Literature DB >> 28905712

Evaluation of Traditional and Contemporary Methods for Detecting Syphacia obvelata and Aspiculuris tetraptera in Laboratory Mice.

Philip M Gerwin1, Rodolfo J Ricart Arbona2, Elyn R Riedel3, Michelle L Lepherd4, Ken S Henderson5, Neil S Lipman2.   

Abstract

There is no consensus regarding the best practice for detecting murine pinworm infections. Initially, we evaluated 7 fecal concentration methods by using feces containing Aspiculuris tetraptera (AT) eggs (n = 20 samples per method). Sodium nitrate flotation, sodium nitrate centrifugation, Sheather sugar centrifugation, and zinc sulfate centrifugation detected eggs in 100% of samples; zinc sulfate flotation and water sedimentation detected eggs in 90%. All had better detection rates than Sheather sugar flotation (50%). To determine optimal detection methods, Swiss Webster mice were exposed to Syphacia obvelata (SO; n = 60) or AT (n = 60). We compared the following methods at days 0, 30, and 90, beginning 21 or 28 d after SO and AT exposure, respectively: fecal concentration (AT only), anal tape test (SO only), direct examination of intestinal contents (cecum and colon), Swiss roll histology (cecum and colon), and PCR analysis (pooled fur swab and feces). Detection rates for SO-exposed mice were: PCR analysis, 45%; Swiss roll histology, 30%; intestinal content exam, 27%; and tape test, 27%. The SO detection rate for PCR analysis was significantly greater than that for the tape test. Detection rates for AT-exposed mice were: intestinal content exam, 53%; PCR analysis, 33%; fecal flotation, 22%; and Swiss roll histology, 17%. The AT detection rate of PCR analysis combined with intestinal content examination was greater than for PCR analysis only and the AT detection rate of intestinal content examination was greater than for Swiss roll histology. Combining PCR analysis with intestinal content examination detected 100% of infected animals. No single test detected all positive animals. We recommend combining PCR analysis with intestinal content examination for optimal pinworm detection.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28905712      PMCID: PMC5250492     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci        ISSN: 1559-6109            Impact factor:   1.232


  50 in total

1.  Comparison between patterns of pinworm infection (Aspiculuris tetraptera) in wild and laboratory strains of mice, Mus musculus.

Authors:  J M Derothe; C Loubès; A Orth; F Renaud; C Moulia
Journal:  Int J Parasitol       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 3.981

2.  The effect of the standard pinworm chemotherapeutic agents on the mouse pinworm Aspiculuris tetraptera.

Authors:  K Y N HSIEH
Journal:  Am J Hyg       Date:  1952-11

3.  Comparison of methods for detection of pinworms in mice and rats.

Authors:  J Camille Effler; Judy M Hickman-Davis; Julie G Erwin; Samuel C Cartner; Trenton R Schoeb
Journal:  Lab Anim (NY)       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 12.625

4.  The effect of infection with the pinworm (Syphacia muris) on rat growth.

Authors:  M Wagner
Journal:  Lab Anim Sci       Date:  1988-08

5.  Aspiculuris tetraptera in wild Mus musculus. Age resistance and acquired immunity.

Authors:  J M Behnke
Journal:  J Helminthol       Date:  1976-09       Impact factor: 2.170

Review 6.  Pinworm infections in laboratory rodents: a review.

Authors:  L F Taffs
Journal:  Lab Anim       Date:  1976-01       Impact factor: 2.471

7.  Diagnosis of ecto- and endoparasites in laboratory rats and mice.

Authors:  Christina M Parkinson; Alexandra O'Brien; Theresa M Albers; Meredith A Simon; Charles B Clifford; Kathleen R Pritchett-Corning
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2011-09-06       Impact factor: 1.355

8.  Effects of Syphacia muris and the anthelmintic fenbendazole on the microsomal monooxygenase system in mouse liver.

Authors:  G Mohn; E M Philipp
Journal:  Lab Anim       Date:  1981-04       Impact factor: 2.471

9.  Sensitivity of perianal tape impressions to diagnose pinworm (Syphacia spp.) infections in rats (Rattus norvegicus) and mice (Mus musculus).

Authors:  William Allen Hill; Mildred M Randolph; Timothy D Mandrell
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 1.232

10.  Effect of Cage-Wash Temperature on the Removal of Infectious Agents from Caging and the Detection of Infectious Agents on the Filters of Animal Bedding-Disposal Cabinets by PCR Analysis.

Authors:  Susan R Compton; James D Macy
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 1.232

View more
  6 in total

1.  PCR Testing of IVC Filter Tops as a Method for Detecting Murine Pinworms and Fur Mites.

Authors:  Philip M Gerwin; Rodolfo J Ricart Arbona; Elyn R Riedel; Kenneth S Henderson; Neil S Lipman
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2017-11-01       Impact factor: 1.232

2.  PCR and RT-PCR in the Diagnosis of Laboratory Animal Infections and in Health Monitoring.

Authors:  Susan R Compton
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2020-06-24       Impact factor: 1.232

3.  An Update on the Biologic Effects of Fenbendazole.

Authors:  Carolyn Cray; Norman H Altman
Journal:  Comp Med       Date:  2022-06-28       Impact factor: 1.565

4.  Comparison of Diagnostic Methods and Sampling Sites for the Detection of Demodex musculi.

Authors:  Melissa A Nashat; Rodolfo J Ricart Arbona; Elyn R Riedel; Olga Francino; Lluis Ferrer; Kerith R Luchins; Neil S Lipman
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 1.232

5.  Comparing Mouse Health Monitoring Between Soiled-bedding Sentinel and Exhaust Air Dust Surveillance Programs.

Authors:  Darya Mailhiot; Allison M Ostdiek; Kerith R Luchins; Chago J Bowers; Betty R Theriault; George P Langan
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2019-12-20       Impact factor: 1.232

6.  Standardization of an LNA-based TaqMan assay qPCR analysis for Aspiculuris tetraptera DNA in mouse faeces.

Authors:  Keishiro Isayama; Kenji Watanabe; Mariko Okamoto; Tomoaki Murata; Yoichi Mizukami
Journal:  BMC Microbiol       Date:  2020-12-07       Impact factor: 3.605

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.