| Literature DB >> 27870858 |
Kristina Roesel1,2, Karsten Nöckler3, Maximilian P O Baumann4, Reinhard Fries5, Michel M Dione6, Peter-Henning Clausen1, Delia Grace2.
Abstract
Previous research on trichinellosis in Africa focused on isolating Trichinella from wildlife while the role of domestic pigs has remained highly under-researched. Pig keeping in Uganda is historically recent, and evidence on zoonotic pig diseases, including infection with Trichinella species, is scarce. A cross-sectional survey on Trichinella seroprevalence in pigs was conducted in three districts in Central and Eastern Uganda from April 2013 to January 2015. Serum from a random sample of 1125 pigs from 22 villages in Eastern and Central Uganda was examined to detect immunoglobulin G (IgG) against any Trichinella spp. using a commercially available ELISA based on excretory-secretory antigen. ELISA positive samples were confirmed using Western Blot based on somatic antigen of Trichinella spiralis as recommended in previous validation studies. Diaphragm pillar muscle samples (at least 5 g each) of 499 pigs from areas with high ELISA positivity were examined using the artificial digestion method. Overall, 78 of all 1125 animals (6.9%, 95% CI: 5.6-8.6%) tested positive for antibodies against Trichinella spp. in the ELISA at significantly higher levels in Kamuli district compared to Masaka and Mukono districts. Thirty-one percent of the ELISA positive samples were confirmed IgG positive by the Western Blot leading to an overall seroprevalence of 2.1% (95% CI: 1.4-3.2%). The large proportion of ELISA positive samples that could not be confirmed using Western blot may be the result of cross-reactivity with other gastrointestinal helminth infections or unknown host-specific immune response mechanisms in local pig breeds in Uganda. Attempts to isolate muscle larvae for species determination using the artificial digestion method were unsuccessful. Due to the large number of muscle samples examined we are confident that even if pigs are infected, the larval burden in pork is too low to pose a major risk to consumers of developing trichinellosis. This was the first large systematic field investigation of Trichinella infection in domestic pigs in Uganda and its results imply that further studies are needed to identify the Trichinella species involved, and to identify potential sources of infection for humans.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27870858 PMCID: PMC5117603 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166258
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Twenty-two villages were selected for a multi-pathogen survey in pigs in three districts of Central and Eastern Uganda, April to July 2013.
(Pamela Ochungo/ ILRI)
Prevalence estimates for anti-Trichinella IgG (PrioCHECK® Trichinella Ab) in three districts in Central and Eastern Uganda, sampled between April and July 2013.
| District | Village | Value chain type | Sample size (n) | ELISA+ | Prevalence estimate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kamuli | (1) Baluboinewa | RR | 46 | 3 | 6.5% (2.1–18.6%) |
| (2) Bukyonza B | RR | 28 | 4 | 14.3% (5.4–32.9%) | |
| (3) Kantu zone | RR | 110 | 20 | 18.2% (12.0–26.6%) | |
| (4) Ntansi | RR | 105 | 6 | 5.7% (2.6–12.2%) | |
| (5) Butabala | RR | 39 | 1 | 2.6% (0.4–16.5%) | |
| (6) Isingo A | RR | 65 | 16 | 24.6% (15.6–36.6%) | |
| Masaka | (7) Kyamuyimbwa-Kikalala | RU | 31 | 0 | 0% |
| (8) Butego | RU | 28 | 0 | 0% | |
| (9) Kijjabwemi | UU | 41 | 0 | 0% | |
| (10) Kyabakuza B | UU | 36 | 0 | 0% | |
| (11) Kisoso | RU | 56 | 2 | 3.6% (0.9–13.4%) | |
| (12) Ssenya | RR | 37 | 1 | 2.7% (0.4–17.3%) | |
| (13) Kanoni-Bukunda | RU | 51 | 1 | 2.0% (0.3–12.9%) | |
| (14) Lukindu | RR | 40 | 5 | 12.5% (5.2–27.0%) | |
| (15) Ssenyange A | UU | 47 | 2 | 4.3% (1.1–15.7%) | |
| Mukono | (16) Dundu | RU | 56 | 2 | 3.6% (0.9–13.4%) |
| (17) Kyoga | RU | 52 | 1 | 1.9% (2.7–12.7%) | |
| (18) Joggo | RR | 62 | 5 | 8.1% (3.4–18.1%) | |
| (19) Kitete | RR | 54 | 2 | 3.7% (0.9–13.8%) | |
| (20) Bugoye-Kabira | RR | 47 | 3 | 6.4% (2.1–18.2%) | |
| (21) Kazo-Kalagala | RR | 51 | 0 | 0% | |
| (22) Nsanja-Gonve | RR | 43 | 4 | 9.3% (3.5–22.5%) | |
aSpatial dimensions of production and consumption of pigs [31]: rural production for rural consumption (RR); rural production for urban consumption (RU); urban production for urban consumption (UU)
bCalculated at p = 0.05 and CI = 0.95
Fig 2Prevalence estimates and confidence levels for anti-Trichinella IgG (PrioCHECK Trichinella Ab) in three districts in Central and Eastern Uganda, sampled between April and July 2013.
