| Literature DB >> 31511050 |
Maike Lücht1,2, Julia Stagegaard3, Franz J Conraths4, Gereon Schares5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Toxoplasma gondii infections and cases of clinical toxoplasmosis have been recorded in zoo animals. Wild felids in human care can serve as definitive hosts that shed oocysts, but also as intermediate hosts for the parasite. Some felid species, such as the Pallas's cat (Otocolobus manul) or sand cat (Felis margarita), may suffer from clinically apparent toxoplasmosis. In the present study, our main aim was to assess risk factors for T. gondii infections in small exotic felids.Entities:
Keywords: Captive felids; Dipetalogaster maxima; Epidemiology; Felinae; Risk analysis; Risk factors; Serology; Toxoplasma gondii; Triatominae; Zoological gardens
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31511050 PMCID: PMC6737647 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-019-3706-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Fig. 1Blood sampling using reduviid bugs. a Dipetalogaster maxima, larval stage 5. b Blood aspiration from D. maxima using a 1.2 × 40 mm needle and a 3 ml syringe. Blood aspiration from the abdomen of the bug was performed from dorsal while holding the thorax of the bug. This approach facilitates the retrieval of the maximum amount of blood out of the bug. c Sample collection box used for D. maxima-based blood sampling. The box was built at the Ree-Park - Safari (Ebeltoft, Denmark). The drawer is equipped with a wire netting, stable enough to support the weight of a small felid and contains a little container (white in the picture). Two pieces of transversing cardboards were placed inside the bug-container allowing the bugs to climb upwards the host
Fig. 2Geographical distribution of participating zoos
Fig. 3Flow chart on data analysis to assess potential risk factors for Toxoplasma-seropositivity
Fig. 4Correlation of Toxoplasma gondii titer values in venous (V) and bug-derived plasma, in Dm0, immediate after sampling (a) and in Dm1, sampling one hour after the engorgement was completed (b). Spearmanʼs test, V vs Dm0: r = 0.952, P < 0.001; V vs Dm1: r = 0.954, P < 0.001; linear regression lines were drawn using Microsoft Excel 2010
Numbers and proportions of animals that had tested positive for antibodies to Toxoplasma gondii over the last five years in zoos
| Zoos that performed | Total no. of animals tested | Felids | Marsupials | Monkeys | Other | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total number | 25a | 129 | 62 | 11 | 17 | 39 |
| No. of animals with a positive test result | 15 | 83 | 28 | 5 | 15 | 35 |
| Proportion (%) | 60.0 | 64.3 | 45.2 | 45.5 | 88.2 | 89.7 |
aAn additional zoo reported the examination of 162 animals for T. gondii. Of these, 77 felids and 43 non-felid species tested positive. Because the report of this zoo lacked details, data could not be included in the table
Serological results for Toxoplasma gondii in wild felids in human care stratified by species
