| Literature DB >> 28077153 |
A Kaspar1, K Pfister2,3, M K Nielsen4, C Silaghi2,5, H Fink6, M C Scheuerle2,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Strongylus vulgaris has become a rare parasite in Germany during the past 50 years due to the practice of frequent prophylactic anthelmintic therapy. To date, the emerging development of resistance in Cyathostominae and Parascaris spp. to numerous equine anthelmintics has changed deworming management and the frequency of anthelmintic usage. In this regard, reliable detection of parasitic infections, especially of the highly pathogenic S. vulgaris is essential. In the current study, two diagnostic methods for the detection of infections with S. vulgaris were compared and information on the occurrence of this parasite in German horses was gained. For this purpose, faecal samples of 501 horses were screened for S. vulgaris with real-time PCR and an additional larval culture was performed in samples of 278 horses. A subset of 26 horses underwent multiple follow-up examinations with both methods in order to evaluate both the persistence of S. vulgaris infections and the reproducibility of each diagnostic method.Entities:
Keywords: Equine; Germany; Larval culture; Real-time PCR; Strongyle; Strongylus vulgaris
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28077153 PMCID: PMC5225560 DOI: 10.1186/s12917-016-0918-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Vet Res ISSN: 1746-6148 Impact factor: 2.741
Fig. 1Overview of the division of equine faecal samples and the corresponding motivation
Dates of initial and follow-up examinations of four real-time PCR-positive horses
| Horse | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of first examination | 2013/05/27 | 2013/06/04 | 2013/08/06 | 2013/06/13 |
| Date of follow-up examinations | 2013/09/16 | 2013/10/30 | 2014/02/11 | 2014/02/07 |
| 2013/10/31 | 2014/02/12 | 2014/02/08 | ||
| 2013/11/01 | 2014/02/13 | |||
| 2013/11/02 | 2014/02/14 | |||
| 2013/11/03 | 2014/02/15 | |||
| 2013/11/04 | 2014/02/16 | |||
| 2013/11/05 | 2014/02/17 | |||
| 2014/02/18 | ||||
| 2014/02/19 | ||||
| 2014/02/20 | ||||
| 2014/02/21 |
Summarized results of real-time PCR-positive samples (FEC, combined-sedimentation-flotation, larval culture** and Ct-value)
| Sample-No. | FEC | Combined-sedimentation-flotation* | Larval culture Cyathostominae** | Larval culture | Ct |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21 | 20 | + | 16 | 3 | 27.58 |
| 144a | 20 | + | 5 | 4 | 24.94 |
| 235 | 1040 | +++ | --- | --- | 33.49 |
| 318 | 100 | + | 533 | 0 | 26.90 |
| 334 | 900 | +++ | 1256 | 0 | 35.81 |
| 355 | --- | ++ | --- | --- | 27.67 |
| 375 | 40 | + | 28 | 0 | 35.99 |
| 412 | 1720 | +++ | 103 | 0 | 23.40 |
| 448b | 20 | + | 34 | 0 | 36.95 |
| 451c | 20 | + | 57 | 0 | 35.07 |
| 460 | 200 | ++ | 535 | 0 | 35.75 |
| 497 | 480 | +++ | 1111 | 3 | 29.87 |
| 520 | 680 | +++ | 3028 | 1 | 34.97 |
FEC = faecal egg count; Ct = cycle threshold
* + = sporadic eggs; ++ = numerous; +++ = plentiful
** Number of larvae of Cyathostominae or S. vulgaris /10 g faeces
--- diagnostic method not performed
afollow-up examination of sample-No. 21, 2013/09/16
bsample-No. 375, 2014/02/12 and
csample-No: 375, 2014/02/15
Comparison of results of larval culture and real-time PCR
| PCR – | PCR + | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Larval culture – | 310 | 7 | 317 |
| Larval culture + | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| Total | 310 | 11 | 321 |
κ-value: 0.525; 95% confidence interval: [0.219–0.831]; McNemar’s test: p-value = 0.016