| Literature DB >> 30055657 |
Jacek Karamon1, Joanna Dąbrowska2, Maciej Kochanowski2, Małgorzata Samorek-Pieróg2, Jacek Sroka2, Mirosław Różycki2, Ewa Bilska-Zając2, Jolanta Zdybel2, Tomasz Cencek2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The red fox (Vulpes vulpes) is widely distributed in the world; in central Europe, it is the most numerous wild species of the family Canidae. It can play the role of a definitive host for many intestinal parasites, including zoonotic helminths. Poland, with its geographical location (central Europe), is an interesting area for parasitological investigations of this species. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the prevalence of intestinal helminths in red foxes in different regions of Poland.Entities:
Keywords: Alaria alata; Echinococcus multilocularis; Helminths; Hookworms; Mesocestoides; Poland; Red fox; Taenia; Toxocara
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30055657 PMCID: PMC6064108 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-018-3021-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Fig. 1Distribution of the red foxes used in the investigation. Number of foxes obtained in individual districts (smaller administrative unit, parts of Polish provinces) were schematically presented by wheels in different sizes. Regions: N, North (blue); NoE, North-East (yellow); SoE, South-East (red); SoW, South-West (green)
Prevalence of helminths in red foxes in different regions of Poland (estimated using SCT)
| Species | Prevalence of parasites (%) (95% CI) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall (all regions) | South-East | North | North-East | South-West | |
|
| 61.5 | 24.7a | 96.5b | 93.7b | 15.2a |
|
| 25.6 | 39.3a | 0.9b | 42.7a | 0b |
| 42.5 | 38.0 | 50.0 | 44.8 | 34.8 | |
| 84.1 | 92.0a | 81.6b | 81.1b | 77.3b | |
| 49.5 | 44.7 | 43.0 | 59.4 | 50.0 | |
| Hookworms | 67.9 | 64.7 | 70.2 | 69.9 | 66.7 |
|
| 2.3 | 1.3 | 4.4 | 2.8 | na |
| Overall (all parasites) | 98.9 | 98.7 | 99.1 | 99.3 | 98.4 |
a,bDifferent letters in superscript indicate statistically significant differences in the prevalence of the parasites among regions (P < 0.05)
Abbreviation: na not applicable, CI confidence interval
Fig. 2Distribution of the prevalence of co-infections. The total number of red foxes is 473
Intensity of helminth infections in red foxes in different regions of Poland estimated using SCT
| Species | Overall (all regions) | South-East | North | North-East | South-West | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Mean | 91.3 | 12.2a | 94.4b | 59.7c | 15.1a,b |
| Range | 1–2540 | 1–110 | 1–2540 | 2–986 | 1–47 | |
| CV (%) | 205.4 | 177.9 | 268.1 | 250.5 | 94.3 | |
|
| Mean | 4473.8 | 7215.0 | 9.0 | 1850.8 | – |
| Range | 1–260,000 | 1–260,000 | – | 1–26,737 | – | |
| CV (%) | 584.9 | 511.4 | – | 280.8 | – | |
| Mean | 10.3 | 11.7 | 7.1 | 11.2 | 12.3 | |
| Range | 1–200 | 1–200 | 1–42 | 1–98 | 1–56 | |
| CV (%) | 181.9 | 230.4 | 139.7 | 154.7 | 122.6 | |
| Mean | 112.9 | 138.2 | 87.4 | 103.7 | 110.0 | |
| Range | 1–2880 | 1–1500 | 1–1048 | 1–2880 | 1–840 | |
| CV (%) | 204.2 | 167.9 | 168.5 | 294.2 | 156.8 | |