| Species | Total no. of samples | No. of positive samples (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Asian golden cat ( | 2 | 1 (50.0) |
| Black-footed cat ( | 15 | 4 (26.7) |
| Fishing cat ( | 40 | 22 (55.0) |
| Geoffroy’s cat ( | 33 | 16 (48.5) |
| Jaguarondi ( | 9 | 5 (55.6) |
| Margay ( | 19 | 9 (47.4) |
| Oncilla ( | 9 | 6 (66.7) |
| Pallas’ cat ( | 52 | 47 (90.4) |
| Rusty-spotted cat ( | 28 | 27 (96.4) |
| Sand cat ( | 87 | 47 (54.0) |
| Other ( | 17 | 12 (70.6) |
| Total ( | 311 | 196 (63.0) |
Abbreviation; n, number of zoos
Fig. 5Proportions of Toxoplasma gondii-serologically positive wild felids in human care stratified by age
Fixed effects in generalized linear mixed models to determine potential risk factors for Toxoplasma gondii-seropositivity in wild felids in human care. Data were analyzed by bivariable generalized linear mixed modelling including “Age” (years) as effect modifier and “Zoo” as random effects variable in modelling T. gondii-seropositivity. The Akaike information criterion (AIC) was used to characterize the relative model quality
| Category | Model (AIC, model fit) | Variable | Odds ratio (95% CI) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Individual risk factors | 1 (357.4) | (Intercept) | 0.523 (0.33–0.83) | − 2.718 | 0.0066** |
| Age | 1.219 (1.21–1.23) | 80.86 | < 0.001*** | ||
| 2 (354.8) | (Intercept) | 0.401 (0.19–0.86) | − 2.363 | 0.0181* | |
| Age | 1.218 (1.12–1.32) | 4.640 | < 0.001*** | ||
| Sex: female (ref.) | |||||
| Sex: male | 1.779 (1.01–3.15) | 1.976 | 0.0482* | ||
| Food-related risk factors | 3 (300.6) | (Intercept) | 1.309 (0.46–3.76) | 0.500 | 0.6171 |
| Age | 1.224 (1.12–1.34) | 4.278 | < 0.001*** | ||
| Mice: fresh (ref.) | |||||
| Mice: fresh/frozen | 0.240 (0.06–0.99) | − 1.975 | 0.0482* | ||
| Mice: frozen | 0.308 (0.08–1.13) | − 1.776 | 0.0757 | ||
| Mice: no | 0.407 (0.08–2.00) | − 1.109 | 0.2675 | ||
| 4 (301.4) | (Intercept) | 1.474 (0.40–5.44) | 0.582 | 0.5609 | |
| Age | 1.231 (1.12–1.35) | 4.325 | < 0.001*** | ||
| Rodents: fresh (ref.) | |||||
| Rodents: fresh/frozen | 0.277 (0.06–1.32) | − 1.614 | 0.1066 | ||
| Rodents: frozen | 0.250 (0.05–1.19) | − 1.746 | 0.0809 | ||
| Rodents: no | 0.445 (0.05–4.22) | − 0.705 | 0.4807 | ||
| 5 (296.6) | (Intercept) | 0.986 (0.25–3.97) | − 0.019 | 0.9845 | |
| Age | 1.232 (1.12–1.35) | 4.327 | < 0.001*** | ||
| Ruminants: fresh (ref.) | |||||
| Ruminants: fresh/frozen | 0.792 (0.14–4.60) | − 0.260 | 0.7947 | ||
| Ruminants: frozen | 0.158 (0.03–0.85) | − 2.146 | 0.0319* | ||
| Ruminants: no | 0.763 (0.17–3.43) | − 0.353 | 0.7242 | ||
| 6 (296.4) | (Intercept) | 1.157 (0.26–5.10) | 0.192 | 0.8478 | |
| Age | 1.232 (1.12–1.35) | 4.331 | < 0.001*** | ||
| Cattle: fresh (ref.) | |||||
| Cattle: fresh/frozen | 0.675 (0.11–4.23) | − 0.420 | 0.6744 | ||
| Cattle: frozen | 0.135 (0.02–0.80) | − 2.210 | 0.0271* | ||
| Cattle: no | 0.629 (0.13–3.07) | − 0.573 | 0.5667 | ||
| 7 (301.9) | (Intercept) | 1.725 (0.36–8.17) | 0.686 | 0.4925 | |
| Age | 1.222 (1.11–1.34) | 4.195 | < 0.001*** | ||
| Fowl: fresh (ref.) | |||||
| Fowl: fresh/frozen | 0.354 (0.07–1.92) | − 1.204 | 0.2285 | ||
