| Literature DB >> 29769131 |
Xu Wang1, Jiayu Liu1, Qingqiu Zuo1, Zhiqiang Mu1, Xiaodong Weng1, Xiaohui Sun1, Junyao Wang1, Belgees Boufana2, Philip S Craig3, Patrick Giraudoux4, Francis Raoul4, Zhenghuan Wang5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The eastern part of the Tibetan Plateau is now recognized as an endemic region with the highest reported human infection rates in the world of human alveolar echinococcosis (AE) caused by Echinococcus multilocularis. Existing epidemiological studies on AE have mainly focused on the synanthropic environment, while basic parasitological and ecological aspects in wildlife host species remain largely unknown, especially for small mammal hosts. Therefore, we examined small mammal host species composition, occurrence, and the prevalence of both E. multilocularis and E. shiquicus in Shiqu County (Sichuan Province, China), eastern Tibetan Plateau.Entities:
Keywords: E. shiquicus; Echinococcus multilocularis; Prevalence; Small mammal; Tibetan Plateau
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29769131 PMCID: PMC5956848 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-018-2873-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Primer sequences, lengths of PCR amplicons and annealing temperatures
| Primers | Original code | Species | Target genes | Primer sequences | Amplicon length (bp) | Annealing temperature (°C) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CO1JP2 | COIF | Taeniidae gen. sp. | TTGAATTTGCCACGTTTGAATGC | 875 | 52 | [ | |
| COIR | GAACCTAACGACATAACATAATGA | ||||||
| ND1Em | EmF19/3 |
| TAGTTGTTGATGAAGCTTGTTG | 207 | 53 | [ | |
| EmR6/1 | ATCAACCATGAAAACACATATACAAC | ||||||
| ND1Es | EsF50 |
| TTATTCTCAGTCTCGTAAGGGTCCG | 442 | 60 | [ | |
| EsR73 | CAATAACCAACTACATCAATAATT | ||||||
| ND1Eg | Eg1F81 |
| GTTTTTGGCTGCCGCCAGAAC | 226 | 62 | [ | |
| Eg1R83 | AATTAATGGAAATAATAACAAACTTAATCAACAAT |
Statistics of species, gender, and anatomy of captured rodents
| Species ( | No. captured in different quadrats ( | Sex ( | Lesionsa | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. 1 | No. 2 | No. 3 | No. 4 | Male | Female | Unknown | ||
| 1 | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | |
| – | 2 | 7 | 7 | 9 | 7 | – | – | |
| – | - | 1 | 5 | 3 | 3 | – | – | |
| – | 9 | 20 | 15 | 18 | 26 | – | 6 | |
| – | 14 | 43 | 87 | 74 | 68 | 2b | 19 (4) | |
| 65 | 70 | – | – | 58 | 77 | – | 37 (1) | |
| Total ( | 66 | 95 | 71 | 114 | 162 | 182 | 2 | 62 |
Abbreviation: n number of individuals
aThe number of individuals with distinct pathological features/lesions (number of individuals with Echinococcus protoscoleces)
bCarcasses were partly damaged by raptors
Prevalence (%) of Echinococcus spp. in each small mammal species (no. of infected individuals detected/ total no. individuals, 95% confidence intervals as percentage)
| Species |
|
| Overall | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conservative prevalence | Maximum prevalence | Conservative prevalence | Maximum prevalence | Conservative prevalence | Maximum prevalence | |
|
| 0 (0/1) | 0 (0/1) | 0 (0/1) | – (1/1) | 0 (0/1) | – (1/1) |
|
| 0 (0/16) | 0 (0/16) | 0 (0/16) | 6.3 (1/16; 0–18.1) | 0 (0/16) | 6.3 (1/16; 0–18.1) |
|
| 0 (0/6) | 0 (0/6) | 0 (0/6) | 0 (0/6) | 0 (0/6) | 0 (0/6) |
