| Literature DB >> 31360634 |
Víctor Hugo Jarquín-Díaz1,2, Alice Balard1,2, Jenny Jost1, Julia Kraft1, Mert Naci Dikmen1, Jana Kvičerová3, Emanuel Heitlinger1,2.
Abstract
Detection and quantification of coccidia in studies of wildlife can be challenging. Therefore, prevalence of coccidia is often not assessed at the parasite species level in non-livestock animals. Parasite species - specific prevalences are especially important when studying evolutionary questions in wild populations. We tested whether increased host population density increases prevalence of individual Eimeria species at the farm level, as predicted by epidemiological theory. We studied free-living commensal populations of the house mouse (Mus musculus) in Germany, and established a strategy to detect and quantify Eimeria infections. We show that a novel diagnostic primer targeting the apicoplast genome (Ap5) and coprological assessment after flotation provide complementary detection results increasing sensitivity. Genotyping PCRs confirm detection in a subset of samples and cross-validation of different PCR markers does not indicate bias towards a particular parasite species in genotyping. We were able to detect double infections and to determine the preferred niche of each parasite species along the distal-proximal axis of the intestine. Parasite genotyping from tissue samples provides additional indication for the absence of species bias in genotyping amplifications. Three Eimeria species were found infecting house mice at different prevalences: Eimeria ferrisi (16.7%; 95% CI 13.2-20.7), E. falciformis (4.2%; 95% CI 2.6-6.8) and E. vermiformis (1.9%; 95% CI 0.9-3.8). We also find that mice in dense populations are more likely to be infected with E. falciformis and E. ferrisi. We provide methods for the assessment of prevalences of coccidia at the species level in rodent systems. We show and discuss how such data can help to test hypotheses in ecology, evolution and epidemiology on a species level.Entities:
Keywords: Coccidia; Diagnostic PCR; Eimeria; House mice; Species-specific prevalence; qPCR
Year: 2019 PMID: 31360634 PMCID: PMC6637263 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijppaw.2019.07.004
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Parasitol Parasites Wildl ISSN: 2213-2244 Impact factor: 2.674
Fig. 1Geographical localization of house mice (. A) Localization from the 378 mice included in the present study, colors indicate the Eimeria species identified for each. B) Venn diagram showing the overlap between detection methods and successful genotyping identification of the isolates. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
Fig. 2Phylogenetic trees based on 18S rRNA and COI sequences. Sequences of 18S A) and COI B) were used to infer the molecular identification of wild-derived isolates of Eimeria. In both phylogenies, our isolates clustered in three groups one close to E. falciformis (red), other close to E. ferrisi (green) and finally one to E. vermiformis (yellow). Numbers in the branches represent the Bayesian posterior probability and the non-parametric bootstrap value. In bold are indicate the reference sequences for each species. CE and IL make reference to sequence derived from cecum or ileum tissue DNA, respectively. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
Morphological and morphometrical characteristics from Eimeria wild-derived isolates and reference morphotypesa.
| Species | Oocysts | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shape | Wall | Micropyle | Polar granule | Residuum | Lenght (μm) | Width (μm) | L/W ratio | |
| Spherical/Ellipsoidal | Smooth | Absent | Present | Absent | 18.62 (15.29–20.76) | 15.92 (13.89–17.6) | 1.17 (1.00–1.36) | |
| Ovoid/Spherical | Smooth | Absent | Present | Absent/Present | 21 (15–26) | 18 (13–24) | 1.17 (1.1–1.2) | |
| Spherical/Ellipsoidal | Smooth | Absent | Present | Absent | 17.32 (13.59–21.47) | 14 (10.97–17.44) | 1.23 (1.02–1.56) | |
| Ellipsoidal/Subspherical | Smooth | Absent | Present | Absent | 17 (12–22) | 14 (11–18) | 1.22 (1.0–1.6) | |
| Spherical/Ellipsoidal | Smooth | Absent | Present | Absent | 20.02 (16.22–22.8) | 15.57 (12.37–18.44) | 1.29 (0.99–1.45) | |
| Spherical/Ellipsoidal | Lightly pitted | Absent | Present | Absent | 23.1 (18–26) | 18.4 (15–21) | 1.25 (1.1–1.4) | |
|
| ||||||||
| Species | Sporocysts | Tissue localization | Reference | |||||
| Residuum | Refractile body | Stieda body | Lenght (μm) | Width (μm) | ||||
| Present | Present | Present | 8.88 (7.03–10.30) | 5.52 (4.16–6.93) | Cecum | This work | ||
| Present | Present | Present | 11 (10–12) | 7 (6–8) | Ileum, cecum and colon | |||
| Present | Present | Present | 7.75 (5.17–11.47) | 5.03 (2.88–7.73) | Cecum | This work | ||
| Absent/Present | Present | Present | 10.5 (10–11) | 5.5 (5–6) | ||||
| Present | Present | Present | 8.35 (6.18–11.29) | 5.43 (4.19–7.00) | Cecum and ileum | This work | ||
| Present | Present | Present | 12.8 (11–14) | 7.9 (6–10) | Jejunum, ileum and cecum | |||
Measurements are means in micrometers with ranges in parenthesis.