| Fowl: frozen | 0.221 (0.04–1.13) | − 1.817 | 0.0693 | ||
| Fowl: no | 0.371 (0.02–5.62) | − 0.715 | 0.4746 | ||
| Breeding and housing-related risk factors | 8 (321.4) | (Intercept) | 0.188 (0.06–0.59) | − 2.859 | 0.0043** |
| Age | 1.229 (1.12–1.34) | 4.526 | < 0.001*** | ||
| Litters within 1 year-Null (ref.) | |||||
| Few litters (1–2) within 1 year | 3.767 (1.12–12.7) | 2.365 | 0.0180* | ||
| Many litters (≥ 3) within 1 year | 5.097 (1.32–19.7) | 2.138 | 0.0325* | ||
| 9 (324.4) | (Intercept) | 0.224 (0.06–0.81) | − 2.279 | 0.0227* | |
| Age | 1.222 (1.12–1.34) | 4.392 | < 0.001*** | ||
| Litters within 5 years: null (ref.) | |||||
| Few litters within 5 years, 1–9 | 2.311 (0.62–8.67) | 2.115 | 0.0345* | ||
| Many litters within 5 years, ≥ 10 | 4.191 (1.11–15.8) | 1.242 | 0.2143 | ||
| 10 (297.9) | (Intercept) | 0.662 (0.30–1.45) | − 1.031 | 0.3026 | |
| Age | 1.236 (1.12–1.36) | 4.364 | < 0.001*** | ||
| New World monkeys close by: no (ref.) | |||||
| New World monkeys close by: yes | 0.309 (0.08–1.16) | − 1.738 | 0.0822 | ||
| 11 (298.4) | (Intercept) | 1.568 (0.41–6.06) | 0.653 | 0.5140 | |
| Age | 1.216 (1.11–1.33) | 4.196 | < 0.001*** | ||
| Outdoor housing fenced in on all sides: no (ref.) | |||||
| Outdoor housing fenced in on all sides: yes | 0.297 (0.08–1.15) | − 1.759 | 0.0785 | ||
| 12 (291.5) | (Intercept) | 2.169 (0.61–7.68) | 1.177 | 0.2393 | |
| Age | 1.208 (1.10–1.32) | 4.247 | < 0.001*** | ||
| Mesh size > 5 cm (ref.) | |||||
| Mesh size < 2 cm | 0.511 (0.10–2.71) | − 0.969 | 0.3326 | ||
| Mesh size 2–5 cm | 0.204 (0.05–0.79) | − 2.416 | 0.0157* | ||
| Hygiene related risk factors | 13 (295.1) | (Intercept) | 0.862 (0.40–1.85) | − 0.379 | 0.7044 |
| Age | 1.225 (1.12–1.34) | 4.347 | < 0.001*** | ||
| Wearing gloves: no (ref.) | |||||
| Wearing gloves: yes | 0.286 (0.10–0.79) | − 2.429 | 0.0151* | ||
| General health related risk factors | 14 (248.5) | (Intercept) | 0.204 (0.07–0.61) | − 2.829 | 0.0047** |
| Age | 1.256 (1.13–1.40) | 4.196 | < 0.001*** | ||
| Rabies vaccination: no (ref.) | |||||
| Rabies vaccination: yes | 4.910 (1.35–17.8) | 2.417 | 0.01563* | ||
| 15 (175.8) | (Intercept) | 0.048 (0.00–0.68) | − 2.243 | 0.024903* | |
| Age | 1.307 (1.12–1.52) | 3.417 | 0.000633*** | ||
| Deworming interval (months) | 1.449 (0.98–2.14) | 1.876 | 0.060723 |
Abbreviation: ref., reference
* P ≤ 0.05, ** P ≤ 0.01, *** P ≤ 0.001
Summary of a factor analysis to assess the dependency of variables that revealed statistical significance in the bivariable generalized linear mixed modelling including “Age” (years) as effect modifier and “Zoo” as random effects variable in modeling Toxoplasma gondii-seropositivity in wild felids in human care (Table 3, detailed information in Additional file 7: Tables S6–S8)
| Factor analysis models (phase of analysis) | Factor | Not excluded from further analysis | Excluded from further analysis (reason for exclusion) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 (initial) | 1 | Feeding: mice | Feeding: rodents, Feeding: fowl (lower statistical significance in bivariable risk factor analysis than Feeding: mice) |