| Mean | 5.0 | 5.2 | 3.2 | 5.5 | 5.8 | |
| Range | 1–40 | 1–40 | 1–22 | 1–35 | 1–28 | |
| CV (%) | 117.0 | 111.7 | 103.7 | 128.2 | 124.7 | |
| Hookworms | Mean | 9.7 | 8.4a | 14.3b | 7.0a | 10.2a,b |
| Range | 1–103 | 1–103 | 1–49 | 1–39 | 1–52 | |
| CV (%) | 145.0 | 185.2 | 124.9 | 125.5 | 112.3 | |
|
| Mean | 1.2 | 1.5 | 1 | 1.3 | na |
| Range | 1–2 | 1–2 | – | 1–2 | na | |
| CV (%) | 34.2 | 47.1 | – | 40.0 | na | |
a,b,cDifferent letters in superscript indicate statistically significant differences in parasite intensity among regions (P < 0.05)
Abbreviation: na not applicable, CV coefficient of variation
Results of faeces examination of red foxes in different regions of Poland
| Overall (all regions) | South-East | North | North-East | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trematoda | % Pos (95% CI) | 43.3 | 7.9 | 62.0 | 72.3 |
| EPG (CV%) | 917.4 | 37.3 | 754.0 | 1154.0 | |
| Taeniidae | % Pos (95% CI) | 11.3 | 14.3 | 2.2 | 15.2 |
| EPG (CV%) | 800.0 | 1244.3 | 115.0 | 331.8 | |
| % Pos (95% CI) | 3.5 | 2.1 | 6.5 | 2.7 | |
| EPG (CV%) | 668.8 | 1,400.0 | 599.0 | 69.0 | |
| % Pos (95% CI) | 25.0 | 20.0 | 22.8 | 33.0 | |
| EPG (CV%) | 321.9 | 344.4 | 341.9 | 289.4 | |
|
| % Pos (95% CI) | 5.2 | 8.6 | 0.0 | 5.4 |
| EPG (CV%) | 348.2 | 527.0 | – | 199.2 | |
| Hookworms | % Pos (95% CI) | 15.4 | 10.0 | 30.4 | 9.8 |
| EPG (CV%) | 276.6 | 577.6 | 209.5 | 64.1 | |
|
| % Pos (95% CI) | 1.7 | 0.7 | 4.3 | 0.9 |
| EPG (CV%) | 128.1 | 88.3 | 90.0 | 400.0 | |
|
| % Pos (95% CI) | 76.2 | 65.7 | 84.8 | 82.1 |
| EPG (CV%) | 810.7 | 372.8 | 1,250.8 | 864.7 | |
| Coccidia | % Pos (95% CI) | 7.6 | 10. 0 | 4.3 | 7.1 |
| OPG (CV%) | 9785.6 | 17,283.6 | 271.5 | 1420.6 | |
aBecause of the lack of Capillaria worms in the intestines it should be classified as Eucoleus aerophilus (syn. Capillaria aerophila)
Abbreviations: % Pos. percentage of positive samples, EPG eggs per gram, OPG oocysts per gram, CV coefficient of variation, CI confidence interval
Prevalence (%) of helminths in red foxes in different regions of Poland: comparison of SCT and flotation results
| Region | Trematoda | Taeniidae | Hookworms |
| ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SCT | Flot. | SCT | Flot. | SCT | Flot. | SCT | Flot. | SCT | Flot. | SCT | Flot. | |
| Total ( | 67.2a | 43.3a | 57.3a | 11.3a | 82.8a | 3.5a | 43.0a | 29.9a | 67.7a | 15.4a | 2.9 | 1.7 |
| SoE ( | 24.3a | 7.9 a | 56.4a | 14.3a | 91.4a | 2.1a | 42.1a | 28.6a | 64.3a | 10.0a | 1.4 | 0.7 |
| N ( | 97.8a | 62.0a | 51.1a | 2.2a | 81.5a | 6.5a | 46.7a | 22.8a | 72.8a | 30.4a | 5.4 | 4.3 |
| NoE ( | 95.5a | 72.3a | 63.4a | 15.2a | 73.2a | 2.7a | 41.1a | 37.5a | 67.9a | 9.8a | 2.7 | 0.9 |
| | r |b | 0.984 | 0.857 | 0.175 | 0.888 | 0.903 | 0.962 | ||||||
aThere are significant differences between the prevalence estimated using SCT and flotation
bAbsolute value of the correlation factor concerning the results obtained in individual regions with both methods (SCT and flotation)
Abbreviations: SCT sedimentation and counting technique, Flot. flotation method, N North region, NoE North-East region, SoE South-East region