Fig 3Four of the 78 ELISA positive samples tested by Western Blot based on somatic antigen (strip 18–21).
Strip 22 represents the positive control and strip 23 the negative control.
Western Blot (WB) confirmation of ELISA positive samples (anti-Trichinella IgG), collected between April and July 2013 in 22 villages from three districts in Central and Eastern Uganda.
| District | Sample size (n) | ELISA+ | WB- | WB+ | Total confirmed (%) | WB prevalence estimate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kamuli | 393 | 50 | 38 | 12 | 24.0 | 3.1% (1.7–5.3%) |
| Masaka | 367 | 11 | 7 | 4 | 36.4 | 1.1% (0.4–2.9%) |
| Mukono | 365 | 17 | 9 | 8 | 47.1 | 2.2% (1.1–4.3%) |
| Total | 1125 | 78 | 54 | 24 | 30.8 | 2.1% (1.4–3.2%) |
WB: Western Blot
aCalculated at p = 0.05 and CI = 0.95
Fig 4Proportion of ELISA positive samples confirmed by Western Blot based on somatic antigen of Trichinella spiralis in three districts in Central and Eastern Uganda, sampled between April and July 2013.
Pig slaughter, processing and consumption practices in Central and Eastern Uganda (2013).
| Variable | Totals n (%) |
|---|---|
| ≥ Once a month | 26 (2.74%) |
| ≥ Once a year | 71 (7.49%) |
| ≤ Once a year | 22 (2.32%) |
| Never | 675 (71.20%) |
| Cannot remember/don’t know | 9 (0.95%) |
| Missing | 145 (15.30%) |
| Total | 948 (100.00%) |
| Always | 7 (5.88%) |
| Sometimes | 9 (7.56%) |
| Cannot remember/don’t know | 2 (1.68%) |
| Never | 93 (76.15%) |
| Missing | 8 (6.72%) |
| Total | 119 (100.00%) |
| Throw away outside compound | 17 (1.79%) |
| Throw away inside compound | 2 (0.21%) |
| Manure | 0 |
| Feed the live pigs | 0 |
| Other: buried | 28 (2.95%) |
| Other: given to dogs | 12 (1.27%) |
| Other: given to people | 2 (0.21%) |
| Other: not specified | 81 (8.54%) |
| Missing | 806 (85.02%) |
| Total | 948 (100.00%) |
| ≥ Once a month | 548 (57.81%) |
| ≥ Once a year | 146 (15.40%) |
| ≤ Once a year | 32 (3.38%) |
| Never | 206 (21.73%) |
| Missing | 16 (1.69%) |
| Total | 948 (100.00%) |
| Boiling | 357/948 (37.66%) |
| Frying | 596/948 (62.87%) |
| Barbeque | 95/948 (10.02%) |
| Other | 7/948 (0.74%) |
| Missing | 213/948 (22.47%) |
| 39/948 (4.11%) | |