|
| 9.1 (4/44; 0–19.7)a | 11.4 (5/44; 2.0–20.7)c | 6.8 (3/44; 0–14.3) | 11.4 (5/44; 2.0–20.7)e | 15.9 (7/44; 5.1–26.7)f | 22.7 (10/44; 10.3–35.1)h |
|
| 7.6 (11/144; 3.3–12.0)b | 11.1 (16/144; 6.0–16.2)d | 0.7 (1/144; 0–2.1) | 1.4(2/144; 0–3.3)e | 8.3 (12/144; 3.8–12.9)g | 12.5 (18/144; 7.1–17.9)i |
|
| 0 (0/135)a,b | 1.5 (2/135; 0–3.5)c,d | 0.7 (1/135; 0–2.2) | 3.7 (5/135; 0.5–6.9) | 0.7 (1/135; 0–2.2)f,g | 5.2 (7/135; 1.4–8.9)h,i |
| Total | 4.3 (15/346; 2.2–6.5) | 6.7 (23/346; 4.0–9.3) | 1.5 (5/346; 0.2–2.7) | 4.1 (14 /346; 2.0–6.1) | 5.8 (20/346; 3.3–8.2) | 10.7 (37/346; 7.4–14.0) |
Statistical results for C. longicaudatus, P. leucurus and N. irene are not provided due to small sample sizes
aSignificant differences detected between M. limnophilus and O. curzoniae (χ2 = 8.737, df = 1, P = 0.003)
bSignificant differences detected between L. fuscus and O. curzoniae (χ2 = 8.814, df = 1, P = 0.003)
cSignificant differences detected between M. limnophilus and O. curzoniae (χ2 = 6.195, df = 1, P = 0.013)
dSignificant differences detected between L. fuscus and O. curzoniae (χ2 = 9.169, df = 1, P = 0.002)
eSignificant differences detected between M. limnophilus and L. fuscus (χ2 = 6.7785, df = 1, P = 0.009)
fSignificant differences detected between M. limnophilus and O. curzoniae (χ2 = 14.506, df = 1, P < 0.001)
gSignificant differences detected between L. fuscus and O. curzoniae (χ2 = 7.414, df = 1, P = 0.006)
hSignificant differences detected between M. limnophilus and O. curzoniae (χ2 = 9.927, df = 1, P = 0.002)
iSignificant differences detected between L. fuscus and O. curzoniae (χ2 = 3.718, df = 1, P = 0.05)
Variables of host body condition influencing the general maximum prevalence of Echinococcus species as revealed by the best logistic regression model
| Log odds of significant variables ± SE | Model evaluation | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relative body weight | Relative head-body length | Lesionsa | AICc | Generalized | ||
| 1 | 2 | Best model | Null model | |||
| -16.010 ± 4.558 | 19.134 ± 8.521 | -21.982 | -0.556 | 49.677 | 108.473 | 0.572 |
aCategorical data, no SE presented
Abbreviations: 0, individuals without visible lesions; 1, individuals with atypical lesions; 2, individuals with typical lesions; SE standard error
Fig. 1Network of 33 Echinococcus multilocularis cox1 gene haplotypes collected from samples in this study. The size of the circle represents the number of species of hosts with the E. multilocularis gene haplotype (Hap06 isolated from six species including humans, dogs, Tibetan foxes, two species of voles and plateau pikas, while each of the other haplotypes has only one host species, see Additional file 1: Table S1 for details). The distance between the circle centers shows the variation between two haplotypes (i.e. 1 bp mutation between Hap06 and Hap36)
Fig. 2Phylogenetic tree comparing the geographical distribution between mtDNA cox1 gene haplotypes of Echinococcus multilocularis. The Bayesian phylogenetic analysis was used by setting the “TIM3+I” substitution model, 2,000,000-generation MCMC posterior probability estimation with a 1000-generation sampling interval, and discarding the first 25% samples when summing up trees