C;PCR;S | 24.4 | [ | |
| Switzerland | 2007-2008 | Vet Clinic (105) | C;PCR | 25.7 | [ | |
| UK | 2004 | Diarrheic cats (1) | M; PCR | 1 | [ | |
| UK | 2006 | Diarrheic cats (111) | PCR | 14.4 | [ | |
| UK | 2010 - 2012 | Diarrheic cats (1882) | PCR | 18.8 | [ | |
| UK | Vet Clinic (163) | PCR | 20.0 | [ | ||
| USA | Diarrheic cats (26) | M;C;PCR | 26 | [ | ||
| USA | Diarrheic cats (32) | M;C | 32 | [ | ||
| USA | Diarrheic cats (1) | M;C;PCR | 1 | [ | ||
| USA | Diarrheic cats (4) | C; PCR | 4 | [ | ||
| USA | Diarrheic cats (4) | C; PCR | 4 | [ | ||
| USA | 2006-2009 | Vet Clinic (104) | PCR | 104 | [ | |
| USA | Diarrheic cat (7) | M;C;PCR | 7 | [ | ||
| USA | nondiarrheic cats (53) | C;PCR | 0.0 | [ | ||
| Diarrheic cats (170) | 5.9 | |||||
| USA | Fecal samples (173) | C;PCR | 9.8 | [ | ||
| USA | Catteries (61) | M; PCR | 24.6 | [ | ||
| USA | 2001 | Cat show (117) | M;C;PCR | 30.8 | [ | |
| USA | 2009-2012 | Diarrheic cats (68) | PCR | 39.7 | [ |
C: Culture; M: Microscopy; PCR: polymerase chain reaction; S: Sequencing.
Risk factors related to feline infections by
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canada | <6 – 0.6 (0.1–3.4) | 2.0 (0.5–7.9) | 26.3 (3.8–1142.2)** | >5 cats per house – 4.6 (1.3–20.8)** | Another cat – 4.4 (1.3–16.2)** | Fed a raw food diet – 5.4 (1.5–19.6)** | [ |
| Self – 1.7 (0.4–6.4) | |||||||
| France | <12 – #2.5(0.6-10.2)+ | NC | NC | NC | NC | [ | |
| Germany | ≤12 – 0.9 (0.7-1.0)* | NC | Norwegian Forest – 25.9 (7.6-87.7)*** | NC | Another cat – 3.2 (1.2–9.9)** | NC | [ |
| Self – 3.2 (1.1- 8.7)* | |||||||
| Norway | NC | NC | NC | NC ( | [ | ||
| UK | 6-12 (29.4%); >12 (15.2%)*** | Pedigree (37.8%); | [ | ||||
| Non-pedigree (6.0%)*** | |||||||
| UK | ≤12, #13.4(1.7-107.7)** | NC | # > 999.9 | [ | |||
| Siamese and Bengal #7.3 (2.1-25.9)** | |||||||
| USA | Infected mean 8 vs non- infected mean 64.8*** | Abyssinians, Siamese and Bengal** | [ | ||||
| USA | #> 999.9** | [ | |||||
| USA | NC | NC | Self – 3.5 (1.1-11.3)* | [ |
¶Odds ratio is given; 95% confidence interval is in bracket. Blank cells: no data available.
#:Calculated by the authors of current manuscript according to [56]; P value from the original paper.
*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001; + P = 0.057.
NC: No correlation was detected.
Data included in metadata analysis of odds ratio of young cats with infections
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 13 | 35 | 48 | 1 | 36 | 37 | [ |
| 17 | 76 | 93 | 3 | 44 | 47 | [ |
| 65 | 563 | 628 | 33 | 730 | 763 | [ |
| 5 | 14 | 19 | 6 | 26 | 32 | [ |
| 100 | 313 | 413 | 92 | 515 | 607 | [ |
| 9 | 3 | 12 | 1 | 22 | 23 | [ |
| 209 | 1004 | 1213 | 136 | 1373 | 1509 | |