| 2 | Feeding: cattle | Feeding: ruminants (lower statistical significance in bivariable risk factor analysis than Feeding: cattle) | |
| 3 | Breeding: litters within 1 year | Breeding: litters within 5 years (lower statistical significance in bivariable risk factor analysis than Breeding: litters within 1 year) | |
| 4 | Housing: mesh size | General health: rabies vaccination (lower biological relevance than Housing: mesh size) | |
| Model 2 (subsequent) | 1 | Feeding: cattle | Breeding: litters within 1 year (lower biological relevance than Feeding: cattle) |
| Model 3 (subsequent) | 3 | Feeding: mice | Deworming interval: month (lower biological relevance than Feeding: mice) |
Notes: Variables with absolute loadings > 0.4 in factor analysis (Additional file 7: Tables S6-S8) were regarded as dependent. The initial model (Model 1) included all statistically significant variables in the bivariable analysis. The subsequent models (Models 2, 3) included only variables that were not excluded on the basis of the results obtained in the initial factor analysis model
Fig. 6Potential entry routes for Toxoplasma gondii in zoos and institutions keeping felids in human care
Fixed effects in the final optimized generalized linear mixed models to determine potential risk factors for T. gondii-seropositivity in wild felids in human care. Modeling was performed assuming random effects by the variable “Zoo”
| Model (AIC, model fit) | Category | Variable | Odds ratio (95% confidence interval) | z value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15 (276.8) | (Intercept) | 16.82 (2.36–120) | 2.818 | 0.005** | |
| Individual | Age | 1.232 (1.13–1.34) | 4.725 | < 0.001*** | |
| Food-related | Cattle: fresh (ref.) | ||||
| Cattle: fresh/frozen | 0.507 (0.14–1.85) | − 1.028 | 0.304 | ||
| Cattle: frozen | 0.143 (0.04–0.57) | − 2.756 | 0.006** | ||
| Cattle: no | 0.397 (0.12–1.37) | − 1.462 | 0.144 | ||
| Housing | Outdoor housing fenced in on all sides: no (ref.) | ||||
| Outdoor housing fenced in on all sides: yes | 0.261 (0.08–0.88) | − 2.166 | 0.030* | ||
| Housing | Mesh size more > 5 cm (ref.) | ||||
| Mesh size < 2 cm | 0.547 (0.14–2.20) | − 0.849 | 0.396 | ||
| Mesh size 2–5 cm | 0.317 (0.10–0.99) | − 1.982 | 0.047* | ||
| Hygiene | Wearing gloves: no (ref.) | ||||
| Wearing gloves: yes | 0.419 (0.20–0.90) | − 2.239 | 0.025* |
Notes: Optimization of modeling was started with a full model [including all variables with a statistically significant effect (P < 0.1) in an initial bivariable generalized linear mixed model always including “Age” (years) in addition to the variable in question and proven independent by factor analysis] (Table 4). The Akaike information criterion (AIC) was used to characterize relative model quality. The full model had an AIC of 283.2. Optimization of the full model was done by a stepwise elimination of those variables that, if removed, did not cause an increase of AIC
Abbreviations: ref., reference
* P ≤ 0.05, ** P ≤ 0.01, *** P < 0.001
