| Literature DB >> 28705255 |
Angela Monica Ionică1, Ioana Adriana Matei2, Gianluca D'Amico2, Jana Ababii2, Aikaterini Alexandra Daskalaki2, Attila D Sándor2, Dorin Valter Enache3, Călin Mircea Gherman2, Andrei Daniel Mihalca2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Filarioids are vector-borne parasitic nematodes of vertebrates. In Europe, eight species of filarioids, including zoonotic species, have been reported mainly in domestic dogs, and occasionally in wild carnivores. In Romania, infections with Dirofilaria spp. and Acanthocheilonema reconditum are endemic in domestic dogs. Despite the abundant populations of wild carnivores in the country, their role in the epidemiology of filarioid parasites remains largely unknown. The aim of the present study was to assess the host range, prevalence and distribution of filarioid infections in wild carnivores present in Romania.Entities:
Keywords: Acanthocheilonema reconditum; Dirofilaria spp.; Infection; Romania; Wild carnivores
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28705255 PMCID: PMC5508779 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-017-2269-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Animal species examined in the present study and molecular screening results
| Family | Species |
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 95% CI |
| 95% CI |
| 95% CI | |||
| Canidae |
| 305 | 1 (0.33) | 0.06–1.83 | 2 (0.66) | 0.18–2.36 | 1 (0.33) | 0.06–1.83 |
|
| 66 | 5 (7.58) | 2.51–16.80 | 2 (3.03) | 0.37–10.52 | 0 | – | |
|
| 14 | 0 | – | 1 (7.14) | 0.18–33.87 | 0 | – | |
| Felidae |
| 10 | 1 (10) | 0.25–44.50 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
|
| 4 | 0 | – | 0 | – | 0 | – | |
| Mustelidae |
| 7 | 0 | – | 0 | – | 0 | – |
|
| 5 | 0 | – | 0 | – | 0 | – | |
|
| 4 | 0 | – | 0 | – | 0 | – | |
|
| 3 | 0 | – | 0 | – | 0 | – | |
|
| 3 | 0 | – | 0 | – | 0 | – | |
|
| 3 | 0 | – | 1 (33.33) | 0.84–90.57 | 0 | – | |
|
| 4 | 0 | – | 0 | – | 0 | – | |
|
| 1 | 0 | – | 0 | – | 0 | – | |
| Ursidae |
| 3 | 0 | – | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| Total | 432 | 7 (1.62) | 0.79–3.31 | 6 (1.39) | 0.64–3.00 | 1 (0.23) | 0.25–44.50 | |
Dirofilaria immitis-positive animals
| Host species | Necropsy ( | PCR result | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | Age | Males | Females | ||
|
| Female | Adult | 2 | 5 | Positive |
| Female | Adult | 2 | 3 | Positive | |
| Male | Adult | 1 | 0 | Negative | |
| Female | Juvenile | 1 | 1 | Negative | |
| Female | Adult | 2 | 0 | Negative | |
| Female | Adult | 1 | 2 | Positive | |
| Male | Adult | 0 | 1 | Negative | |
| Male | Adult | 1 | 1 | Positive | |
| Female | Adult | 1 | 3 | Positive | |
| Male | Juvenile | 1 | 2 | Negative | |
|
| Female | Juvenile | 1 | 2 | Negative |
|
| Male | Adult | na | Positive | |
|
| Female | Adult | na | Positive | |
Abbreviation: na necropsy not performed, spleen sample collected directly in the field
Fig. 1Geographical origin of the samples examined in the country
An overview of diagnosed filarioid infections in wild carnivore species from Europe
| Host species | Country |
|
|
| Reference | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prevalence in % (method) | Patencya | Prevalence in % (method) | Patency (%)a | Prevalence in % (method) | Patency (%)a | |||
|
| Bulgaria | 5.1 (necropsy) | not assessed | – | – | – | – | [ |
| 3.0 (necropsy) | not assessed | – | – | – | – | [ | ||
| 25.22 (necropsy) | not assessed | – | – | – | – | [ | ||
| Serbia | 1.55 (necropsy) | not assessed | – | – | – | – | [ | |
| – | – | 2.77 (necropsy) | not assessed | – | – | [ | ||
| Hungary | 3.7 (necropsy) | 0 | – | – | – | – | [ | |
| Italy | 9.56 (necropsy) | 0.38 | 1.14 (smears) | 1.14 | 10.89 (smears) | 10.89 | [ | |
| 6.06 (necropsy) | 1.51 | 0.75 (smears, PCR) | 0.75 | 9.09 (smears, PCR) | 9.09 | [ | ||
| Spain | 12.7 (necropsy) | not assessed | – | – | – | – | [ | |
| 0.4 (necropsy) | not assessed | – | – | – | – | [ | ||
| Romania | 0.33 (PCR: spleen) | not assessed | 0.66 (PCR: spleen) | not assessed | 0.33 (PCR: spleen) | not assessed | Present study | |
|
| Bulgaria | 4.4 (necropsy) | not assessed | – | – | – | – | [ |
| 8.9 (necropsy) | not assessed | – | – | – | – | [ | ||
| 37.54 (necropsy) | not assessed | – | – | – | – | [ | ||
| Serbia | 7.32 (necropsy) | not assessed | – | – | – | – | [ | |
| Hungary | 7.4 (necropsy) | 0 | – | – | – | – | [ | |
| Romania | 18.52 (necropsy); 9.26 (PCR: blood) | not assessed | 1.85 (PCR: blood) | not assessed | 0 (PCR: blood) | not assessed | [ | |
| 15.15 (necropsy); 7.58 (PCR: spleen) | not assessed | 3.03 (PCR: spleen) | not assessed | 0 (PCR: spleen) | not assessed | Present study | ||
|
| Bulgaria | 5.5 (necropsy) | not assessed | – | – | – | – | [ |
| Serbia | 1.43 (necropsy) | not assessed | – | – | – | – | [ | |
| – | – | 1.63 (necropsy) | not assessed | – | – | [ | ||
| Macedonia | – | – | 10.0 (necropsy) | not assessed | – | – | [ | |
| Italy | 1 case (necropsy) | not assessed | – | – | – | – | [ | |
| Spain | 2.1 (necropsy) | not assessed | – | – | – | – | [ | |
| Romania | 0 (PCR: spleen) | not assessed | 7.14 (PCR: spleen) | not assessed | 0 (PCR: spleen) | not assessed | Present study | |
|
| Serbia | 7.69 (necropsy) | not assessed | – | – | – | – | [ |
| Romania | 10 (PCR: spleen) | not assessed | 0 (PCR: spleen) | not assessed | 0 (PCR: spleen) | not assessed | Present study | |
|
| Portugal | 1 case (necropsy) | not assessed | – | – | – | – | [ |
| Romania | 16.67 (necropsy); 0 (PCR: spleen) | not assessed | 0 (PCR: spleen) | not assessed | 0 (PCR: spleen) | not assessed | Present study | |
|
| Slovakia | 0 (PCR: spleen) | not assessed | 33.3 (PCR: spleen) | not assessed | 0 (PCR: spleen) | not assessed | [ |
|
| Romania | 0 (PCR: spleen) | not assessed | 33.3 (PCR: spleen) | not assessed | 0 (PCR: spleen) | not assessed | Present study |
aAssessed by microscopical visualization of microfilariae