Observed in more than 80% of the oocysts.
Present but not evident.
Fig. 3Morphological and morphometrical characteristics of . a) Photomicrographs at 1000x amplification of Eimeria oocyst from the three species isolated from Mus musculus (red = E. falciformis; green = E. ferrisi and yellow = E. vermiformis). Length/Width ratio from b) oocyst and c) sporocysts corresponding to each species (E. falciformis n = 31; E. ferrisi n = 127 and E. vermiformis n = 35). Mean±95% Confidence Interval is plotted. * Represent significant difference (Tukey HSD, p < 0.05). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
Fig. 4qPCR detection of intracellular stages of . -Delta Ct value (CtEimeria - CtMouse) from each tissue for 164 mice are plotted on the graph. The dotted line indicate the threshold of −5, values above the line are considered positive for the corresponding tissue. Circles represent negative samples, triangles indicate samples with Eimeria species identification and colors correspond to the Eimeria species identified in those samples. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
Statistical models used to analyse primer preference to different Eimeria species.
| Predictors | Model 1 (Cocci_COI) | Model 2 (Cocci_COI + Eim_COI) | Model 3 (18S_EF/R) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | −5.80 *** | −1.55 | −1.40 |
| (1.11) | (1.27) | (0.87) | |
| Ap5 | 3.50 *** | 3.99 *** | 0.78 |
| (0.59) | (0.60) | (0.62) | |
| Flotation | 1.64 ** | 2.15 *** | 1.59 ** |
| (0.52) | (0.54) | (0.51) | |
| Identification E. ferrisi (other marker) | 5.10 *** | 0.28 | 0.32 |
| (1.14) | (1.35) | (0.63) | |
| Identification E. vermiformis (other marker) | 17.23 | 11.98 | 1.71 |
| (1385.38) | (1385.38) | (1.33) | |
| No identification (other marker) | 0.97 | −3.57 ** | −3.44 *** |
| (0.92) | (1.23) | (0.87) | |
| Identification Eimeria spp. (COI) | −14.80 | ||
| (1455.40) | |||
| N | 378 | 378 | 378 |
| AIC | 128.09 | 119.18 | 143.39 |
| BIC | 151.70 | 142.79 | 170.93 |
| Pseudo R2 | 0.77 | 0.82 | 0.70 |
The upper number represents the estimate and numbers in brackets represent standard error for each predictor.
Intercept is Eimeria falciformis identification with other marker.
Other marker refers to 18S based identification for COI models or vice versa.
N (Total number of samples), AIC (Akaike information criterion), BIC (Bayesian information criterion).
***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.
Statistical models used to analyse factors influencing infection to different Eimeria species.
| Predictors | Model 1 (E. ferrisi infection) | Model 2 (E. falciformis infection) | Model 1 (E. vermiformis infection) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | −1.62 *** | −3.32 *** | −3.99 *** |
| (0.35) | (0.61) | (0.83) | |
| Total caught mice | 0.13 * | 0.18 * | 0.11 |
| (0.06) | (0.08) | (0.10) | |
| 0.92 | 0.29 | ||
| (0.70) | (1.06) | ||
| 0.92 | 1.60 | ||
| (0.69) | (0.92) | ||
| 1.61 | 0.41 | ||
| (0.91) | (1.03) | ||
| N | 104 | 104 | 104 |
| AIC | 120.99 | 71.61 | 52.03 |
| BIC | 131.57 | 82.18 | 62.61 |
| Pseudo R2 | 0.18 | 0.19 | 0.17 |
The upper number represents the estimate and numbers in brackets represent standard error for each predictor.
N (Total number of samples), AIC (Akaike information criterion), BIC (Bayesian information criterion).
***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.