Prevalence of Toxoplasma gondii in small cat species sampled in the present study compared with data from other studies
| Species | Test | No. of samples | Proportion of positive samples (%) | Location | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Geoffroy’s cat ( | IB + IFAT | 33 | 48.5 | Europe | Present study |
| Molecular/DNA | 22 | 27.3 | Brazil | [ | |
| ELISA | 8 | 25.0 | Bolivian Chaco | [ | |
| MAT | 12 | 83.3 | Brazil | [ | |
| IFAT | 1 | 0.00 | California, USA | [ | |
| MAT | 1 | 100.0 | Brazil | [ | |
| Jaguarundi ( | IB + IFAT | 9 | 55.6 | Europe | Present study |
| MAT | 2 | 50.0 | Mexico | [ | |
| IFAT | 25 | 40.0 | Brazil | [ | |
| Molecular/DNA | 22 | 40.9 | Brazil | [ | |
| ELISA | 1 | 100.0 | USA | [ | |
| IFAT | 1 | 100.0 | Brazil | [ | |
| IFAT | 1 | 100.0 | Czech Republic/Slovak Republic | [ | |
| MAT | 99 | 46.5 | Brazil | [ | |
| IHA + MAT | 2 | 50.0 | Brazil | [ | |
| IFAT | 2 | 0.00 | California, USA | [ | |
| MAT | 3 | 66.7 | Brazil | [ | |
| Margay ( | IB + IFAT | 19 | 47.4 | Europe | Present study |
| IFAT | 4 | 100.0 | Brazil | [ | |
| Molecular/DNA | 10 | 60.0 | Brazil | [ | |
| MAT | 2 | 50.0 | Guatemala | [ | |
| IHA | 2 | 0.00 | California, USA | [ | |
| MAT | 63 | 54.0 | Brazil | [ | |
| IHA + MAT | 1 | 100.0 | Brazil | [ | |
| MAT | 17 | 58.8 | Brazil | [ | |
| Oncilla ( | IB + IFAT | 9 | 66.7 | Europe | Present study |
| MAT | 2 | 0.00 | Mexico | [ | |
| IFAT | 35 | 62.9 | Brazil | [ | |
| Molecular/DNA | 28 | 28.6 | Brazil | [ | |
| IFAT | 1 | 100.0 | Bolivia | [ | |
| MAT | 131 | 50.4 | Brazil | [ | |
| DT | 9 | 66.7 | Brazil | [ | |
| MAT | 22 | 68.2 | Brazil | [ | |
| Asian golden cat ( | IB + IFAT | 2 | 50.0 | Europe | Present study |
| MAT | 2 | 50.0 | Australia | [ | |
| IHA | 3 | 33.3 | California, USA | [ | |
| LA | 8 | 12.5 | Thailand | [ | |
| ELISA + MAT | 6 | 83.3 | Shanghai, China | [ | |
| Fishing cat ( | IB + IFAT | 40 | 55.0 | Europe | Present study |
| IFAT | 1 | 0.00 | Brazil | [ | |
| DT | 1 | 100.0 | Thailand | [ | |
| MAT | 4 | 25.0 | Midwestern USA | [ | |
| MAT | 4 | 50.0 | Australia | [ | |
| IFAT | 1 | 0.00 | California, USA | [ | |
| LA | 27 | 22.2 | Thailand | [ | |
| Pallas’ cat ( | IB + IFAT | 52 | 90.4 | Europe | Present study |
| DAT + IFAT | 8 | 100.0 | Austria | [ | |
| EIA + LA | 9 | 100.0 | USA | [ | |
| MAT | 5 | 20.0 | Midwestern USA | [ | |
| MAT | 3 | 66.7 | Wisconsin, USA | [ | |
| LA | 4 | 100.0 | Denver, USA | [ | |
| ELISA | 6 | 100.0 | Oklahoma, USA | [ | |
| IHA | 3 | 100.0 | California, USA | [ | |
| IFAT | 2 | 100.0 | Czech Republic/Slovak Republic | [ | |
| ELISA | 14 | 78.6 | Ohio, USA | [ | |
| Sand cat ( | IB + IFAT | 87 | 54.0 | Europe | Present study |
| MAT | 1 | 100.0 | France | [ | |
| MAT | 20 | 70.0 | UAE | [ | |
| MAT | 6 | 100.0 | UAE | [ |
Abbreviations: IB, immunoblot; IFAT, immunofluorescent antibody test; DT, dye test; MAT, modified agglutination test; LA, latex agglutination test; DAT, direct agglutination test; EIA, enzyme immunoassay; ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; IHA, indirect hemagglutination, DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid