| Literature DB >> 32154398 |
Amidou Samie1, Leah Mahlaule1, Peter Mbati2, Tomoyoshi Nozaki3, Ali ElBakri4.
Abstract
Amoebiasis occurs worldwide and affects about 20-50 million people annually. Stool samples were collected from patients attending different rural clinics in Northern South Africa in the present study. Microscopic examination was performed for the initial detection of Entamoeba parasites. A multiplex PCR protocol based on the small subunit rRNA gene of E. moshkovskii, E. dispar, and E. histolytica, was used for the differential detection of the three Entamoeba species (collectively referred to as Entamoeba complex). A total of 170 participants were recruited in the study, with a mean age of 35.9 ± 17.8 years and a median of 37.0 years. The prevalence of Entamoeba species was found to be 34.7% and 33% by PCR and microscopy, respectively. E. histolytica had a prevalence of 4.1%, E. dispar 14.7% and E. moshkovskii 15.9%. Of the three species, only E. histolytica was significantly associated with diarrhoea and was more prevalent among HIV patients even in the absence of diarrhoea while the other two were not, although the difference was not significant (p > 0.05). This is the first study in South Africa to describe the prevalence of E. moshkovskii. E. dispar was significantly associated with abdominal pains (p = 0.003). Further studies are needed to clarify the role of E. moshkovskii and E. dispar in abdominal pain and diarrhoea.Entities:
Keywords: Diarrhoea; Entamoeba moshkovskii; Rural; South Africa
Year: 2020 PMID: 32154398 PMCID: PMC7058707 DOI: 10.1016/j.fawpar.2020.e00076
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Food Waterborne Parasitol ISSN: 2405-6766
Fig. 1Representative images showing the agarose gel electrophoresis of the amplification of the Entamoeba DNA. The 166-, 580- and 760-bp bands depict specific amplification of DNA from E. histolytica, E. moshkovskii, or E. dispar, respectively. Lane “M” is the 100 bp ladder molecular weight maker. Lane “N” is no stool sample (negative control), P is positive control. Lanes 1–12 are representative clinical samples.
The prevalence of Entamoeba infections in the study population as determined by PCR.
| Characteristics of the population | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | Male | 3(16.7%) | 5(27,8%) | 2(11,1%) |
| Female | 24 (23.8%) | 20 (19.8%) | 5 (5.0%) | |
| χ2 | 0.439 | 0.586 | 1.047 | |
| p value | 0.508 | 0.444 | 0.306 | |
| Age group | 0–25 | 10 (23.3%) | 10 (23.3%) | 3 (7.0%) |
| 26–45 | 11(27.5%) | 8(20%) | 3 (7.5%) | |
| >45 | 6(16.7%) | 7(19.4%) | 1 (2.8%) | |
| χ2 | 1.280 | 0.208 | ||
| p value | 0.527 | 0.901 | ||
| Marital status | Divorced | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Married | 4(20.9%) | 13 (19.4%) | 3(4.5) | |
| Single | 12 (25.5%) | 12 (25.5%) | 4(8.5%) | |
| Widowed | 1 (25.0%) | 0 | 0 | |
| BMI | Not Underweight | 7(6.9%) | 23(22.5%) | 24(23.5%) |
| Underweight | 0 | 2(11.8%) | 3(17.6%) | |
| χ2 | 0.287 | 1.021 | 1.240 | |
| p value | 0.592 | 0.312 | 0.266 | |
| District | Mopani | 27(65.9%) | 25(65.8%) | 7(46.7%) |
| Vhembe | 14(34.1%) | 13(34.2%) | 8(53.3%) | |
| χ2 | 0.442 | 0.413 | 4.265 | |
| p value | 0.506 | 0.520 | 0.039 | |
| Medication (drugs or antibiotics) | No | 6(6.8%) | 19(21.6%) | 24(27.3%) |
| Yes | 1(3.2%) | 6(19.4%) | 3(9.7%) | |
| χ2 | 4.046 | 0.069 | 0.534 | |
| p value | 0.044 | 0.793 | 0.465 | |
The prevalence of Entamoeba infections according to history of diarrhoea among study participants.
| Characteristics | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diarrhoea the last 3 months | No | 22 (23.7%) | 22(23.7%) | 4 (4.3%) |
| Yes | 5 (25.2%) | 3 (11.5%) | 3(11.5%) | |
| χ2 | 0.227 | 1.798 | 1.922 | |
| 0.634 | 0.180 | 0.166 | ||
| Consistency | Bloody | 0 (0%) | 0(0%) | 0(0%) |
| Loose | 3(18.8%) | 2(12.5%) | 1(6.3%) | |
| Mucous | 0(0%) | 0(0%) | 2(50.0%) | |
| Watery | 2(50.0%) | 1(25.0%) | 0(0%) | |
| χ2 | 3.653 | 2.725 | 14.861 | |
| p value | 0.455 | 0.605 | 0.005 | |
| Type of diarrhoea | Acute | 2(9.5%) | 2(9.5%) | 2(9.5%) |
| Chronic | 3(60.0%) | 1(20.0%) | 1(20.0%) | |
| χ2 | 6.093 | 2.065 | 2.723 | |
| p value | 0.048 | 0.356 | 0.256 | |
| Abdominal pains | No | 9(18.0%) | 4(8.0%) | 3(6.0%) |
| Yes | 18(26.1%) | 21(30.4%) | 4(5.8%) | |
| χ2 | 1.081 | 8.793 | 0.002 | |
| p value | 0.298 | 0.003 | 0.562 | |
Prevalence of Entamoeba infections according to drinking water sources and storage.
| Characteristics | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Source of drinking water | Borehole | 17(27.0%) | 12(19%) | 4(6.3%) |
| Communal tap | 5(14.7%) | 5(14.7%) | 2(5.9%) | |
| Direct from the river | 0(0%) | 0(0%) | 0(0%) | |
| Tap in the house | 5(23.8%) | 8(38.1%) | 1(4.8%) | |
| χ2 | 2.206 | 4.920 | 0.135 | |
| p value | 0.531 | 0.178 | 0.987 | |
| Water storage | <3 days | 6(24.0%) | 6(24.0%) | 2(8.0%) |
| 3–4 | 5(20.8%) | 5(20.8%) | 1(4.2%) | |
| >5 | 16(22.9%) | 14(20.0%) | 4(5.7%) | |
| χ2 | 0.073 | 0.178 | 0.334 | |
| p value | 0.964 | 0.915 | 0.846 | |
The prevalence of Entamoeba infections according to the socio-economic status of the study participants.
| Characteristics | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Income range | R1000 | 4(20.0%) | 6(30.0%) | 0(0%) |
| R1001-R3000 | 10(17.2%) | 10(17.2%) | 5(8.6%) | |
| R3001-R4999 | 10(35.7%) | 5(17.9%) | 1(3.6%) | |
| R5000 & above | 3(23.1%) | 4(30.8%) | 1(7.7%) | |
| χ2 | 3.773 | 2.384 | 2.383 | |
| 0.287 | 0.497 | 0.497 | ||
| Number of dependents | 0 | 0(0%) | 0(0%) | 1(33.3%) |
| 1 | 6(20%) | 4(13.3%) | 1(3.3%) | |
| 2–5 | 14(22.2%) | 18(28.6%) | 4(6.3%) | |
| 6 & above | 7(30.4%) | 3(13.0%) | 1(4.3%) | |
| χ2 | 1.799 | 4.914 | 4.558 | |
| p value | 0.615 | 0.178 | 0.207 | |
| Education | Illiterate | 4(22.2%) | 4(22.2%) | 1(5.6%) |
| Primary | 2(18.2%) | 4(36.4%) | 1(9.1%) | |
| Secondary | 20(23.5%) | 14(16.5%) | 4(4.7%) | |
| Tertiary | 1(20.0%) | 3(60%) | 1(20%) | |
| χ2 | 0.184 | 7.214 | 2.221 | |
| p value | 0.980 | 0.065 | 0.528 | |