| Literature DB >> 26181591 |
Amer Al-Jawabreh1, Kamal Dumaidi2, Suheir Ereqat3, Abedelmajeed Nasereddin4, Hanan Al-Jawabreh4, Kifaya Azmi5, Nahed Al-Laham6, Ziad Abdeen7.
Abstract
Hydatidosis or echinococcosisis considered a neglected zoonotic disease despite its high burden in the livestock industry and the high risk of infection by humans in endemic areas. In a cross-sectional study we estimated the copro-Incidence and also genotyped Echinococcus granulosus isolates from domestic dogs using polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Medical archives in nine major hospitals in Palestine were reviewed to determine incidence of E. granulosus infection detected in humans during surgery. Faecal samples were collected from 93 domestic dogs in three districts with the highest number of human cases: Al-Khalil (Hebron), Tubas and Jenin. Genomic DNA was extracted from dog faecal samples and amplified by PCR targeting the repeat DNA sequence (EgG1 Hae III) followed by sequencing of five positive samples. Genotyping was determined by sequencing and BLAST searching of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit (CO1). The incidence of E. granulosus infection detected in humans at surgery was 1.2 per 100,000 in the West Bank and 1.0 per 100,000 in Gaza Strip. Seventeen of 93 domestic dogs (18%) were positive, based upon comparison with the Echinococcus DNA control. The five sequenced samples were confirmed to be E. granulosus. Successfully genotyped sample belonged to E.granulosus sensu stricto (formerly G1-G3 complex, sheep strain). For domestic dogs, age group (13-24 months) and sex were identified as two risk factors for contracting E. granulosus. The study identified the high incidence of E. granulosus sensu stricto in dogs in Palestine.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26181591 PMCID: PMC4504717 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003934
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis ISSN: 1935-2727
Fig 1Distribution of sampled domestic dogs: Map of Palestine West Bank and Gaza showing in brackets the number of human cases reviewed in the medical archives and the three districts from which dog fecal samples were collected.
First number indicates positive results while the second one represents the total number of sampled dogs.
The incidence rate and number of E. granulosus infection cases detected in humans during surgery revealed by the study as compared to Ministry of Health official figures.
| Study | Ministry of Health | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Area | Number of cases | 3-year-mean incidence rate per 100,000 | 5-year-mean incidence rate per 100,000 |
| The West Bank | 95 | 1.2 | 0.8 |
| Al-Khalil | 40 | 1.9 | 3.4 |
| Bethlehem | 22 | 2.0 | 0.2 |
| Tubas | 10 | 5.6 | 1.8 |
| Jenin | 8 | 0.8 | 0.4 |
| Nablus | 4 | 0.3 | 2.4 |
| Jericho (Ariha) | 3 | 1.5 | 2.1 |
| Al-Quds-Jerusalem | 4 | 0.3 | 0.1 |
| Qalqilia | 0 | 0 | 0.1 |
| Ramallah | 4 | 1.3 | 0 |
| Gaza | 15 | 1 | 0.005 |
| Palestine | 110 | 0.9 | 0.8 |
§ 3-year-population average, 2011–2013.
*5-year-population average, 2009–2013.
‡8-year-population average, 2007–2014.
Fig 2Results of copro-polymerase chain reaction with fecal samples from domestic dogs and controls.
(a) Diagnostic 133 base pair-Hae III target (b) 269 base pair- Hae III target. J-8 and K-8 were shown to be Echinococcus granulosus by sequencing (c) 446 base pair- CO1 target gene for genotyping. Sequencing of Q-8 PCR products revealed a G1 (sheep strain) genotype of Echinococcus granulosus senso stricto.
Demographic and behavioral factors associated with E. granulosus infection in domestic dogs in Palestine.
| Variable | Positive | Negative | Total | Fisher’s exact test | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | Male | 17 | 56 | 73 | 0.018 |
| Female | 0 | 20 | 20 | ||
| Total | 17 | 76 | 93 | ||
| Age group, months | 0–12 | 5 | 31 | 36 | 0.028 |
| 13–24 | 9 | 16 | 25 | ||
| >24 | 2 | 22 | 24 | ||
| Total | 16 | 69 | 85 | ||
| Tied vs loose | Tied | 7 | 46 | 53 | 0.113 |
| Loose | 2 | 2 | 4 | ||
| Total | 9 | 48 | 57 | ||
| Dog accompany livestock | Yes | 7 | 44 | 51 | 0.16 |
| No | 6 | 14 | 20 | ||
| Total | 13 | 58 | 71 | ||
| Source of food | Offal | 6 | 36 | 42 | 0.75 |
| Other | 5 | 24 | 29 | ||
| Total | 11 | 60 | 71 | ||
| Rural vs urban | Urban | 5 | 10 | 15 | 0.13 |
| Rural | 12 | 66 | 78 | ||
| Total | 17 | 76 | 93 |
*Significant at P-value ≤ 0.05